David Levy

Sorry, if we don't know the real age of the universe then most of our current theories might be useless. Just as an example - When we come to visit doctor, the first question is: "What is your age?" At different age we have different phenomenon. If somebody can't walk, the doctor needs to know its age. If it is a baby - it is quite normal. if it is a very old man it is also quite normal, but the doctor will try to give him some sort of medicine. If it is a young man/woman, then this is very critical. So, the age is mandatory requested for any doctor. The scientists are some sort Universe doctors. If they don't know the real age of the universe - how could they develop any sort of real understanding about the universe? If we don't know what the status of the Universe was before the infinite hot dense stage, then we actually have a severe misunderstanding. We can't just hide behind divine power: We are dealing with science. If we can't give a scientific explanation, then it's not science.

Why? So, what is the real age of the Universe? How could it be that the universe was infinite hot dense in the early stage (13.8 billion years ago) while its age at that moment is Zero? What was the status of the universe before that moment? If the universe was hot dense also 14 Billion years ago (or even 100 Billion years ago), then why we don't agree that the universe age is higher than 13.8 Billion years? However, if it was not there, then there was a stage that there was no universe. If there was no universe then by definition there was no universe ---- no mass, no atoms, no friction of particles, no energy, no hot dense stage - just nothing. Nothing at all. In other words, we must count the age of the universe from the transient point of nothing to something. If we start from infinite hot dense stage, then this can't give us the real age of the Universe. So, please - what is the real age of the Universe? When the Universe started to get something?

If the universe was always infinity than it was infinity 1 billion years ago, 10 billion years ago and even 13.8 Billion years ago.. However, if we claim that the universe started 13.8 Billion years ago than by definition 13.9 billion years ago there was no universe. So, how could it be that 13.8 Billion years ago the universe had started from almost nothing or at least a finite spot directly to infinity? Don't you think that it may contradict the whole idea of the BBT?

One more question - How could if be that an infinite Universe had been developed in a limited time? Let's assume that the mass can move at any limited speed. (10 times the speed of light, or even 1000 times). After any limited time (even after 13.8 Billion years) it must be a finite universe. Therefore, it seems to me that if the universe is infinity than something must be wrong in our current understanding/theories.

How could it be? What do you mean by always? Do you mean that the age of the universe should also be infinite? However - it is unbelievable (for me) that a big bang (or any sort of mega bangs - unless we discuss on infinite bangs) could have the power to set an infinite mass.

If the Universe is infinite, than somehow its mass must be infinite. If I understand it correctly, the mass of the universe had been set by the Big bang. No new mass had been created after this event. So, how could it be that a big bang (or even a mega big bang) can set the process for infinite mass?

Thanks for the Answer. Sorry, but Mars can't be used as an example for S13 path due to the following: Let's try to analyze the S13 Path (Based on Units from the diagram): Circular Path drift - The ratio between the Vertical and the horizontal path is: 21 / 20 = 1.05 = 105% (a drift of 5%) So, we can claim the path is a pure circular by a drift/error of only 5%. However, with regards to the location of the B.H.: Radius drift - The longest distance (Radius) from S13 to the B.H.is 15 Units. The shortest radius from S13 to the B.H. is 6 Units. Therefore, the ratio between the Longest to the shortest radius is: 15 / 6 = 2.5 = 250%. (a drift of 150%) So, how a 5% drift in the circular path could be supported by a drift of 150% in the radius? Can we prove this phenomenon by Newton or Kepler? Can we introduce even one planet path (as an example) which has similar drifts? Actually, S2 path has high similarity to Sedna path. Therefore, we can easily claim that the location of the B.H with reference to S2 path is FULLY correct. However, that isn't the case with S13. Is it possible to get the full data about the path of S13? I would like to analyze it by myself.

Well, I'm quite sure that there is an error: Actually, based on the path shape we can estimate the gravity force. If the path is circular - than the gravity force is high. (That is similar path for all the planets in the solar system except of Pluto and Sedna) If the Path is ellipse - than the gravity force is weak. (That is similar path for Pluto and especially Sedna which is located at the farthest distance from the Sun). So, I'm quite sure that based on the S13 Path (as it is circular), the equivalent mass hoster of that star should be significantly higher than the one for S2 (as it is ellipse). That article is quite old - Published 2009 February 23 It is stated clearly that S2 is the only star which has completed full cycle (revolution?): "The combination of a long-time baseline and the excellent astrometric accuracy of adaptive optics data allows us to determine orbits of 28 stars, including the star S2, which has completed a full revolution since our monitoring began." Therefore, it's quite clear that this star was the main source for this estimation. However, now after more than 7 years we might have more information about the other stars. Some of them might also complete the cycle. So, I would like to know if we get different results based on any star which has completed its cycle by now (especially - S13). Actually, it is quite clear for me that S14 has the weakest gravity force, while S13 has the highest gravity force. I would mostly appreciate to get the calculated equivalent hoster mass for those two stars.

Well, let me try to guess. The B.H had been placed at its current location due to evidences from S2 star path. As it is stated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A* "Observations of the star S2 in orbit around Sagittarius A* have been used to show the presence of, and produce data about, the Milky Way's central supermassive black hole, and have led to the conclusion that Sagittarius A* is the site of that black hole.[8]" So, if I understand it correctly, based on S2 path, it had been decided to place the B.H. at its current location (and off course to evaluate its total mass). That is a severe mistake. The science didn't find the location of the real B.H. They have actually found the location/mass of the equivalent hoster for S2. So, for each star, based on its location, there could be a different equivalent hoster. Therefore, it was stated: " Observations of the star S2…". Why not S13 or S1… or S12? I would expect that for each star path, the B.H. mass might be different. Is it correct?

Would you kindly fix it? I have looked again on that diagram. The size of S13 Circle in that diagram is as follow: Horizontally -21 Unites. Vertically - 20 Units. That is almost full round Circle. Therefore, it is expected to see the B.H. almost at the center. However, the B.H is located as follow: Vertically - 6 unites from the top and 15 unites from the bottom. - That represents a severe shift from the center Horizontally - 10 Unites from the left and 8 Unites from the right. - That represents a minor shift from the center. I think that all of us should agree that especially the vertical shift is not excepted (based on Newton and kepler). So, assuming that S13 diagram is fully correct, let me ask the following questions: How do we know the exact location of the B.H? Why did we place it at its current location in the diagram? Based on what evidences?

Please look at the following orbits of 6 stars around suppermassive black hole candidate Sagittarius A* at the Milky Way's centre: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#/media/File:Galactic_centre_orbits.svg Please focus on S13. Its path is very round and circular. Therefore, based on Newton and Kepler, I would expect to see the B.H just at the center of that circular path. So how could it be that the Supper massive B.H. isn't located at the center?

Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster It is stated: "The Bullet Cluster (1E 0657-558) consists of two colliding clusters of galaxies. Strictly speaking, the name Bullet Clusterrefers to the smaller subcluster, moving away from the larger one. It is at a co-moving radial distance of 1.141 Gpc (3.7 billion light-years).[2] "The Bullet Cluster provides the best current evidence for the nature of dark matter[4][8] and provides "evidence against some of the more popular versions of Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND)" as applied to large galactic clusters" "At a statistical significance of 8σ, it was found that the spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law alone.[10] Questions: 1. How the science could estimate the exact location of the spatial offset center of the total mass? (Is it by lensing?) 2. Total mass – does it mean the dark Matter + Baryonic mass? If so, what is the expected ratio between the two? 3. Do we have any idea about the Supper massive black hole mass in each Galaxy? (There are 40 Galaxies) 4. Could it be that the B.H have some impact on that change of the spatial offset (and not just the dark matter)?

Dear Mordred I fully agree with your description. However, I disagree with the following statement from Strange: I claim the following: 1. Orbiting - There is no colision between the main objects which are in one orbital system. As it is stated: "the ​curved ​path through which ​objects in ​space ​move around a ​planet or ​star" So, it is "around a" and not "collide with". However, there is a possibility for collision between two objects which are moving at two different orbital systems. For example, Pluto/Sun and Neptun/Sun systems. Those are two orbital system. Let's assume that Pluto's orbit cross that of Neptune. If that was the case, then technically those two planets could potentially collide with each other. However, although both of them are orbiting the sun, they are not in the same orbital system. Therefore, a collision is feasible. In any case, it is not expected that there will be a collision between Pluto and the Sun or Neptune and the Sun. In other words - if Andromeda and Milky way orbiting each other, they shouldn't collide with each other! 2. Sun/Comet system - We can't use this example for Andromeda/Milky way (due to mass ratio). We have to use more realistic example as Binary star system (or even Multi Binary stars system). 3. Kepler - Kepler is very relevant in any real orbiting system. If I understand the message from Strange, he claims that Andromeda and Milky way are in orbital path, but kepler is irrelevant for this system. I of course fully disagree with this statement. 4. Better explanation - We need to look for better explanation why Andromeda is moving directly to Milky way (and it is expected that they will collide with each other). In the same token we need to know why Triangulum is moving away (or escaping) from Andromeda. I claim that Orbital Path can't be a solution for all of that. So, what is your advice?

Sure. Orbiting for me is Kepler and Newton. If you can prove that the galaxies are moving to each other based on those laws, then it is orbiting. If galaxies are moving away (or closer) to each other at a constant speed - than isn't "orbiting". Sorry – I just disagree with your explanation about the meaning of "Orbiting".

Thanks for the clarification. However, I claim that we have to ask ourselves: What do we really see? Is it orbiting path or escaping path. If the distance between those two galaxies is increasing in a constant speed, than it is escaping by definition. (My opinion) In this case, we have to look on the excellent explanation from Strange: So, if A is Andromeda and B is Triangulum If it is escaping process, than it should be as follow: At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B. After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B After the same time again, they are 3 units apart: A...B And so on: A....B However, If I understand correctly Strange explantion for "Orbiting", then it should be as follow: At time 0, they are 1 unit apart: A.B. After some time they are 2 units apart: A..B After the same time again, they are 1 units apart: A.B After the same time again, they are 0 units apart: A colide with B. End. In any case, if we could understand the real mechanism (escaping or orbiting) process, we can get better understanding on the Universe.

So, what kind of system is relevant for you? Do you still insist on Sun/Comet system? Please be aware that the mass ratio is as follow: Comet / Sun = One to over Trillion Milky way / Andromeda = one to two Triangulum / Andromeda = One to 25 So based on the above info, would you kindly advice how could we use a Comet /sun system as an example for galaxies? How could it be that with the all examples in the Universe you have selected the most unconnected one? Please try to offer a better realistic example.

O.K. Two massive galaxies should be compared to binary star system (and absolutely not to Sun/Comet system). If you have used binary system, how could you claim that Kepler isn't relevant? Kepler is very relevant - if you are using the term "Orbit" osted Yesterday, 10:15 AM Strange, on 24 Apr 2016 - 3:11 PM, said: Based on your advice, I have looked at the word orbit at a dictionary and it stated: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/orbit "the ​curved ​path through which ​objects in ​space ​move around a ​planet or ​star" So, it is "around a" and not "collide with". Hence, please let's use Kepler or Newton laws and verify if a collision between Andromeda and Milky way could be considered as "orbit". In the same token and based on those laws, we have to find the real mechanism between Andromeda and Triangulum. There is no miracle in science. We must base our understanding on pure physics.

Sorry, it is a severe mistake to use a comet as an example. The ratio in mass between the Sun and Comet is one to one trillion (and over), while the ratio between Andromeda and Milky way is one to two. So please, let's use some more realistic example for our case. A ratio of one to two could be represented by a twin star system - Binary star. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star "A binary star is a star system consisting of two stars orbiting around their common barycenter." In Binary star system, the stars do not collide with each other. They are orbiting around their common barycenter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_star#/media/File:Orbit5.gif In the same token, if Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies are in an orbit cycle, then they shouldn't collide with each other. They must orbit around their common barycenter. ​Therefore, comet can't be used as an example for galaxies orbiting system. It is absolutely none relevant example for this case. Yes, kepler might not be relevant for comet, but it is very relevant for binary star. You have just offered a solution for: multiple star systems "Systems of two, three, four, or even more stars are called multiple star systems." Try to use this system as an example. How can we compare Andromeda galaxy to Black hole while Milky Way galaxy is compared to star (or gas). That is another severe mistake. Please try to compare apple to apple. By using incorrect examples, you are confusing yourself.

Yes, that is feasible. However, Orbit path is represented by Newton & Kepler laws. It represents a commitment. In order to have an orbital path between two astronomical objects, we must verify that the following key requirements are fulfilled: 1. Minimal gravity force Based on the mass of the two objects and their distance we can easily verify if there is the minimal gravity force which can glue them in an orbital path. If, for example, we will find a planet at a distance of 10 Mly from us, can we claim that it orbits the sun? So, we must verify if there is enough gravity force between Andromeda and Milky way to hold the orbital path between them. In the same token, we must verify if there enough gravity force between Andromeda and Triangulum to hold the orbital path. 2. Shape of orbital path Any orbital path can be cyclic or ellipse. Based on Newton - In a cyclic orbit, the objects are located at almost the same distance, and their relevant speed is almost constant. However, those galaxies are moving away (or closer) to each other, therefore, we must look at Kepler law. Based on Kepler - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci: - A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.[1] - The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. So, does the path between Andromeda and Milky Way (or the path between Andromeda and Triangulum) is fulfilled one of the above foci? In other words - Ellipse path is a fundamental requirement for orbit. If there is no ellipse path, there is no orbital path. If they are just moving away (or moving closer) from each other at a constant speed, then this can't be introduced as orbital path. 3. Collision – In a real orbit path, there is no room for collision! Two objects in a direct collision, are not at orbital path.

How close Andromeda and Triangulum were in the past? We might be able to verify this question based on the following Hydrogen bridge between the galaxies: "Two large neighbors of our own Milky Way galaxy—Andromeda (upper right) and Triangulum (lower left)—experienced a close encounter in the distant past." http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/06/scienceshot-hydrogen-bridge-connects-two-galaxies However, Andromeda is a supper massive spiral galaxy (with about one billion stars), while Triangulum is like a baby spiral galaxy with only 40 M stars. So, as close they were - as the gravitational power was stronger. Hence: - If they were very close to each other in the past, then how could it be that Andromeda didn't destroy Triangulum galaxy? - Why now they are moving further away from each other – against the gravitational power?

Simple question: In our Local Group there are three main spiral galaxies: Milky Way, Andromeda Galaxy and Triangulum Galaxy. Andromeda is quite close to Triangulum Galaxy, while our distance to Andromeda is significantly longer (2.54 Mly). Therefore, it is quite clear that the gravity force between Andromeda and Triangulum should be much stronger than the gravity force between Andromeda and Milky way - due to the distance. Somehow, it seems that Adromeda is moving away from Triangulum while both of them are moving in the direction of the Milky way. So, if those two galaxies are so close together, why they are not moving closer to each other? Why do they prefer to collide with us?

Thanks

I had the impression that any mass/matter should have some sort of energy. If the DM contribution is only gravitational power, why don't we call it "dark gravitational power" instead of dark matter? In any case, if it adds gravitational power to the regular mass in the galaxy, then why this extra gravitational power can't be transformed into new energy?

Thanks