 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Particle Physics / July 2005Do Galaxies move 'outwards'' in curved lines??
acording to the 'Big Bang' theory that seems to be widely accepted Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' (actually there is no 'point entity' in physics point i sonly a mathematical concept) so my question is fo rpeople who know something about it: is that movement outwards in stright lines? or in curved lines?? now to make it clearer i dont mean the inner relative motion which is inside the galaxy!!- ie supose we take the whole sub constituents of it as *one entity*. and i mean in 'outwards direction' (iow)-- 'radial' direction. that seems to be an unprecedented question at least to me ...... and it seems to me a very crucial question. TIA Y.Porat -------------- > Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' > (actually there is no 'point entity' in physics > point i sonly a mathematical concept) No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wri ght/nocenter.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wri ght/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wri ght/cosmology_faq.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni .html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni /uni_101bbtest.html >> Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' >> (actually there is no 'point entity' in physics [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni /uni_101bbtest.html yikes >>> Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' >>> (actually there is no 'point entity' in physics [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > yikes Can't you stand reality? Bye, Bjoern thanx Sam i went there 3 of them give: the page cannot be displaied in the other sites there i sno answer to my question!! TIA Y.Porat ----------------------------------- >> Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' >> (actually there is no 'point entity' in physics [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html ok thanx again Sam now i dont know why i can get in yet still provided i didnt monitor it too fast- i ddint find neither my question ther nore an answer so may we add my question to that faq?? and still i am waiting for an answer if possible!! ps i guess we dont actually mind where is the exact Big bank point it might noy br even relevant to my question and isupose we can try and answer it even without knowing th eexact 'point' but just folowing the path of the proper galaxy neutrilising the inter gravity effects , in case they are relevant. TIA Y.Porat ---------------------- Galaxies formed much later than the big bang. I think you are confusing galaxies orbits which are curved with the idea that they should be expanding in a curve. It reminds me of a rocket taking off. It is moving through curved space but if its going straight up it would not follow a curve. There is more to gravity than curvature Mr. Porat. There is acceleration. > Galaxies formed much later than the big bang. > I think you are confusing galaxies orbits which [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > through curved space but if its going straight up > it would not follow a curve. ---------- so curved or not curved?? while NASA is sending a rocket to a distant star do they consider curved lines - beside the gravitational calculations ??? and if curved.... *in which direction curved*?? 'uprars downwards, left ot right side...' (:-) TIA Y.Porat ---------------------- > There is more to gravity than curvature Mr. Porat. > There is acceleration. Curved Porat. In what direction? Always toward the center of mass. You can fall and not follow a curve. That is whats more to gravity. There's more than curvature/curvalinear motion. There is acceleration which doesn't have to be a curve Porat. So Einsteins curvature doesn't explain everything. Why does gravity change things speeds is a question. > Curved Porat. > In what direction? > Always toward the center of mass. thank you Nick yet what is 'towards the center of t e mass?? i think i have some 3d training (only 40 years in structural engineering) so take a mass move it along a line imho there are at least 360 degrees of posiblities aroung the forwarss vector am i right?? ---------- > You can fall and not follow a curve. i am the last one in this world that you have to tell him that ... > That is whats more to gravity. and even that !!..... > There's more than curvature/curvalinear motion. > There is acceleration which doesn't have to be > a curve Porat. acording to 'curved spacetime ' accelerated motion is in a strigh tline?? it makes it even more bizar why the difference btween accelerated and not accelerated?? it seesm to be arbitrary. ----------- > So Einsteins curvature doesn't explain everything. imho a vey bad sighn for it > Why does gravity change things speeds is > a question. we are not dealing now with the gravitational effect i stressed it again and again that we have to neutralise th e gravitational effects. because the gravitation ! i a m doubting about 'curved space time * '*to be*'? thats exactly the issue in the above question in the title now you might ask why is it that those galaxies increase nore nad more their velocity or acceleration s the move further outwords? i think it is very simple: it is because of as you get further away the 'pulling back' force of *gravitation of other masss in space*!! that becomes more and more deluted!! gravitation becoming deluted is equivalent of acceleration force. nothing to do with any 'space properties'!! btw we are not used to that effect on our globe since our travel much further from gravitation source- i s limited to small distances but if you travel much further it will be noticed (neutralising the effect of sun gravitation of course!1 am i right? ---------------- so bottom line of yours : will you claim that if we move in sapce just in the inertic way ie without external forces (and as Galaxies move further away it is more and more like that !) the movement will be in stright line or in a curved line?? TIA Y.Porat --------------- This is a great FREE spell checker!! It is even customizable with words added as you work! http://www.iespell.com/ athnx QM (btw i know that it should be 'thanks, yet i was corn lazy....) i went there and saw many versions of it which one do you recoment for using in that ng?? TIA Y.Porat ---------------------- > thanks QM (BTW i know that it should be 'thanks, yet i was corn > lazy....) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Y.Porat > ---------------------- Hi QM Hurray! you are great!!!you want believe it i did it from now on all the blame on my mistakes are on Ispell!!......... anyway thanks again Y.P ---------------- >>> Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' >>> (actually there is no 'point entity' in physics [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology >> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html The concept that matter in the universe was created in a big bang is wrong. 1. The assumption that the universe is as old as the oldest stars in it is just that, an assumption. Do we assume the human race is 120 years old because the oldest person is 120. No its an erroneous assumption. Similarly, to look at the age of stars and assume that they are an indicator of the age of a galaxy is also an erroneous assumption. 2. According to results from the NASA Spitzer Space Telescope, there are stars with an age of 13 billion years being observed by using signals which took 13 billion years to get to our part of the universe. This makes the matter at least 26 billion years old. If the universe is 26 billion years old then the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (so claimed emanation from the BigBang) is at the wrong temperature. The idea that distant galaxies are younger needs modification too. Regards, Monitek (Arden Barker) >>>>Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' >>>>(actually there is no 'point entity' in physics [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Monitek (Arden Barker) You should be embarrassed Monitek (Arden Barker)! That's pretty flawed thinking. [Sam Wormley wrote] > > The concept that matter in the universe was created in a big bang is wrong. > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > You should be embarrassed Monitek (Arden Barker)! > That's pretty flawed thinking. [EL] Flawed thinking, yet about a flowed hype of thesis as much. Go to any link that you have offered and read the words about expansion. Who and how is identifying "external" galaxies, and external to what, versus "internal?" If there was external and internal galaxies then why not show us the most inner galaxy by name? Is it our own galaxy by any chance? :) Not our galaxy but our freaking planet is at the very centre of the observable red-shift, or am I wrong here? If there was absolutely nothing at the time of the alleged Big bang, then what is the cause of the turbulence behind the spiral galaxies? But before we dive deep into sh.t, we need to ask first, on what basis was the dreamer assuming all matter to be in one point or even a finite and very small spherical volume, or was it spherical not? What forces was there to keep all matter together, and what made such a force "change its mind?" Observations Shmobservations, we only see spectra, which we assume to be of hydrogen emissions of light, yet shifted to the red side of the spectrum. That shift is said to be directly proportional to the distance between us "US" and the source of that light. We all seem to agree that the speed of light is constant in vacuum, hence that shift is also directly proportional to the time it takes such a wave propagation to reach us. Did it ever occur to your equally flawed thinking that such an enormous distance may not and cannot be an absolutely pure empty vacuum? Of course not, but it is fundamentally logical to imagine huge zones of gasses between and around galaxies which at such very cold temperatures must be in the form of condensed liquids, which certainly do have a refractive index. Can your flawed thinking have a clue what a dispersive medium can do to light? The propagating waves do not chose the direction in which it propagates, because it is decided by the medium and its topology. You assume that such electromagnetic wave has taken an Euclidian straight line path from source to observer, which is flawed thinking. The curvature of the field being modulated by the propagating wave is negligible at short ranges but is quite significant when the distance is in the order of billions of light-years. That is the true reason behind the direct proportionality between distance and the red-shifting of light. Whatever the state of motion of the source or the observer, each in its time of emission or observation respectively, the effect is insignificant in comparison to the effects of the medium on what it is propagating during billions of years. The Universe is not defined by its observable range of matter, but by the infinite extent of all its matter and all its space combined, thus it is ridiculous to assume that it expands away from our insignificant planet. The universe is very badly defined, unfoundedly assumed to expand, and the biblical text is twisted into a pseudo-scientific version; so no, we are not a chosen race, created on a chosen planet into a chosen universe. All of those "Privileges" are the hallucinations of conceited people with flawed thinking. There was never a big bang, and the definition of the universe is shallow and wanting, hence its expansion is a ridiculous consequence. Are we not tired yet of praising the Lord and his Latest Prophet Einstein? I think it is time to evolve to a new wiser species, if you do not mind. EL > Not our galaxy but our freaking planet is at the very centre of the > observable red-shift, or am I wrong here? No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html Every observer seen the same thing. Every point looks as if it is the center of the cosmic expansion (observable red-shift). >> Not our galaxy but our freaking planet is at the very centre of the >> observable red-shift, or am I wrong here? [Sam] > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > Every observer seen the same thing. Every point looks as if it > is the center of the cosmic expansion (observable red-shift). [hanson] AHahaha...but Sam & EL, how can your precious students have confidence in the sanctantity, veracity and truthfulness of science(s), if they see you, their teachers, argue like that? At least be more time-like, point-like in a light cone full of octonions. Dazzle them with buzzword bullsherations so that they can learn and continue in the time honored fashion. ahahahaha... ahahanson >>>>>Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' >>>>>(actually there is no 'point entity' in physics [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > You should be embarrassed Monitek (Arden Barker)! That's pretty flawed > thinking. I could have added that looking back in time to within 600 million years of the big bang one is supposed to be looking at a period when the galaxies were not fully formed. This is not the case. Why should I be emabarrassed? I am only reporting the facts as I find them, albeit putting together facts from sometimes unrelated sources. Do you have a satisfactory explanation as to why 13 billion year old galaxies contain the same mix of stars that are contained in our galaxy? Regards, Monitek (Arden Barker) >>>>>>Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' >>>>>>(actually there is no 'point entity' in physics [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Regards, > Monitek (Arden Barker) Oops I will rephrase that. Why should I be emabarrassed? I am only reporting the facts as I find them, albeit putting together facts from sometimes unrelated sources. Do you have a satisfactory explanation as to why 600 million year old galaxies contain the same mix of stars that are contained in our galaxy? Regards, Monitek (Arden Barker) >>>>>>>Galaxies move outwards from some Big Bang 'point' >>>>>>>(actually there is no 'point entity' in physics [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > Regards, > Monitek (Arden Barker) No, he doesn't. But he still gets the money. Big bang is BS. Black holes (gravitational) is BS. INTRINSIC REDSHIFT is **new**. Quasars are superphotons. To those ones that didn't got it: The ulterior motive in my op question is : to verify or defy the curvature of space-time theory!! 2 we have to study cases in which the gravity is neutralized. or find a way to neutralize it. in general i think that if most galaxies were kicked out at the same time the gravity effect should be practically neutralized *by symmetry* of gravity IE the overall gravity vectors should be balancing each other or at least close to that . am i right?? TIA Y.Porat --------------------------- didn't get What are you going to do if you suspect flat space? i don't suspect flat space i suspect 3 D space + the motion dimension that is called 'Time' 2 do you have an answer to my OP question?? ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > i don't suspect flat space > i suspect 3 D space > + the motion dimension that is called 'Time' > > 2 do you have an answer to my OP question?? Flat doesn't mean 2D; it means unbent. space is not bent and not shment!! it is 3d in 3d you can have flat elements bales planets whatever yet they are not 3d because something mysterious was bending them (like Uri geller) they are 3d because the ordinary known forces yet there are phenomena like for instance the attraction force that 'bends' paths of moving particles! here comes the problem therefore in introduced my wild guess of the Circlon a particle that moves *naturally* in curved paths it is just another wild guess of take it or leave it yet IMHO it has many advantages on the 'curved space time' one of them is : that not all particles move in curves it is only that spacial 'circlon' and it explains why in most cases masses move rather in straight lines unless hitted by those 'Circlon' so we have a bigger verity of possibilities!! my thread : 'do galaxies move out wards in curved lines' is meant to verify of defy the 'curved space - time' provided that my question can be answered !! PS how is the spelling now ?? ATB Y.Porat -------------------- You still shouldn't space punctuation. ????????????? TIA Y.Porat --------------------- > PS how is the spelling now ?? The spelling is a lot better now and it makes your posts coherent enough to actually see the points you are trying to make. OK Wake it seems that we are friends (:-) you see how just a silly speller can make a * sci physics difference* (:-) pi tty that i didn't have it ten years ago ........ ATB Y.Porat -------------------- > OK Wake > it seems that we are friends (:-) Good :-) > you see how just a silly speller can make a * sci physics difference* > (:-) Unfortunately true. At the end of the day people need a common language to communicate, and here that is English. If people cant understand your posts then it is harder (almost impossible) for people to see what is trying to be said. Communication mistakes lead to all manner of other problems. Still, you have it now and your posts make much more sense. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.