What pulls the galaxy?

[Subduction Zone]

You're not wrong, except that the expansion of space IS momentum. The expansion of space is causing galaxies to move further and further from each other (in general--local variations due to gravity apply).

Do you have anything that supports that claim? From my understanding the expansion is just that, a metric expansion independent of velocity.

 

[Axe Elf]

Do you have anything that supports that claim? From my understanding the expansion is just that, a metric expansion independent of velocity.

I read the Wikipedia article you posted, and it seems to agree. I'm not sure why you think that the expansion would not entail velocity. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I believe the article refers to the observed red-shifting of light from receding galaxies as evidence of the universe's expansion, which could only occur if they have a different velocity from Earth (i.e., they are moving away from Earth).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read the Wikipedia article you posted, and it seems to agree. I'm not sure why you think that the expansion would not entail velocity. I don't have it in front of me right now, but I believe the article refers to the observed red-shifting of light from receding galaxies as evidence of the universe's expansion, which could only occur if they have a different velocity from Earth (i.e., they are moving away from Earth).

The expansion of space gives a pseudo velocity. The distance is getting further, but once again that is because space itself has expanded. Not because of an inherent velocity. This video explains it rather well:

ETA: Once again I would suggest that you ask Polymath and not me. I could be wrong, but in this case I do not think so.

 

[Axe Elf]

The expansion of space gives a pseudo velocity. The distance is getting further, but once again that is because space itself has expanded. Not because of an inherent velocity. This video explains it rather well:

ETA: Once again I would suggest that you ask Polymath and not me. I could be wrong, but in this case I do not think so.

I wasn't "asking you" in the first place. lol I was answering the OP. Then I ended up "telling you" that an increasing distance entails a difference in velocities, for whatever reason. You don't seem to be able or willing to grasp it, but if you don't understand it yet, maybe you could ask Polymath, whoever that is. At least you seem to respect his/her take on things more than mine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I wasn't "asking you" in the first place. lol I was answering the OP. Then I ended up "telling you" that an increasing distance entails a difference in velocities, for whatever reason. You don't seem to be able or willing to grasp it, but if you don't understand it yet, maybe you could ask Polymath, whoever that is. At least you seem to respect his/her take on things more than mine.

Yes, and you were wrong, even though I tried to help you. You are not willing to learn from your errors, therefore you are doomed to keep repeating them. I am not the one that is not willing to grasp a concept here. The article that I linked for you was clearly beyond your understanding. You then ignored later attempts to help you and my suggestions on how you could learn to see if you were right or not.

So for the final time do you have anything besides the sources that I provided and that you did not understand that supports your claims?

ETA:

Ask Polymath257 anything

Correction on my early statement. He has a Phd in math, he took and passed the Phd exam in physics but does not have the degree yet which tells me that he probably did not write a Phd thesis yet. At any rate he does understand the subject much better than either you or I.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes, and you were wrong, even though I tried to help you. You are not willing to learn from your errors, therefore you are doomed to keep repeating them. I am not the one that is not willing to grasp a concept here. The article that I linked for you was clearly beyond your understanding. You then ignored later attempts to help you and my suggestions on how you could learn to see if you were right or not.

So for the final time do you have anything besides the sources that I provided and that you did not understand that supports your claims?

ETA:

Ask Polymath257 anything

Correction on my early statement. He has a Phd in math, he took and passed the Phd exam in physics but does not have the degree yet which tells me that he probably did not write a Phd thesis yet. At any rate he does understand the subject much better than either you or I.

The funniest part is how you've insisted all along that you know so little about this subject that I should really see the expert Polymath to get the straight dope. Meanwhile, I've been sure of everything I've said, and every source you have provided has corroborated my explanation. But now I'm the one unwilling to learn from my errors?

smh

 

[Subduction Zone]

The funniest part is how you've insisted all along that you know so little about this subject that I should really see the expert Polymath to get the straight dope. Meanwhile, I've been sure of everything I've said, and every source you have provided has corroborated my explanation. But now I'm the one unwilling to learn from my errors?

smh

Yes, but this is a case where you are fairly obviously wrong since you misinterpreted the source that I gave you. That is why I asked if you had a source that supported your claim. Even though there is not an "ether" one can almost think of that when dealing with this problem. When space expands the objects in space are not moving themselves. It is the space between any two objects that is getting larger. That is what is meant by a "metric expansion of space". A metric expansion, which is what the Big Bang was, does not impart a velocity to the objects. There is no acceleration of them. Let's take two different points. If there was an accelerometer at both points neither would register an acceleration due to the expansion of space, yet the two points would accelerate away from each other. They would measure an apparent velocity. Yet movement in the Newtonian sense would not have occurred.

You are making the error of thinking with Newtonian physics when dealing with the Big Bang. One simply cannot do that. It is in the realm of relativistic physics.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes, but this is a case where you are fairly obviously wrong since you misinterpreted the source that I gave you. That is why I asked if you had a source that supported your claim. Even though there is not an "ether" one can almost think of that when dealing with this problem. When space expands the objects in space are not moving themselves. It is the space between any two objects that is getting larger. That is what is meant by a "metric expansion of space". A metric expansion, which is what the Big Bang was, does not impart a velocity to the objects. There is no acceleration of them. Let's take two different points. If there was an accelerometer at both points neither would register an acceleration due to the expansion of space, yet the two points would accelerate away from each other. They would measure an apparent velocity. Yet movement in the Newtonian sense would not have occurred.

You are making the error of thinking with Newtonian physics when dealing with the Big Bang. One simply cannot do that. It is in the realm of relativistic physics.

I've only been here a few days, and you've shown your butt at least three times just in conversations with me. If you are like this all the time, I would imagine that most of this site has just decided that it's not worth trying to converse with you, because even in matters where you ADMIT that you have a tenuous grasp at best--like this one--you still are unable to change your mind in light of facts. You're like one of the true believers in religion, who would rather change the facts to suit your beliefs than change your beliefs to suit the facts.

And so here you are again, emphasizing that this is a METRIC expansion, as if that means it's not like regular expansion or something. Do you even know what "metric" means? A metric is a measurement, in this case, a distance. The metric expansion of the universe means that the distances between objects in the universe is getting larger--i.e., they are moving apart from each other--due to the expansion of space. The distinction to be made is that the objects are not moving outward toward the edge of the universe where they will eventually hit the limit of space or something; instead, space itself is growing larger. So the objects in space maintain their same positions relative to each other (notwithstanding the local effects of gravity), but the distances (metric) between them are increasing (expansion). They are still MOVING further apart, and the impetus for this movement was the Big Bang.

Now from my brief experience with you, I know that you will probably take this as an invitation to repeat the same misunderstandings from which you have been suffering all along, but with even more fervor and vitriol, as if that will make you seem more correct. It doesn't. It only makes you look more like a child with his fingers in his ears. I'm here to have more adult conversations, so you'll excuse me if I stop responding to you until you have something constructive to add.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've only been here a few days, and you've shown your butt at least three times just in conversations with me. If you are like this all the time, I would imagine that most of this site has just decided that it's not worth trying to converse with you, because even in matters where you ADMIT that you have a tenuous grasp at best--like this one--you still are unable to change your mind in light of facts. You're like one of the true believers in religion, who would rather change the facts to suit your beliefs than change your beliefs to suit the facts.

Please, just because you make foolish statements and are caught at it does not mean that someone has "shown their butt". And please note, that I may not know as much as an expert on relativity I can tell from what I have read that I understand more than you do in this issue. You are taking a Newtonian approach to the topic and that all but guarantees that one will be wrong.

And so here you are again, emphasizing that this is a METRIC expansion, as if that means it's not like regular expansion or something. Do you even know what "metric" means? A metric is a measurement, in this case, a distance. The metric expansion of the universe means that the distances between objects in the universe is getting larger--i.e., they are moving apart from each other--due to the expansion of space. The distinction to be made is that the objects are not moving outward toward the edge of the universe where they will eventually hit the limit of space or something; instead, space itself is growing larger. So the objects in space maintain their same positions relative to each other (notwithstanding the local effects of gravity), but the distances (metric) between them are increasing (expansion). They are still MOVING further apart, and the impetus for this movement was the Big Bang.

Correct, it is not an expansion in the way that you are thinking of one. It is not an expansion of matter into space. And you ignored why the distance is getting greater. Once again, space itself is getting larger. You totally ignored the two dimensional expanding balloon concept. Yes, a balloon is three dimensional, but the expansion that the ants sense is merely two dimensional. Another analogy that is used to get the idea across is an loaf of raisin bread in the oven. The space between raisins (galaxies) increase but there is no movement of the raisins through space itself. There is no "movement" in the Newtonian sense.

Now from my brief experience with you, I know that you will probably take this as an invitation to repeat the same misunderstandings from which you have been suffering all along, but with even more fervor and vitriol, as if that will make you seem more correct. It doesn't. It only makes you look more like a child with his fingers in his ears. I'm here to have more adult conversations, so you'll excuse me if I stop responding to you until you have something constructive to add.

Perhaps you should merely try to learn from your errors. Have you ever thought of doing that? By the way, your projection is amazing. I politely corrected you, I did not cast any aspersions and yet you took it negatively. I may be a bit rude with rude people at times, and I am a bit impatient with ignorant and dishonest people at times. So you may be reacting to reactions that were caused by your own rudeness and ignorance.

Did you watch the video that I provided? It makes it very clear that there is no momentum imparted by the Big Bang. You are making the typical creationist error of thinking of the Big Bang as an explosion. It was not. Once again it was space itself that exploded. A difficult concept to grasp I will grant. But if you stay stuck in a Newtonian world you simply will not "get it".