[quote]hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
big69penisman wrote:
hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
its only a matter of time when they galaxies and everything in this universe moves back toward the center and collapses.
It still is up for debate as to whether or not there is enough mass in the universe to create the gravity to pull everything back in. Everything may just sputter out with no big crunch.
what debate, if the galaxies are slowing down, they dont just go into static equilibrium, they will return, just take a basic physics class
[/quote]
scientific theory says that the universe is infinite, therefore having no centric point. if that is true then there is no possible way for everything to be drawn into one area. as a star (as is often the center of a galaxy) burns, just like a living being, it loses it’s energy over time as well as it’s mass.
circular force is directed outward unless held by another force (gravity). as the mass of the central star decreases, the gravitational pull in turn decreases, reducing the attractive force governing the course of the outer bodies. so collision is a likelyhood, but a gathering and collision in the middle of the universe is not.
…or something
[quote]hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
what debate, if the galaxies are slowing down, they dont just go into static equilibrium, they will return, just take a basic physics class
[/quote]
Why not? Why not just sputter out? That is one of the options. For all matter to return there’d have to be a force doing it. That would be gravity (I’m sure you learned that in a basic physics class). LIke I said, they have not been able to quantify if there is enough mass in the universe to exert such a force. Plus, from the latest doppler readings, the galaxies are speeding up. Of course, eventually, they will slow down.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Yo Momma wrote:
Mathmatical extrapolation takes the ASS out of U and ME. Here, figure out for yourself:
http://www.physics.isu.edu/~hackmart/astlaou2.pdf
There is some speculation that c is not a constant; that it has varied over time.
That page you posted assumes (there’s that word again) that c is a constant. A variable c throws a pretty big monkey wrench into those calculations since one of the axes on the graph is the recession velocities of different galaxies presented as a percentage of c. If c has varied over time, then the final graph presented is meaningless.
While that page makes a routine assumption about c, it’s not necessarily “correct.” We just don’t know for sure.
[/quote]
This exercise was for undergrads, and holds the constant for ease of proof. You get an A plus for actually working through it!
[quote]big69penisman wrote:
hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
what debate, if the galaxies are slowing down, they dont just go into static equilibrium, they will return, just take a basic physics class
Why not? Why not just sputter out? That is one of the options. For all matter to return there’d have to be a force doing it. That would be gravity (I’m sure you learned that in a basic physics class). LIke I said, they have not been able to quantify if there is enough mass in the universe to exert such a force. Plus, from the latest doppler readings, the galaxies are speeding up. Of course, eventually, they will slow down. [/quote]
if there was no center, the galaxies would be moving in some kind of partern, or at least around some central point, not bouncing around like a pinbal machine
[quote]hardcoreukno0359 wrote:
if there was no center, the galaxies would be moving in some kind of partern, or at least around some central point, not bouncing around like a pinbal machine
[/quote]
Not really sure how that’s relevant to my post that you quoted. Also, not sure if you are stating your point clearly. You say that if there’s no center, the galaxies would revolve around a central point? Not sure how that works but it’s not relevant as having a center does not mean there will be a big crunch. There’s just not enough info to determine that.