Gravity As A Repelling Force - Newton/Einstein

"We see this with our own immediate local group of galaxies."

Please elaborate on what is meant, and/or what you mean by saying '...individual regions of space-time are "decoupled" from the overall expansion rate.' "[We see this with our own immediate group of galaxies]".
 
Kaiduorkhon said:
"We see this with our own immediate local group of galaxies."

Please elaborate on what is meant, and/or what you mean by saying '...individual regions of space-time are "decoupled" from the overall expansion rate.' "[We see this with our own immediate group of galaxies]".
Click to expand...


Individual regions of higher then average densities, are gravitationally bound and do not expand...eg.....The Milky Way, LMC, SMC, Andromeda, M33 and other galaxies within what we call the local group are being drawn towards each other.
Many other regions of space/time with higher then average densities are also gravitationally bound.

This is distinct from what we see at the very largest scales, with galaxies rushing away from us. [due to the expansion of intervening space/time.]
 
paddoboy said:
Individual regions of higher then average densities, are gravitationally bound and do not expand...eg.....The Milky Way, LMC, SMC, Andromeda, M33 and other galaxies within what we call the local group are being drawn towards each other.
Many other regions of space/time with higher then average densities are also gravitationally bound.

This is distinct from what we see at the very largest scales, with galaxies rushing away from us. [due to the expansion of intervening space/time.]
Click to expand...

Do you know how your submitted dynamics are measured?
 
paddoboy said:
It's observed...well at least indicated by cosmological red shift...or in the case of our local group, a blue shift.
Click to expand...

There are some disagreements with spectroscopic shifts: Red=moving away. Blue=moving towards.
On the other hand I put complete confidence in what these shifts mean (not 'tired light' or any of the many other shots in the dark).

Will you please cite the source of information - you seem to be familiar with - that observes blue shift, at whatever distances.
It is my understanding that every system 'out there' exhibits red shift.

A minute ago, you - and everything else - was smaller and more dense: Compared To Now.

A minute from Now, you - and everything else - will be larger and less dense: Compared To Now.
 
Kaiduorkhon said:
There are some disagreements with spectroscopic shifts: Red=moving away. Blue=moving towards.
On the other hand I put complete confidence in what these shifts mean (not 'tired light' or any of the many other shots in the dark).

Will you please cite the source of information - you seem to be familiar with - that observes blue shift, at whatever distances.
It is my understanding that every system 'out there' exhibits red shift.
Click to expand...


I havn't got an Immediate source. It's basic cosmology knowledge that I have been aware of for ages.
Every "DISTANT" galaxy exhibits redshift, certainly not the relitively close ones within our local group and even beyond.



Kaiduorkhon said:
A minute ago, you - and everything else - was smaller and more dense: Compared To Now.

A minute from Now, you - and everything else - will be larger and less dense: Compared To Now.
Click to expand...



No, that's definitely not true.....And I'm sure I have answered that. On the scales of planetary bodies, molecules and atoms, the two nuclear forces, the strong and weak are dominant, plus of course gravity and the EMF.
 
Smaller (earlier) space-times are more dense, Compared To Now - these are interpreted to be, and called 'nuclear binding forces'.

So called 'Weak Forces' are manifestations of the Later (older) occurrence of EMF: Compared to Now.

What we call the 'difference' between 'nuclear binding forces, and our interpretation of this condition as being different from itself when it occurs - via the 4-D space-time continuum - as 'gravity' (a macrocosmic, 'weak force')...

These 'different forces ('F')', are one and the same (EMF), occurring and observed at different Moments - Past (smaller, more dense, increasingly much stonger), to microcosmic infinity - microcosms being just as infinite and small as macrocosmic Forces ('F') are large, weak and tenuous.

Notably, the 'F' in F=GMM
_______
r squared

Is not, and has yet to be identified.
We do call it EMF, but it - and gravity, when considered apart from EMF occurring in what I identify as different Moments in Time - goes on to be the unvanquished crocodile science continues to wrestle with.
 
Last edited:
paddoboy said:
Individual regions of higher then average densities, are gravitationally bound and do not expand...eg.....The Milky Way, LMC, SMC, Andromeda, M33 and other galaxies within what we call the local group are being drawn towards each other. ...
Click to expand...
I, think the parts I have made bold are not true and contradict what I guessed would happen in the future in post 83, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ton-Einstein&p=3133733&viewfull=1#post3133733

The "local group" is no more being drawn towards our sun than the moon is being drawn towards the Earth. They do have random velocities some of which cause their spectra to be blue shifted but they are basically in distorted (by mutual interactions) elliptical orbits about their mutual center of gravity which is orbiting the center of our galaxy, mainly. Also half the time an elliptic orbit is reducing distance from the center it is orbiting, so nearly half of the "nearby" stars of the "local group" are blue shifted even if their random velocity is away from the sun and thus making their "Orbital Blue Shift" less.

It is true that all the really distance galaxies have "red shifted" spectra as the expansion of the universe acting on their great separation from the sun has dominated their random velocity directions, but it is not without effect. I.e. all galaxies the same great distance from the sun do not have exactly the same red shift. The negative energy is growing stronger with time as the positive energy (KE +PE) are both separately increasing with time and a total of zero energy is maintained by conservation energy at all times. I.e. eventually even the Barnyard's star, the closest to earth, will have a red shifted spectra (if it were still hot enough to radiate detectable radiation - radio wave noise?).

A good discussion of this is at: http://fittedplane.blogspot.com/ and the graph there is small. For one below directly, click: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Pi6M1wHpJgA/SyHFujXefGI/AAAAAAAAAB4/zw9J7egwMdo/s1600-h/image001.png
image001.png
.

At first link, it state that now ~7000 GALIXIES with blue shift are known, some of which are points in the above graph. There are many more that cannot be seen from earth as the milky way light is too strong. We can only see most blue shifted distant galaxies when the Earth is not in the galactic plain. This optimum viewing of distant galaxies occurs twice each year as the solar ecliptic is inclined to the galactic plain by ~60 degrees. Pluto of course gets much farther than Earth above and below the galactic plain but less frequently. This above and below "good viewing" is why the graph has mainly two cluster of blue shifted galaxies, but surely they are about uniformly distributed in space. Earth just has a "viewing problem."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Billy T said:
I, think the parts I have made bold are not true and contradict what I guessed would happen in the future in post 83, here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...ton-Einstein&p=3133733&viewfull=1#post3133733

The "local group" is no more being drawn towards our sun than the moon is being drawn towards the Earth.
Click to expand...



I understand the point you make and probably agree....I was speaking "In the main" though, and of course gravitationally bound.

BTW...Interesting post you linked to....I did miss it first time round.
 
Discovered in 1967; confirmed in 1968, Pulsars are rotating neutron stars that can only be seen 'edge on' when radiation is visible to the observer, much as the emission from a light house can only be seen when it's emissions are aligned-with and moving in the direction of a given observer. - Google 'pulsar'. The magnetic axis of a pulsar determines the direction of the emitted electromagnetic beam. - Paraphrased excerpt; - Google pulsars.

Quasars - very great distances and consequently very high (Hubble) red shifts; google quasars. Galactic systems much more dense and luminous - and much older - than the Milky Way. Google Quasars

Is it correct to interpret that when one side of the rotating edge-on observed axis is moving toward the observer, while the other side is moving away, that the 'toward side' exhibits relative 'blue shift' (less red shift), and the 'away side' of the ultra distant-rotating luminous galactic system exhibits more relative red shift than the mean rate of recession from an observer?

Is this consideration - of blue-shifts -included in the contents offered in Billy T's Post # 128 ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top