A Gallaxy disappearing forever.

[Stonius (Markus)]

I always think it's weird how we say the universe is homogenous on all scales, when it plainly isn't.

On the smaller scales (that of a single galaxy or close cluster of galaxies and smaller) the universe is contracting. Think about it. Gas and dust contracts to form stars and planets that then often form clusters of stars which all ultimately revolve around the galactic disk. Eventually, the planets will be consumed by their stars which will be in turn consumed by the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way.

At scales less than a single galaxy, the universe sucks, at scales greater than that, it blows, if you take my meaning.

The only similar thing I can think of in nature is the weak magnetic force which holds atomic nuclei together, except when they are too big and heavy. Then they spontaneously decay into lighter elements which are ejected at high energies called radioactive decay. In this case too, the weak magnetic force sucks until there are too many protons and neutrons, then it 'blows'.

Perhaps if gravity had a limited range it would explain the expansion of the universe?

Markus

[silv (Annette)]

"The problem of the apparent optical associations of galaxies with very different redshifts, the so-called anomalous redshifts (Narlikar 1989; Arp 1987, 1998), is old but still alive. Although surprisingly ignored by most of the astronomical community, there is increasing evidence of examples of such anomalies."

Article from November 1st 2018, not yet accepted. https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0401147.pdf
It discusses why the heck the Peculiar Galaxies NGC 7603+B have different red shifts, lower ones, than 2 bright objects (possible quasars) within the filament connecting them. Tired light is mentioned, too.

The article is a follow up of one of the same title published in Nature in 2003 or thereabouts. It doesn't end with a "conclusion" but only with a "summary".

Maybe the expanding universe in academical circles is still much more of a hypothesis than what us non-pro folks with pubsci "non-knowledge" gained from newspapers believe?

And maybe the 2 possible quasars, before we detected them, went to the time horizon of the universe... and then ran back to tell their elders, NGC 7603+B, about it.
What we see as bigger redshift is actually their excited storytelling, jumpin up and down, tugging the sleeves of granny and grammy NGC 7603+B to get their attention.

[JA]

Originally Posted by Stonius

At scales less than a single galaxy, the universe sucks, at scales greater than that, it blows, if you take my meaning.

V. Good - Gravity v Explosion, resp.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Note my comment ...gravity does not suck...the force of attraction is a fundamental incorrect assumption.
No experiment exists establishing such a force.
Take the time to wonder how such a force could be communicated and if you can suggest a nechanism please let me know.

Without saying that GR is flawed at some point we must realise it looks somewhat from the inside out whereas I suspect to understand gravity we should look from the outside to the inside.
I suggest gravity works as a type of pressure which will cause nearby onjects to get closer and distant objects to move apart.

A pressure system can only result in the gallaxy curves we observe.

Dark matter and Dark energy are no longer necessary on the assumption the math will support my general overview.

Alex

[JA]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Note my comment ...gravity does not suck...the force of attraction is a fundamental incorrect assumption.
No experiment exists establishing such a force.
Take the time to wonder how such a force could be communicated and if you can suggest a nechanism please let me know.

Without saying that GR is flawed at some point we must realise it looks somewhat from the inside out whereas I suspect to understand gravity we should look from the outside to the inside.
I suggest gravity works as a type of pressure which will cause nearby onjects to get closer and distant objects to move apart.

A pressure system can only result in the gallaxy curves we observe.

Dark matter and Dark energy are no longer necessary on the assumption the math will support my general overview.

Alex

Well of course it doesn't suck. It's not a vacuum cleaner. I understood Stonius to be using a little artistic licence, hence the "if you take my meaning" at the end of his sentence to create in my mind a catchy punch-line . I understood him to be referring to the gravitational force directed towards the centre of mass.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Well I saw suck and nothing else and that is enough to prompt a rant...I was not aware of what was actually being said or why until you took the time to explain...
And even now my mind is not connected to the conversation☺

I am travelling in a car and not thinking about much really☺

When I stop I will go back and try to join in by reading what is being posted.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Yes I say gravitational force is non suck in the context of equating suck with attraction.
Folk thing objects are attracted and I say that is wrong...thats my point...I dont know if its relevant but I like to point it out.

In my view the key to understanding everything lays in realising there


s no force of attraction.aa

[JA]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Yes I say gravitational force is non suck in the context of equating suck with attraction.
Folk thing objects are attracted and I say that is wrong...thats my point...I dont know if its relevant but I like to point it out.

In my view the key to understanding everything lays in realising there


s no force of attraction.aa

There exists a gravitational force between masses. Its magnitude can be had from Newton's Law of "Universal" Gravitation F=GxM1xM2/(r^2). You can measure the effect with the right equipment. Design an experiment and you can show it exists.

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by JA

There exists a gravitational force between masses. Its magnitude can be had from Newton's Law of "Universal" Gravitation F=GxM1xM2/(r^2). You can measure the effect with the right equipment. Design an experiment and you can show it exists.

Best
JA

Sure.
My point is this.
How does one object "tell" the other its details, such as presumably its mass, its position and by inference if its position is changing (velocity) and any other information that dials in the magnitude of this alledged force.
And does the other object send back a message acknowledging all that information and set out how they will interact with each other.
My view is that for a firce of attraction we need some mechanism that includes a thete and back communication...the gravity☺ of what I am trying to point out seems so simple one will dismiss thinking about it but the consequence of a there and back communication must suggest these communication take place at twice c if the overall responce is onserved, as it is at c.
And dont get me wrong our math for gravity is excellent I just look for how the force really works.
Anyways having thought about the difficulty of a supposed there and back communication U thought a kenetic interaction to be more reasonable...but one yhing at a time you may not perceive the problem I recognise and if so there is little point in suggesting a mechanism that would get around the problem of an attraction system...attraction requirumg a there and back method of communication.
Alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry about the mistakes still being driven around and it is such a small phone.
Alex

[JA]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Sure.
My point is this.
How does one object "tell" the other its details, such as presumably its mass, its position and by inference if its position is changing (velocity) and any other information that dials in the magnitude of this alledged force.
And does the other object send back a message acknowledging all that information and set out how they will interact with each other.
My view is that for a firce of attraction we need some mechanism that includes a thete and back communication...the gravity☺ of what I am trying to point out seems so simple one will dismiss thinking about it but the consequence of a there and back communication must suggest these communication take place at twice c if the overall responce is onserved, as it is at c.
And dont get me wrong our math for gravity is excellent I just look for how the force really works.
Anyways having thought about the difficulty of a supposed there and back communication U thought a kenetic interaction to be more reasonable...but one yhing at a time you may not perceive the problem I recognise and if so there is little point in suggesting a mechanism that would get around the problem of an attraction system...attraction requirumg a there and back method of communication.
Alex

Well you can think of it as communication if you like, but it's an interaction at the atomic and subatomic level between the masses and their constituent particles and their state that create the attraction.

You mention an "alledged force", so to cut to the chase - Do you believe that there is an attractive force between two masses or not? (Let's say two real-world (non-ferromagnetic) objects you could pick up and hold in opposite hands. Anything from a few grams to however many kilograms you could hold). Will there be an attraction between such objects or not?

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by JA

Well you can think of it as communication if you like, but it's an interaction at the atomic and subatomic level between the masses and their constituent particles and their state that create the attraction.

You mention an "alledged force", so to cut to the chase - Do you believe that there is an attractive force between two masses or not?

Best
JA

I have said or at least that is my recollection that I believe there is not force of attraction between masses...if there is and you know how it works please let me in on the specifics.
What particle leaves mass 1 and what information does it carry to mass 2...bosons I think...in the vase of gravity we have the hypothetical graviton...

[xelasnave]

Damn ruff ride...

Anyways for a force of attraction one mass must say to the other mass...come here...how is that achieved.
Alex

[xelasnave]

I think the standard model says one mass passes a photon.
Anyways not conducive to typing so I will go and let others ponder and present a view.
Alex

[JA]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

I have said or at least that is my recollection that I believe there is not force of attraction between masses...if there is and you know how it works please let me in on the specifics.

Alex, there are 2 questions that you have raised there to be clear:

Q1. Whether there is an attractive force between two masses?

YES there is. It was measured experimentally way back in the 18th century by Henry Cavendish and has been replicated many times since. The best way to accept something you don't believe is to look at the physical evidence and experiment.You could do it today and possibly much more accurately or easily with different techniques and equipment.

Q2. If there is (such an attractive force) and you know how it works please let me in on the specifics.

Sure, I answered that in my previous and last posts, in terms of the magnitude, direction and the atomic/subatomic/particle state basis for the force. Beyond that, there's always an Atomic Physics Lab, CERN etc...

Best
JA

[xelasnave]

Thanks JA
I dont think yhe Cavendish experiment proves the force is attraction ...it is asserted...I could say...the experiment proves the masses were pushed together by an external force and in either case neither side has explained how their alledged force works.

[xelasnave]

I will read up on bosons again but I have read it all and from recollection the problem I see is not solved with the standard model.
Your input has been fantastic so I thank you.
I will be off the air for a while.
Alex

[JA]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Thanks JA
I dont think yhe Cavendish experiment proves the force is attraction ...it is asserted...I could say...the experiment proves the masses were pushed together by an external force and in either case neither side has explained how their alledged force works.

Good Luck with that... whether they are pushed together OR pulled together, they are attracted by a measurable force, which if you wanted to do so experimentally, you could compare with theory. ... QED

Best
JA

[Stonius (Markus)]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Note my comment ...gravity does not suck...the force of attraction is a fundamental incorrect assumption.
No experiment exists establishing such a force.
Take the time to wonder how such a force could be communicated and if you can suggest a nechanism please let me know.

Without saying that GR is flawed at some point we must realise it looks somewhat from the inside out whereas I suspect to understand gravity we should look from the outside to the inside.
I suggest gravity works as a type of pressure which will cause nearby onjects to get closer and distant objects to move apart.

A pressure system can only result in the gallaxy curves we observe.

Dark matter and Dark energy are no longer necessary on the assumption the math will support my general overview.

Alex

I thought all electromagnetic forces were mediated by Bosons? The Graviton hasn't been discovered yet, but neither had the Higgs Boson until recently.

[xelasnave]

This is rather simple but like many simple things may be effect to get a feel for the matter.

Force carriers
07/16/13 By Kelly Izlar
Particles communicate with one another through force carriers.

Force carriers are particles that act like messages exchanged between other particles.

Scientists have discovered force carriers for three of the four known forces: electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force. They are still searching for experimental evidence of the force carrier for the fourth force, gravity.

Particles communicate with one another in different languages, as defined by the kind of force carriers they exchange. Two particles can communicate with one another only if they are exchanging force carriers that convey a language they both understand. For example, a charged particle like an electron responds to force carriers for the electromagnetic force, but a neutral particle like a neutrino does not.

Sometimes two particles must be very close together to communicate via force carriers. They can “whisper” a message that would be too soft to extend over a long distance. Electrons and neutrinos can exchange W bosons, which are force carriers for the weak force, only when they are close to one another.

A force carrier can convey different messages. Protons and electrons, which have opposite charges, are attracted to one another through the electromagnetic force. The particles that carry that force, called photons, act like love notes. They draw the protons and electrons together.

When two electrons, which both have a negative charge, communicate through electromagnetism, the photons act more like hate mail. They push the electrons apart.

Alex