I am plagued by questions of the universe - page 19
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Huh. Modern cosmology is all about "stretches". I'm exaggerating about "all", of course, but there really are a lot of them. "Dark Matter", for example, is definitely out of hand. And so on.
I'd say it's a forced assumption, you can't make ends meet without it. In other words, those motions of matter that are seen correspond to a mass of matter about 10 times greater than the mass estimate of what is actually seen. And this data has been accumulating since 1933, confirming each other. Dark matter is not something exotic, but quite possibly some elementary particles that interact poorly with matter (like neutrinos) and are scattered in large numbers in space. Simplistically speaking, some missing mass that cannot be seen through a telescope.
All invertoscope in general who read this topic .
We see the world the way we feel comfortable. If tomorrow they start printing in textbooks that man evolved from a dog. 95% will repeat it.
If tomorrow they come up with a theory about the origin of man from a toilet bowl and the 10 commandments to worship the plumber, it will be so. The brain constructs our world around us to keep us warm and comfortable.
>Huh. Modern cosmology is all about "stretches". I'm exaggerating about "all", of course, but there really are a lot of them. "Dark Matter", for example, is definitely out of thin air. And so on.
And it is possible to speculate. For example, your "looks like" is not proof that it is. There is insufficient observational period to record exactly "dispersion" for the time being. But even if there is, who says that it is due to black holes? That they have anything to do with it at all?
I don't have proof, I have reasoning.
The structural forms of galaxies are similar in some ways.
Perhaps for galaxies as well as for stars, there are similar confinement structures.
It can't be otherwise, of course.
If there is suction ...
If collapse occurs, all mass must be in one place. If some G flew far away there must be space and time. Yes P and B must exist in any case. No matter how small the object is, it can be measured and to measure it you have to spend time.
Space and time have always been and will be forever.
And astronomers need a paycheck now.
I'd say it's a forced assumption, without it you can't make ends meet. In other words, those motions of matter seen correspond to a mass of matter about 10 times greater than the mass estimate of what is actually seen. And this data has been accumulating since 1933, confirming each other. Dark matter is not something exotic, but quite possibly some elementary particles that interact poorly with matter (like neutrinos) and are scattered in large numbers in space. Simplistically speaking, some missing mass that cannot be seen through a telescope.
So before 1933 they didn't see today's billions of galaxies. How did they measure up?
Maybe we've gained some extra mass today? Where to go? We need to come up with a new hypermaterial.
I will clarify. Expansion occurs at scales where there is very little gravitational coupling between objects, the supercollapse scale. It is interesting, by the way, that just on these scales the Universe loses the property of heterogeneity of visible matter: on smaller scales it is very strongly clustered in levels (average density of galaxy is much more than density of intergalactic space, then compare density of star clusters and average density of galaxy, density of star system and interstellar matter, density of matter of stars and planets and average density of elephant system, etc.etc. to the depth of matter), but on the larger ones - nothing, everything is homogeneous, which indicates the absence of interaction.
For example, already each galaxy individually is not expanding anywhere. Not to mention atoms. In other words, the ruler isn't expanding anywhere, and the "scientist" in the "documentary" is, as you can see, a regular clown.
And what is the evidence for expansion? The red shift of light? Does anyone know if astronomers have measured the size of any galaxy over time? If all galaxies are running away from us, then their apparent size must be decreasing with time. That is, take a powerful telescope and measure the distance between two stars in some galaxy in 1 year, or even 30 years. That would be proof of expansion. And the red shift of light can be explained by other phenomena.
If you consider that not every object in the universe has gravity and its mass is irrelevant, it is impossible to calculate anything at all. It is not even possible to estimate.
This greatly changes the idea of the structure and dynamics of the universe.
If you consider that not every object in the universe has gravity and its mass is irrelevant, it is impossible to calculate anything at all. It's not even possible to estimate.
This greatly changes the understanding of the structure and dynamics of the universe.
- What is there to believe in?!
- Exactly !
. . . . ( c) W. Erhard
That grandpa's smart! God bless everybody. :)
I was really listening to that. I watched both videos in their entirety.
Well done, man! Respect.
But 20 minutes into the video, more than 20 references to "Mr. Einstein" reek of personal animosity...
"Humble Plank" seems to rule! :-)
As a physicist myself, I'm listening. Thank you.
>>And what is the evidence for expansion? The red shift of light? Does anyone know if astronomers have measured the size of any galaxy over time? If all galaxies are running away from us, then their apparent size must be decreasing with time. That is, take a powerful telescope and measure the distance between two stars in some galaxy in 1 year, or even 30 years. That would be proof of expansion. And the red shift of light can be explained by other phenomena.
And once this relationship has been clarified