It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MarkDravs...I have a very hard time believing that not a single galaxy is moving closer to ours.
Originally posted by MarkDravsThat doesn’t mean I think that a galaxy should be coming directly at us, but assuming there is a center to the universe then you would think some of the galaxies with a similar distance from the center as ours could be moving in the same path around it as we are and accelerate just a hair faster then us(which would put said galaxy in the blue shift rather then red)...
Originally posted by Harte
Don't blame you. I'd have a hard time too, if anyone were actually saying this.
the fact is, some are moving towards us. In fact, we're due for a collision with one in Pegasus (I believe it is) in the distant future. But don't worry, it won't happen until well after our Sun has expanded out to Earth's orbit as a red giant, and subsequently fried us all. So the destruction of our galaxy in this collisioon won't affect me and you, nor our gene pools.
If relativity is correct, then there is no center of the universe. That is not speculation, it is only an assumption that relativity is correct.
Harte
Originally posted by MarkDravs
Which galaxy is coming towards us? That would be a very interesting read for me and naturally help answer my question referring to gravity and the doppler affect depending on how far into the blue shift it is.
Originally posted by MarkDravsAlso I wonder if I could get a reference to another good read on relativity and that assumption of the universe having no center.
Originally posted by MarkDravsWith the expanding nature of the universe we percieve then its an easy assumption to make, I just had thought most Big Bangers and expanding/collapse pushers had a universal center to which the universe surrounds, and that relativity is their basis for the basic understanding of what makes the universe tick.
Originally posted by Harte
Read This:
Our Impending Collision with the Andromeda Galaxy
I found this HERE
Variations on the search terms in that search might yeild way more info.
I'd recommend "The Evolution of Physics" by Albert Einstein. Still in print last I checked. A good read.
Originally posted by Harte
Regarding the center of the universe, this is easy if you know any relativity at all.
Relativity basically just says that no reference frame is better than any other. This means that there is no observer's observations that are more authoritative than those made by some other observer. That's why the term "relative" is used. As an example, you'd think that a light beam viewed from a spaceship that was going near lightspeed would look slower (if it was going in the same direction as the spaceship) than that same beam veiwed by some guy back on a planet watching it go by. Turns out both observers measure exactly the same speed for the light beam.
The Michelson Morely experiment established that there was no "ether" against which to measure the velocity of light. Einstein developed this idea further into the concept of there being absolutely no reference frame that was "at rest" relative to all other reference frames, for if there was one, an observer in that "at rest" reference frame could make observations that had greater authority that an observer in a moving reference frame. Do you see why?
Originally posted by MarkDravs
Thank you for the reads, the first link is interesting. Obviously it must have been a fun experiment to get their hands on that much computing power to simulate such a massive collision. Although it doesnt really give me anything as to why they suspect the collision.
...I was hoping for the reason why they suspect this collision other then that assumption our gravities attract(observations).
Originally posted by MarkDravsThanks i'll definately pick up the book, the relativity books that i've read have all been written by authors commentating einsteins work in GR and SR, I didnt even know that book existed.
Originally posted by MarkDravsI'm familiar with the speed of lights constant no matter which relative frame of reference it is viewed from; however i disagree with a few notions to the "at rest" frame that you refer to. In the expanding balloon example or watermelon example described to paint a picture of an expanding universe, there is in fact an at rest frame of reference, space is 4 dimensional. All of the expanding galaxies are not only expanding from each other, but expanding for a center focal point. If there were a big bang that initiated this process. The balloon would have started out very small, and expanded around the "ground zero".
Originally posted by MarkDravsI'm not saying thats the way of it, but to say there can be no relative center sounds foolish. It would be like saying there is no center to our galaxy to which all our stars revolve around. How can we make such a bold statement?
Originally posted by MarkDravs...but to say there can be no center of our universe simply because there can be no relative center is ridiculous. I really didnt get from the michelson morley experiment how it disproved the notion of an ether, I'd rather take it as an elimination of some assumptions they made to its nature as a universal atmosphere.