by Wayne » Sat May 15, 2010 10:43 pm
Hofi wrote:
I think that this statement depends on how you define "gravitational bound". All massice objects are affected by others' gravity. If there's a lot of empty space around the cluster, the gravitational bound of a galaxy to the group is stronger because there's no opponent.
Otherwise if there are a lot of clusters around it, the gravitational obligation is not so strong...
As Chris has said, there's no real "how you define" for gravitational binding. An object either is, or it isn't. If an orbit is hyperbolic or parabolic, there is no binding. It the orbit is elliptical (i.e. closed) then the object is bound. However, this is an instantaneous state as future interactious can change whether the object is bound or not, the object can be ejected.
Globular clusters, for example, are comprised of bound stars (and make an excellent model for superclusters), but they leave trails of stars behind them or even orbit within arcs of stars which they have ejected.
[quote="Hofi"]
I think that this statement depends on how you define "gravitational bound". All massice objects are affected by others' gravity. If there's a lot of empty space around the cluster, the gravitational bound of a galaxy to the group is stronger because there's no opponent.
Otherwise if there are a lot of clusters around it, the gravitational obligation is not so strong...[/quote]
As Chris has said, there's no real "how you define" for gravitational binding. An object either is, or it isn't. If an orbit is hyperbolic or parabolic, there is no binding. It the orbit is elliptical (i.e. closed) then the object is bound. However, this is an instantaneous state as future interactious can change whether the object is bound or not, the object can be ejected.
Globular clusters, for example, are comprised of bound stars (and make an excellent model for superclusters), but they leave trails of stars behind them or even orbit within arcs of stars which they have ejected.