There is another reason for expansion Which is very complicated to explain. But i will... Another time. Your link explained the reason for old black holes just fine. As for your clusters of galaxies,,,, When you look up into the sky at night and you see the amazing show,, all is not what is seems. Gravity,,, Time,,,( But light remains Constant...... ? )
Not only would you not notice, but the difference between the two from the viewpoint of a third observer would be vanishingly small as well, since the Earth and a similar planet anywhere in the Universe, including inside a cluster, will have almost exactly the same gravitational potential. In other words, you could sync a pair of clocks on Earth, take one to this super cluster, let them run for a few million years, and bring them back together. They will still be very close (unless there is a large relative velocity between the two locations).mark swain wrote:Compare 2 hours on earth, to same size planet in a supper cluster ... 13.7 billion years is an earth clock. If you were on the other planet the 2 hours and the 13.7 billion would be a different figure ... More galaxies than the milky way cluster more gravity more time distort...but you would not notice .
I don't know what that means. I don't think time flows like a river. It is just another dimension- a point in the Universe is described by x, y, z, and t. Our t position is changing, just as our x position is changing when we walk down the sidewalk. But that doesn't necessarily make the behavior of time any different from the spatial dimensions so far as the Universe is concerned. Time doesn't "flow" differently in a strong gravitational field, it is simply being distorted (along with space).mark swain wrote:http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/schwp.html If time flows like a river,, From the out side inwards.. Then the size of attraction should depict time by its velocity.
I don't understand what the perceived problem is with galaxies, clusters of galaxies, or superclusters forming in one or two billion years. Until somebody can make that clear, there doesn't seem to be much to discuss. Certainly, the standard cosmology model has no problem explaining this (it does have some problems with structure in general, but that's a separate issue). What makes 13.7 billion years a "short time", or 1-2 billion years for that matter?I would assume bigger galaxy bigger spin And that,s why super cluster of galaxies can form in 13.7 ...if this is not the case, I also want to know how super clusters of galaxies have had time to evolve in such a short time?
I don't see anything in that article that says that. The only reference to a river is in an analogy designed to get across the idea of how light and space interact in a steep gravitational well. Nothing about time, nothing about spin. And it is just an analogy- space is no more a river near a black hole than the Universe is actually a balloon. These are visualization tools designed to help people understand concepts that can only be fully understood with some very difficult math.mark swain wrote:Read the link i provided Chris. You will see who says time flows like a river.
I don't see anything about galaxies, either. Galaxies spin because of the conservation of angular momentum. Statistically, it is impossible to have that much material come together and not end up with a net spin. Spiral galaxies don't depend on a spinning core- their constituents don't even know there is a core. They are easily understood by simple Newtonian mechanics- independent objects in orbit around an apparent mass center (of which very little is actually contributed by anything very close to the central core, including any black hole).There's a good picture of a galaxy there.. only its not a galaxy until you spin its core. Then you will see why spiral galaxies are the way they are.
I don't buy it. Does x=0 mean no space? In an absolute sense, t=0 simply refers to the t coordinate when the Universe was created. In a wider sense, t=0 can refer to any offset from that time in order to make a calculation simpler.mark swain wrote:Space time is a physical entity .... T=0 Means no Space time.
I don't know what that means. Singularities are mathematical constructs; nobody even knows if they have a physical meaning. What creates? What takes away? Creates what? Takes away what?If one singularity creates, the other takes away.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.You cant have it all ways boys. Space time is expanding How? Space time depicts redshift/blueshift Times movement governs light frequency. Space time been sucked into a g+c vortex = no light speed or time.. And before you jump onto the expanding critic... I Know the answer... its not DM OR DE.
Dark matter has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. It is an important component in the original formation of galaxies, and in the gravitational fields that hold together local structure against the expansion of space.mark swain wrote:so the power of dm and de have the reason to expand spacetime more than it all ready has. And yet the unbelievable power that a black hole has. does not have the power to reverse Spacetime. ?
Please refer me to the information.How are you defining the "power" of a black hole? There seem to be many things in the Universe that are capable of producing a high energy output. A black hole is just one, and only under certain circumstances. A black hole has no more energy than its progenitor star had.
This does not inspire me.bystander wrote:I'm not sure you even understand the question. I'm sure I don't.
You're the one making extraordinary claims. I'd ask you what information makes you think otherwise? Certainly, nothing I've seen you post in the past.harry wrote:G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz
Chris said
Please refer me to the information.How are you defining the "power" of a black hole? There seem to be many things in the Universe that are capable of producing a high energy output. A black hole is just one, and only under certain circumstances. A black hole has no more energy than its progenitor star had.
Explain what? That a natural object is found in a range of sizes, depending on its formation history? What's remarkable about that? And what "varies (sic) large black holes" are you talking about in galaxy centers? There is only one black hole found in such spots, perhaps two where there has been a merger of galaxies. There aren't swarms of them. (And I think the largest identified black hole is only two or three billion solar masses, not eighteen.)Mate, I do not know where you get this information from. How do you explain the varies sizes of stellar black holes and the varies large black holes that gather at the centre of our galaxy and than the large to super dooper black holes that can range over 18 billion times that of our Sun. Also the merging of black holes and so on.
Oh, I agree, the logic of what you say is inescapable! Since Chris didn't know about an 18 billion solar mass black hole, obviously nothing he says can be taken seriously. He must be a complete idiot.mark swain wrote:Whats this? http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -suns.html I think you may need to upgrade your database Chris. From this: I can take everything you say as complete Rubbish.
Seems a little extreme. A simple database upgrade from a reference seems easy enough. (In this case, my database was out-of-date by just a few weeks <g>.)mark swain wrote:Whats this? http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... -suns.html I think you may need to upgrade your database Chris. From this: I can take everything you say as complete Rubbish.
I have no idea ,, What you are trying to say here mate. Say what you mean, not what you want me to think it means..bystander wrote:Oh, I agree, the logic of what you say is inescapable! Since Chris didn't know about an 18 million solar mass black hole, obviously nothing he says can be taken seriously. He must be a complete idiot.
No Mate.. I,ll have a laff and a joke like the next person. I did not think this forum was about that....bystander wrote:Or is satire beyond you?
Chris:Chris Peterson wrote:Seems a little extreme. A simple database upgrade from a reference seems easy enough. (In this case, my database was out-of-date by just a few weeks <g>.)
Of course, it isn't really relevant to anything in the substance of my previous message. It just extends the size range somewhat, and my point to Harry was, so what? What is extraordinary about the fact that such objects can be found with a wide range of masses? What, if any, rethinking of standard theories does this fact require? My assertion is that it requires none.
When in fact he was right. And:Chris Peterson wrote:You're the one making extraordinary claims. I'd ask you what information makes you think otherwise? Certainly, nothing I've seen you post in the past.
Making people feel small, and knowledgeable undermine is not the way to help people. You denied peoples hard work with no counter proof, just your words, in countless threads. And what i have done today is highlighted it to you. If you change your manner and explain why people are wrong With Proof, then and only then, will i believe things that you say have good standing.Chris Peterson wrote:Explain what? That a natural object is found in a range of sizes, depending on its formation history? What's remarkable about that? And what "varies (sic) large black holes" are you talking about in galaxy centers? There is only one black hole found in such spots, perhaps two where there has been a merger of galaxies. There aren't swarms of them. (And I think the largest identified black hole is only two or three billion solar masses, not eighteen.)
I'm afraid I don't know what you're talking about. In what way does asking somebody to clarify why they perceive an observation as extraordinary (and apparently at odds with mainstream theory) make them feel small, or in any way undermine them? What work was undermined?mark swain wrote:Making people feel small, and knowledgeable undermine is not the way to help people. You denied peoples hard work with no counter proof, just your words, in countless threads. And what i have done today is highlighted it to you. If you change your manner and explain why people are wrong With Proof, then and only then, will i believe things that you say have good standing.
