Starship Asterisk*

G'day bystander

Chris said

Our galaxy was never in the same place as Andromeda, or any other galaxy. The Universe was already a very big place before the first galaxies formed. And when galaxies did form, they did so because of the gravitational attraction of clumped matter (especially dark matter). That clumping is a bit mysterious still, but is presumed to stem from quantum level fluctuations in the very earliest Universe, which propagated as density fluctuations that seeded the first gravitational collapses that produced the first stars and galaxies.

This is consistent with basic theory: if you have an inhomogeneous medium (even at the tiniest level), it will get clumpier with time, until eventually you have a bunch of isolated concentrations of matter- pretty much what we see in the Universe today.

My response was the post that I posted.

To understand the post is to understand the meaning, of how such an image can be formed.

Read Chris's statement and find the scientific logic.

harry wrote:My response was the post that I posted.

To understand the post is to understand the meaning, of how such an image can be formed.

Read Chris's statement and find the scientific logic.

There was a pleasant discussion earlier in this thread about the Latin sic and its usage in modern English. With respect to your posts, I think we need to consider another Latin expression that is applicable: non sequitur.

Chris Peterson wrote:non sequitur

I have no idea what that word means, non sequitur..

However I do know that for our sun,, North is north and south is south And yes i also know that north swaps to south from time to time as it does for our own planet Earth. This has not changed in 4.5 billion years,,, And will not change in another 4.5 billion years until our sun dies... And from this there is something that can be seen.. Density fluctuations Make big stars,,, big black holes,, and big galaxies ...Inside our planet you can see density fluctuations. And just like reading the earths layers of rock to measure millions of years... The size,, the density and the pole should point you to where an object was 13.4 billion years ago... and prove expansion with out any shadow of doubt...

Mark

mark swain wrote:However I do know that for our sun,, North is north and south is south And yes i also know that north swaps to south from time to time as it does for our own planet Earth. This has not changed in 4.5 billion years,,, And will not change in another 4.5 billion years until our sun dies...

North and south do not swap, for either the Sun or the Earth. Perhaps you are thinking of the magnetic axes, which are very different from the rotational axes. The rotational axes of stars, planets, and galaxies are very stable. However, they can (and usually will) change due to precession and perturbations, given enough time. And billions of years is enough time.

The size,, the density and the pole should point you to where an object was 13.4 billion years ago... and prove expansion with out any shadow of doubt...

I don't see how. Even for those rare objects that are actually 13 billion years old, their current spin axis tells nothing about their expansion history.

Wikipedia: non sequitur wrote:A non sequitur ... is a conversational and literary device, often used for comical purposes (as opposed to its use in formal logic). It is a comment which, due to its apparent lack of meaning relative to what it follows, seems absurd to the point of being humorous or confusing, ...

Wikipedia: non sequitur (logic) wrote:Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because the conclusion does not follow from the premise. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.

non sequitur legal definition wrote:non sequitur: A conclusion or a statement that does not logically follow from what preceded it.
Webster's New World Law Dictionary

Thanks bystander,,, I know It is meant in hummer... But i could pass a hundred people on the street/side walk and none of them would understand non sequitur if i used it in conversation...

Chris Peterson wrote:North and south do not swap, for either the Sun or the Earth. Perhaps you are thinking of the magnetic axes, which are very different from the rotational axes. The rotational axes of stars, planets, and galaxies are very stable. However, they can (and usually will) change due to precession and perturbations, given enough time. And billions of years is enough time.

Yes Chris,, I know.. But if i never mentioned magnetic pole,, In saying north stays north forever,, somebody would have brought it up... Just as you did...

Chris Peterson wrote:I don't see how. Even for those rare objects that are actually 13 billion years old, their current spin axis tells nothing about their expansion history.

How far has, Andromeda and the milky way along with our local group ''moved'' since they formed 13.4 billion years ago?

Dammit, it's the internet. Look up things you don't know. Don't sit there and say you don't know what it is. And you only have to use one comma and one period most of the time. You look like a fool, otherwise.

geckzilla wrote:Dammit, it's the internet. Look up things you don't know. Don't sit there and say you don't know what it is. And you only have to use one comma and one period most of the time. You look like a fool, otherwise.

Passion about space and the cosmos. Respect.

So go on, look my question up. :How far has, Andromeda and the milky way along with our local group ''moved'' since they formed 13.4 billion years ago?

Mark

mark swain wrote:How far has, Andromeda and the milky way along with our local group ''moved'' since they formed 13.4 billion years ago?

First, I'd be very cautious about putting a formation date on Andromeda or the Milky Way. While it is very likely that some sort of protogalaxies were forming 13.4 billion years ago, the disc galaxies as we know them today may only be half that age. Too little is known about galaxy evolution to say with any certainty just how those early galaxies that now compose the Local Group were interacting in the early Universe.

What exactly do you mean by "moved"? Motion is relative, so you need to provide more information. Presumably, the galaxies in the Local Group have orbited around each other in some complex fashion over the last 13 billion years (or the precursor stars and gas making up those galaxies). Overall, they haven't moved much closer or farther away from each other. The local group exhibits some relative motion compared with other clusters, but we don't really move much with respect to them, except in the sense that distant objects recede due to the expansion of space- not at all the same as motion that was present from early on. That sort of motion is certainly there, but is small compared to the expansion of space, and can't reliably be isolated from the latter.

geckzilla wrote:Dammit, it's the internet. Look up things you don't know. Don't sit there and say you don't know what it is.

I first learned of it as a child, watching the original Star Trek series. Remember Nomad?

"Non sequitur.
Your facts are uncoordinated."

Man, I know the feeling. I hope I don't suffer the same fate.

Your expecting Time , Gravity, The Speed of Light, to be the same as they are now? Just after a very extraordinary event?

mark swain wrote:Your expecting Time , Gravity, The Speed of Light, to be the same as they are now? Just after a very extraordinary event?

I have a very high level of confidence that after the first few billionths of a second (or less), these things followed the same laws they do now. There is precious little to suggest that the fundamental constants of nature and the laws that describe how things work have changed since the beginning. Until such evidence comes along, I'll continue to consider the possibility a very slight one, not worth investing a lot of time considering.

Chris Peterson wrote:I have a very high level of confidence that after the first few billionths of a second (or less), these things followed the same laws they do now. There is precious little to suggest that the fundamental constants of nature and the laws that describe how things work have changed since the beginning. Until such evidence comes along, I'll continue to consider the possibility a very slight one, not worth investing a lot of time considering.

Why are we only now, loosing the moon?

mark swain wrote:Why are we only now, loosing the moon?

What do you mean? That the Moon is slowly moving outwards? It's been doing that since it was formed. In fact, since we know over hundreds of millions of years the rate it has been moving outward, and understand the mechanism (transfer of angular momentum), this is strong evidence that for this time at least, the basic laws of mechanics and a number of important constants have remained unchanged.

Un changed been the op word,,,, you fell right into my trap mucker....

Enjoy... Now read this thread again... lol

mark swain wrote:Un changed been the op word,,,, you fell right into my trap mucker....

Enjoy... Now read this thread again... lol

Sorry, I don't follow.

If things have not changed much in 13.7 billion.....years, why would you think they changed in seconds before?

mark swain wrote:If things have not changed much in 13.7 billion.....years, why would you think they changed in seconds before?

I still don't understand. What "things" are you talking about, and "seconds before" what?

Considering that the Earth travels 584,336,223 miles every year (in its orbit) We've traveled roughly 2,629,513,003,500,000,000 or 2.6 quintillion miles since the earth formed somr 4.5 billion years ago orbiting the son.
Considering that the sun orbits the MW at approx 26,000 ly radius, we also travel around the galactic center to the tune of 39,926,525,486,140,800 miles every orbit (400 MY) which we,ve done some 12 times since the earth formed for a total of 479,118,305,833,689,600 or roughly 470 quadrillion miles since the earth formed.

I think we've traveled quite a distance.

BMAONE23 wrote:I think we've traveled quite a distance.

Yeah, but it was all in circles... <g>

I learned what non sequitur was because I read the newspaper comics as a kid and one of them was called Non Sequitur. I had to look it up in a paper dictionary. Now I can't remember the last time I used a paper newspaper, dictionary, or encyclopedia. All I remember from the original Star Trek is tribbles.

Also, I would think PMS was just some made up thing if it didn't happen to me every single month. Sorry, mark. I think it's over now...

I think the equivalent of what you want to know, mark, is where a house fly was originally born from its egg by studying the air currents it produced when it flew. And I don't think it's possible.

Chris Peterson wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:I think we've traveled quite a distance.

Yeah, but it was all in circles... <g>

Finally.

So apart from the circles, Our galaxy has moved ''no where''.... That,s a big ''old'' stationary universe out there. Would make me want to know, if there was a kind of order... I can already see one... 18 billion solar mass black hole.. 3 billion solar mass black hole... type 2 super nova black hole.... Any order in anything else?

mark

But we have moved relative to our original location. Presuming that the direction and speed of travel relative to the CMB we are currently moving at 600KPS. This equates to an enormous distance of 84,325,950,000,000,000,000 or 84.3Quintillion kilometers since the earth formed. Light travels at 300,000kps or 9,460,800,000,000 (9.46 trillion kilometers per year) So the Earth has traveled some 8,913,194 million LY since it formed again presuming that the 600kps is constant over that period.

The whole universe is spinning? other than that,,, we are all trying to understand...

mark swain wrote:So apart from the circles, Our galaxy has moved ''no where''.... That,s a big ''old'' stationary universe out there.

Nothing is stationary, you just need to define a reference frame. Our galaxy can only be said to have moved if you define what it has moved with respect to. We are farther from some (most) objects in the Universe than we were a long time ago, and we are nearer to some. Whether you want to say we moved or they moved is all a matter of perspective. Only our inertial motion (acceleration, rotation) can be considered (in some sense) absolute motion.