what if (on colliding galaxies)

"BradGuth" wrote in message...
...
On Sep 8, 11:57 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message...
...
On Sep 8, 8:02 am, "Painius" wrote:
"Saul Levy" wrote in message...
. ..
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:32:43 GMT, "Painius"

wrote:

When i say "rogue", i'm just talking about the galaxies
that are out on their own and not satellites of the bigger
galaxies...

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/localgr.html

In that picture, there are some rogues in the upper left.
Sextans A and B, NGC 3109, and so on.

That's a misleading term then, Paine! lmao!

Galaxies are NOT rogues.

Not according to my lexicon, Saul. When used as an
adjective describing a noun, the term "rogue" means...

"Operating outside normal or desirable controls."

As i said, these are small galaxies that, while bound
gravitationally to the Local Group, are not satellites
of any of the large spiral galaxies. They can be seen
as galaxies that operate outside normal controls...

"r o g u e g a l a x i e s"

You're speaking to a certified Zionist/Nazi rabbi of the denial and
evidence excluding kind. Why bother?

You probably won't like this answer, but for me and
for all those who i am privileged to be read by, "the
Sun shines down on us all".

You're suggesting that we're all Zionist/Nazis? (I don't think so)

Not at all, of course not. I'm saying that, *whatever*
"we all" are, the Sun does not discriminate. It shines
down on us all. If we all were more like the Sun in this
respect, then there would be no more discrimination.
How would you take to a world without discrimination,
Brad? Would you miss the hatred? the violence? the
gay bashing? the religious wars? the racial battles? the
political intrigues? Would you miss the bigotry?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net

"Odysseus" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Painius" wrote:

snip

In one of several scenarios, that of the Andromeda
galaxy orbiting a hypermassive barycenter in an orbit
that has a very low eccentricity, Andromeda might
then have a transverse velocity of, say, 1500 km/sec.

At that rate it would take 1.885 billion years to make
one complete orbit. That's a little over 7 cycles in the
last 13.5 billion years, or 5.3 cycles in 10 billion years.

No kidding, hypermassive! To rotate that fast (relatively speaking), a
system this size would have to contain nearly a quarter of a quadrillion
solar masses, something like 400 times the mass of the Milky Way -- or
at least fifty times that currently estimated for the entire Local Group.

Here I was thinking that you weren't keen on dark matter ...

I'm not keen on any undefined form of "matter".

And yes, the hypermassive barycenter would be
likened in mass/ratio to the Sun's mass that is 750
times the mass of the rest of the Solar System. I
would expect the barycenter to be much more
massive than the known members of the Local
Group combined.

BTW, you might find this 1997 paper, "M31 Transverse Velocity and Local
Group Mass from Satellite Kinematics" by van der Marel and Guhathakurta,
rather interesting:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.3747

Yes, i did find it interesting. In a case where there is
a barycenter that the galaxies are all orbiting, the
transverse velocity might not tell us much. Take the
planet Mars, for example, when it is on the other side
of the Sun. Doesn't its transverse velocity with respect
to Earth depend upon how near to or far from aphelion/
perihelion it might be? And upon Earth's velocity as
well? Even Mars' radial velocity would vary over time,
wouldn't it?

Even a small, or even zero, transverse velocity for the
Andromeda galaxy would not be enough to securely
draw the conclusion that a collision with the Milky Way
will ever happen.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net

On Sep 14, 2:46 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote in message...

...



On Sep 8, 11:06 pm, "Painius" wrote:
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote...

Painius I get very flustered when I read light has slowed down or
accelerated. bert

I know the feeling, Bert. On one hand you read
that nothing can exceed light speed, "c". And you
might somehow get the idea that light itself will
always travel at "c". Then you read that light can
and does sometimes go slower depending upon
the medium it is going through, that "c" is only the
*maximum* speed of light.

Then maybe you read about how one of the first
and best tests for relativity theory was the bending
of a star's light as it traveled past the Sun during a
full eclipse. And you know that anything, including
light, that travels a curved path is "accelerated".
Maybe you read a little more and find that when a
scientist says "accelerated", this could mean either
a speeding up *or* a slowing down. So what did
the star's light do? It couldn't have sped up. It was
already going "c", as fast as it could go. So, did it
slow down? Was it a "negative" acceleration? (Or
what i would call a "deceleration"?)

Apparently neither.

Well sure it slowed down. This is precisely what sets General
Relativity apart from Special Relativity.. or rather what *expands
upon* SR and its mandate of universal c-invariance. Traversing a
gravity well, a ray of star light deflects twice as much as it
'should' under the Newtonian model of gravity and the prediction of
SR. Why is this so? Obviously it spent more time in traversing the
gravity well than it 'should'. To wit, it slowed down. Then sped up
again upon exiting the gravity well. This prompted Einstein's seminal
statement:

"According to the (radically new) General Theory of Relativity, the
law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which
constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the Special
Theory of Relativity.. cannot claim unlimited validity. A curvature of
rays of light can only take place when the *velocity of propagation*
varies with position (in traversing a gravity well)."

With that observation, SR and lightspeed-invariance became a wholly
owned subsidiary of GR. GR became the natural extension/expansion of
SR.

Ripley's believe it or not, there's still some controversy
about all this. There are some scientists who believe
that Eddington's and later similar findings had errors
that were intolerable. That any such repositioning of
the starlight could have other, non-relativistic reasons.

And then there's the physicist's explanation of the
acceleration of a vectorial quantity. If the starlight ray
curves (changes direction) then the light is "accelerated"
whether or not the speed (magnitude) changes. The
speed can stay exactly the same, but as long as at least
the direction has changed, then the light is "accelerated".

So when Einstein said, ". . . A curvature of rays of light
can only take place when the *velocity of propagation*
varies with position (in traversing a gravity well)," even
he did not necessarily mean that the magnitude (speed)
must change, just the "direction". The velocity of the
propagation varies with changes in magnitude AND/OR
changes in direction.



But it only *described* the observation. It did not _explain_ it.

The next extension/expansion of Relativity itself is to _explain the
mechanism_ of why lightspeed varies as it does.

And that mechanism is the changing density (or PDT value) of the very
real spatial medium itself. The deeper you descend in a gravity well,
the less dense the spatial medium becomes, hence the slower
propagation speed of light therein.

Conversely, looking back closer and closer toward the Big Bang
("playing the tape backwards"), the more dense the spatial medium
becomes, and the higher the speed of light therein. This is the
*cosmological density gradient* and what Wolter called 'c-dilation'.
But the speed of light is always constant *locally* at any point
across the gradient. The constancy of the speed of light is never
violated *locally*, the Lorentz invariance is never violated, nor is
any other constant for that matter. The prime variable is the density
(PDT value) of the spatial medium itself climbing exponentially back
toward the BB. And as you pointed out previously, space itself
contracts concomitantly with the climbing PDT value.

Then, on top of everything else, you read that space
is expanding at an accelerated rate of speed.

That's the grand illusion of the Void-Space Paradigm which deems space
a universally-isotropic 'Nothing' all the way back to the BB, having
no concept of the cosmological density gradient.

And it's sometimes very hard to understand how so
many cosmologists can appear to remain unflustered
by all this.

Maybe it's like the holy man who, by day, preaches
devoutly to glassy-eyed followers from a holy book
written long ago, and then by night he sits alone in
his room knowing somewhere deep down inside that
he doesn't really have a clue that he's right about all
that. I guess some people will believe just about
anything if it is told to them by someone they trust.

Belief is an important feeling, but is it ever enough?
Evidence is a very important basis for belief, but this
can also not be enough if the evidence is subject to
interpretation, possibly false interpretation. It always
makes me secretly wonder if truth -- i mean real and
factual and TRUE truth -- is ever possible to attain in
the more flustering science disciplines.

One simple adjustment to the sitting paradigm is all it would take to
set it straight -- replace the 'void' of space with the Plenum of
space, recognizing it for what it demonstrates itself to be - the
dynamic, highly mobile Fluid that's compressible/expansible and
amenable to density (PDT) gradients.
And recognize its property of 'hyperfluidity', that
being itself inertia-less and frictionless, confers upon matter the
properties of of inertia and momentum.. which is directly responsible
for gravity-acceleration equivalence, the key to the mechanism of
gravity itself : gravity is the effect upon matter of
**accelerating**, flowing space.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine Ellsworth

P.S.: Thank *YOU* for reading!

P.P.S.: http://yummycake.secretsgolden.com
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com
http://painellsworth.net

A microwave transmission waveguide or RF conduit/coax diverts and/or
essentially delays the wave-front propagation or initial throughput of
photons, similar to the physical but clear conduit or waveguide
density of pure diamond causing the propagation of photons to slow way
down to roughly 40%’c’. Those tightly packed atoms of carbon
obviously takes a little atom by atom FIFO doings in order for those
photons to safely navigate or tunnel their way through the highly atom
populated gauntlet of what diamond represents.

With as few as one atom/km3, as within the near absolute vacuum of
intergalactic space is offering those same photons the least number of
atom FIFO nodes to contend with, thereby achieving nearly 300,000 km/
s, or theoretically 300,000 atoms encountered per second. In other
words, the fewer the atoms, the faster becomes the velocity or
propagation of the photon.

~ BG

Since NO ONE agrees with BradBoi, the answer is NO, Jeff! lmao!

Does even BEERTbrain agree with the BradBoi?

Saul Levy


On 14 Sep 2008 22:36:23 GMT, Jeff?Relf
wrote:

On Sep 14, 5:12 pm, Saul Levy wrote:
Since NO ONE agrees with BradBoi, the answer is NO, Jeff! lmao!

Does even BEERTbrain agree with the BradBoi?

Saul Levy

On 14 Sep 2008 22:36:23 GMT, Jeff?Relf
wrote:

You finally got my attention. I hope you're happy.

the answer is yes, as I've met many kind Jewish persons that wouldn't
so much a hurt a Muslim flea, or any other faith-based kind of flea.
On the other hand, I don't care one damn bit about the incest mutated
likes of yourself or those of your cabal/cartel Mafioso kind (terribly
sorry about that).

As far as I can tell, you wouldn't dare slander Hitler, or any other
warlord that's doing your dirty work.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG

On Sep 14, 2:46*pm, "Painius" wrote:
"oldcoot" wrote :

Well sure it slowed down. This is precisely what sets General
Relativity apart from Special Relativity.. or rather what *expands
upon* SR and its mandate of universal c-invariance. Traversing a
gravity well, a ray of star light deflects twice as much as it
'should' under the Newtonian model of gravity and the prediction of
SR. Why is this so? Obviously it spent more time in traversing the
gravity well than it 'should'. To wit, it slowed down. Then sped up
again upon exiting the gravity well. This prompted Einstein's seminal
statement:

"According to the (radically new) General Theory of Relativity, the
law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which
constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the Special
Theory of Relativity.. cannot claim unlimited validity. A curvature of
rays of light can only take place when the *velocity of propagation*
varies with position (in traversing a gravity well)."

With that observation, SR and lightspeed-invariance became a wholly
owned subsidiary of GR. GR became the natural extension/expansion of
SR.

Ripley's believe it or not, there's still some controversy
about all this. *There are some scientists who believe
that Eddington's and later similar findings had errors
that were intolerable. *That any such repositioning of
the starlight could have other, non-relativistic reasons.

And then there's the physicist's explanation of the
acceleration of a vectorial quantity. *If the starlight ray
curves (changes direction) then the light is "accelerated"
whether or not the speed (magnitude) changes. *The
speed can stay exactly the same, but as long as at least
the direction has changed, then the light is "accelerated".

So when Einstein said, ". . . A curvature of rays of light
can only take place when the *velocity of propagation*
varies with position (in traversing a gravity well)," even
he did not necessarily mean that the magnitude (speed)
must change, just the "direction". *The velocity of the
propagation varies with changes in magnitude AND/OR
changes in direction.

Excellent discussion of it here -
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/200...on-at-sun.html

The consensus is that a *drop in the speed light* as it traverses a
gravity well is indeed what causes the Einsteinian deflection to be
twice what Newtonian gravity would predict. When you stop to think
about it, it's a known fact that the clock rate slows with descent
into a gravity well (e.g., Pound-Rebka). And at the event horizon of a
BH, it's assumed the clock rate will slow to zero (as observed from
our frame 'out here'). So why would the speed of light *not* vary
concomitantly with the clock rate (as observed from 'out here')?...
bearing in mind that the speed of light and the clock rate are always
constant *locally* at any point in a gravity well.

Painius wrote:

Thank you, Greg! Your response helps to relieve
the frustration a good deal. Arrogance-free and
matter-of-fact answers are always appreciated!

I'm wondering... Do you think there might be a
way to sense the accelerating expansion (or any
other type of state) of the Universe on a local,
observable, perhaps even measurable level?

I won't say no; too many have fallen into the trap of
making a hard and fast prediction based upon current
science and technology and had their statements
proven shortsighted by new developments or changes
in paradigm.

What I will say, though, is that it seems unlikely right
now that any local measurement (that is, a measurment of
and within a small local region of space, say on the
order of a laboratory or even the solar system) will
be able to directly observe the accelerated expansion;
it would be a very, very small effect on the local scale,
and all the local stuff is gravitationally bound. Further,
our current model tells us that we are comoving with our
local region of space (what's called the Hubble Flow).


It just seems as if this ought to be possible, if not
now, then some time in the future. And i just
wonder how it might be done?

Without reference to far off, back in time objects, or
new physics, I couldn't say. Maybe the new generations of
particle accelerators will turn up some novel physics to
give us a hint.

On Sep 14, 5:50*pm, "Greg Neill" wrote:

What I will say, though, is that it seems unlikely right
now that any local measurement (that is, a measurment of
and within a small local region of space, say on the
order of a laboratory or even the solar system) will
be able to directly observe the accelerated expansion;
it would be a very, very small effect on the local scale,
and all the local stuff is gravitationally bound.

There wouldn't be *any* effect expected within gravitationally bound
stuff, up to the level of galactic groups.

*Further,
our current model tells us that we are comoving with our
local region of space (what's called the Hubble Flow).

OK, so within our local region of the supercluster field, between
structures *not* gravitationally bound and comoving with the Hubble
Flow, there should be evidence of accelerating expansion *if*
accelerating expansion is occuring here, now, in present time. There
should be excess redshifting evident here locally, over and above the
Hubble Constant. But there isn't. The only evidence *being interpreted
as* accelerating expansion is in deep-past lookback where the 1a
supernova 'standard candles' are appearing dimmer than they 'should
be'.

On Sep 14, 5:44 pm, oldcoot wrote:
On Sep 14, 2:46 pm, "Painius" wrote:

"oldcoot" wrote :

Well sure it slowed down. This is precisely what sets General
Relativity apart from Special Relativity.. or rather what *expands
upon* SR and its mandate of universal c-invariance. Traversing a
gravity well, a ray of star light deflects twice as much as it
'should' under the Newtonian model of gravity and the prediction of
SR. Why is this so? Obviously it spent more time in traversing the
gravity well than it 'should'. To wit, it slowed down. Then sped up
again upon exiting the gravity well. This prompted Einstein's seminal
statement:

"According to the (radically new) General Theory of Relativity, the
law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which
constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the Special
Theory of Relativity.. cannot claim unlimited validity. A curvature of
rays of light can only take place when the *velocity of propagation*
varies with position (in traversing a gravity well)."

With that observation, SR and lightspeed-invariance became a wholly
owned subsidiary of GR. GR became the natural extension/expansion of
SR.

Ripley's believe it or not, there's still some controversy
about all this. There are some scientists who believe
that Eddington's and later similar findings had errors
that were intolerable. That any such repositioning of
the starlight could have other, non-relativistic reasons.

And then there's the physicist's explanation of the
acceleration of a vectorial quantity. If the starlight ray
curves (changes direction) then the light is "accelerated"
whether or not the speed (magnitude) changes. The
speed can stay exactly the same, but as long as at least
the direction has changed, then the light is "accelerated".

So when Einstein said, ". . . A curvature of rays of light
can only take place when the *velocity of propagation*
varies with position (in traversing a gravity well)," even
he did not necessarily mean that the magnitude (speed)
must change, just the "direction". The velocity of the
propagation varies with changes in magnitude AND/OR
changes in direction.

Excellent discussion of it here -http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/light-deflection-at-sun.html

The consensus is that a *drop in the speed light* as it traverses a
gravity well is indeed what causes the Einsteinian deflection to be
twice what Newtonian gravity would predict. When you stop to think
about it, it's a known fact that the clock rate slows with descent
into a gravity well (e.g., Pound-Rebka). And at the event horizon of a
BH, it's assumed the clock rate will slow to zero (as observed from
our frame 'out here'). So why would the speed of light *not* vary
concomitantly with the clock rate (as observed from 'out here')?...
bearing in mind that the speed of light and the clock rate are always
constant *locally* at any point in a gravity well.

The further away from a gravity well, the fewer atoms/km3.

Any change in perceived velocity = change in trajectory.

At the maximum uncompressed atomic density of diamond, light travels
at roughly 40% the vacuum accommodated velocity of light.

~ BG