/sci/ - Science & Math

The way I see it there are 3 possibilities.
1: our galaxy is not moving but is stationary at the center of the universe
Probably false
2: our galaxy is not orbiting anything, just drifting outward from the center of the universe
3: our galaxy is orbiting the center of the universe, and is being pulled on by galaxies around it that disrupt the orbit slightly.

Never studied shit, just thoughts.

>>7152432
1. YOU are the center of the universe at all times, literally.
2. Our galaxy is just part of the Virgo cluster of galaxies, and that is part of the Virgo superclusters. After that, the universe takes on a sort of web-like shape.
3. No

I agree with the 3rd possibility.
But even then what's at the Center. An intelligent force or just simply an outward expansion?

>>7152443
>what's at the center
>an intelligent force
kek that's one way to describe it

>>7152449
What's your opinion

>>7152452
It's my opinion that the placement and movement of our galaxy relative to other bodies in the universe is not an opinion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rENyyRwxpHo

Try seeking current information instead of asking for opinions.

>>7152432
>>7152443
It's not orbiting...

>>7152439
This man, is a good man.

So the following was answered: The Milky Way has a pull, and it is the Great Attracter. Which pulls galaxies in this supercluster, aka Laniakea.

I did seek current information. My asking for an opinion led to your pathetic self giving me an answer.

Thanks

>>7152443
If it is an intelligent force, don't give it a spaceship.
Seriously, what does god need with a spaceship?

>>7152455
First I am told the universe is cyclical and will collapse into a big bang killing everyone. Then I am told there was a small error and it is really expanding and we are going to die from heat death. Then I am told that that was all a misunderstanding and we are just going to all collapse into a black-hole and die. Then I see this pretty picture showing none of the above.

Would someone please tell me what is really going on?

At this point I say why not have it as a giant rotation toroidal shape so half is expanding out of itself and the other half is collapsing into a single point.

This idea satisfies everyone. The expansion group have the expanding half, the contraction group have there half. And the depressed apocalypse group can argue it is a giant treadmill of death killing any civilization that fails to migrate fast enough to avoid being sucked in. This would also explain why there are no alien civilizations to be found solving Fermi paradox and give others an explanation as to why the current set of planets is so young.

So really everyone gets what they want if this idea of mine is true. Now let go prove I am right with science!

>>7152557
You got lotsa misconceptions there homedog. Firstly, cosmological evolution is a pretty hypothesis-driven field. Not to discredit it, but no one know what's going to happen to the universe in like, 10^10 years. We simply don't have the tools to predict that far into the future. So don't let anyone "tell" you anything like that. It's just a highly educated guess.

Now, the first thing you mention is the big bang. It has to be noted that he big bang is only a theory on the origin of the universe. It doesn't necessarily tell us much about how the universe will end, save for a few details. Firstly, the big bang is given some credence by the fact that Hubble noticed that galaxies seem to be speeding away from one another in a somewhat-radially outward direction. That is to say that other galaxies don't seem to be travelling very parallel to us. Now, through gravitation and such we will wind up on collision courses with other galaxies (Andromeda I believe is supposed to join us in a few million years), which you've probably heard too. This is to say that the majority of the galaxies we see appear to be receding from us, which we can tell by a process known as red-shifting, which is an optical phenomenon analogous to sonic Doppler effect. This gives rise to the idea of heat death, where everything moves out into total isolation so that eventually, everything is so spread out you wouldn't see two bodies (at the atomic level at the time of heat death) interact for thousands of years because the distances between them are simply mind boggling.

So that's heat death; so much space literally nothing can go on; the universe fades to background static.

Now, heat death also includes the possibility that over the course of time, most matter will be sucked into black holes, as their mean lifetimes (calculated using statistical physics) go somewhere on the order of 10^78 years.

A similar theory, but not exactly the same, is the theory of the Big Crunch. Cont->

>>7153464
The Big Crunch basically arises at the back end of the Big Bang because if you imagine you have a bomb in space, then set it off, all the pieces will travel outwards radially; normally, they would simply go off towards infinity until a greater gravitational mass attracts them. However, if these were the only objects in the universe, they would all exert a non-zero force on one another, resulting in a non-zero acceleration towards each other, or more accurately, towards their center of mass. Now, you need simply imagine that the Big Bang is that bomb, and that the chunks of the bomb are all the matter in the universe. Same logic applies, but takes millions of years to accomplish.

However, one of the issues currently with the Big Crunch is that galaxies appear to be moving away from one another at an increasing rate, meaning it doesn't appear that gravity is slowing them down, as we think it would. This is where the argument of "dark energy" comes into play. But that's a little outside the scope of this here talk.

I think that's a good starting point for this conversation. Just remember, all of this is theoretical. We can't prove with 100% certainty that any of these above ideas will be the end of the universe, but it's in our nature to pontificate on them. And don't worry yourself too much about them, there are things in the universe that pose a much greater threat to us than the universe's, as ironic as that sounds.

Go ahead and ask moar though, I love cosmology

>>7153472
Also, in the first paragraph at the end when I say "millions of years to accomplish" that should say billions (trillions possibly).

>>7153472
Well that is a nice recap of what people have told me. But you left off the version were we go crunch, bang, crunch, bang...

I just made up my own version, not based on observations but on resolving as many questions and political matters as neatly as possible. That is to say it has no basis on how the system works, but how we would like it to work in a half believable fashion given our very limited knowledge.

Of course my other idea was that all these movements are just galaxies bobbing on huge gravity waves so big we can't detect them.

Oh, I am so adding that to my other idea.

But then there is that issues of dark matter and energy which are really just mathematics place holders to make things nice. As to if they are real, well? Who knows?
I think I will just call it higher dimensional interference and leave for the time being.

>>7153472
>galaxies appear to be moving away from one another at an increasing rate
how is this possible? Wouldn't they eventually exceed the speed of light?

>>7153661
Oh the oscillatory universe? I mean combine the Big Bang and the Big Crunch and have it happen over and over again. Not that hard to extrapolate.

>>7153691
Can and do. It has to do with what's called "recession velocity" and it's a hard to explain part of cosmology. Basically, there are parts of spacetime that expand outwards faster than the speed of light (which is how we get around special relativity; can't violate the cosmic speed limit if you're the road itself). So it's not necessarily that the galaxies are travelling with a velocity greater than the speed of light, they're just "moving" away faster than the speed of light. Semantics, right?

>>7153691
No. Say, for example, that the rate of recession at distance x is v = c - e^-x.

>>7153691
Most of the universe already is, in fact.

Relativity's fine with this. FTL travel's only a problem with relativity if you're moving faster than the speed of light *locally* - this isn't quite right[1] but you can kind of think of it as "you can't move faster than light relative to the space you're in right now."

Because in cosmic expansion, space itself is doing the expanding, no individual chunk of matter is actually moving faster than light within that space. Think of dots on a balloon, moving apart as the balloon inflates; the dots themselves are stationary, but they're still getting further apart.

This same principle is the idea behind the "warp drive" pop science has been hyping up lately.

[1] in fact, it's very importantly wrong

>>7153889
the distinction i was taught was that you can't move THROUGH space-time at FTL speeds.

but space-time itself can move as fast as it wants

>>7153889
>"you can't move faster than light relative to the space you're in right now."
so possible or impossible to get the space to move how you want?

The theory is that there exists a supermassive black hole at the center of every galaxy, even in our Milky way. These can be detected, and this is what we are spiraling around.

>>7153900
look into the hypothesized "warp bubble"

>>7153900
To get space to move faster than light, you need to violate the various "energy conditions."

Although we're pretty sure these are just rules of thumb instead of actual physical laws - for instance, cosmological inflation obviously violates them, and that definitely exists - we don't know of any way to break them intentionally.

(Matter which violates the various energy conditions is known as "exotic matter")

>>7152426
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSt7SVHw-wE