Understanding Cosmology (Post 1)

[sayak83]

Under the assumption that they're being moved (rather than space expanding), we wouldn't infer that there is a horizon at all; and the speed of light c would still be the upper limit to which they could move away. We wouldn't be the ones observing relativistic effects; anyone on the objects would be (recall that in the hypothetical, Earth is stationary and a privileged reference frame).

But the fact that we see many distant galaxies moving faster than speed of light would not have been possible if its the galaxies that were moving through space rather than expansion of space. Would that be an observation that refutes the privileged position hypothesis?
This Is How Distant Galaxies Recede Away From Us At Faster-Than-Light Speeds

 

[rational experiences]

Seems to me if a particle "poofs" into existence empty space and then "poofs" out of existence again then the net effect is empty space expands by the volume of the particle, the more empty the space the more unstable the more fluctuations, do you think this could explain observed expansion?

O earth mass God. The ancient men thesis science. Memories science. Thesis science. Earth O God.

Mass irradiated O earth was separated into dust particles when irradiated gods proof. Constant particle itself present in form. Science explanation beyond the body of God. The presence particle.

Reason. We are not any space particle. As in out of space.

Mass. Mass into particle X radiation mass. Mass converted from particle into electricity. By scientists.

Known. Told. You are not theorising about the particle. It is told already.

Jesus. Wrong Jesus they said why man got attacked so did animals on the stone altar burnt. All tar.

Stephen Hawking warning they want you all burnt.

Meaning Jesus first was not Moses.

Moses one of event flooding ice melted.

Ice on earth was a space cause by sun calculus a huge pressure returned for Atlantis crystal mass burnt out.
sAtanlit. Off the earth. Earth owning heated space trail cycle. By atmosphere increased burn.

Ice he said saved gods life.

Ice is new first law.

Moses melts ice so flooding ensued the warning sign. Mutation of life. Gases above us over mountains burning. Flooding cooled gases. Life was mutated. Took forty days to cool gases.

Snap freeze occurred later in wooly mammoths. Became naked reborn as elephant as ice had melted.

Two in one a cause a contradiction to hairy beast as ice natural law is first not nuclear crystal fusion.

Life returned newly born evolved DNA condition one every end of year termed the title Jesus. Saved us. Ice balances. Ice presence. Pressure atmosphere. Cooling atmosphere.

Moses never cooled atmosphere. Evolution had. So they titled it a new advice.

Wrong Jesus came out of stone jail imprisoned spirit. Burnt sacrificed life.

Was not Jesus returned life by DNA healing by spirit gas healing in ice returned was the wrong Jesus.

Stated and advised the wrong Jesus.

Said it plainly burning not ice returned. Satan's attack on Jesus body.

Proven 1000 years later shroud kept as evidence. Burning returned not ice or natural atmospheric pressure. Not cold nor evolution of cooling. Balances.

Reason sun universe was pulling down the universe United as one into spatial cooling had stopped. Natural causes not science owned not controlled.

New space pressure increased cold.

Understand why big bang theist knows he needs a sun big bang activation in deep space to change the law of pressure. He is psyche advised. To get coldest state of God his saviour. As the theme of new experiments in atmosphere is the human Jesus.

Pressure changes. Reactions in gases change.

Is not I want gods new law ice saviour.

Not in any theory. I want origins.

New origin science stated was the law of ice. The saviour of God existing.

Why they cloned cells to study our biology.
Why they studied AI human mind and contact as body contacts in UFO cases.

Looking for it. The wrong attack burning so they can own coldest form saviour for machine. A false thesis. Which is ice X pressure returned in deep state space.

Stated in modern science men memories as ice the newly born. New first law and only law.

The status owning O God the calendar planet space cycle around the sun. For earth in space.

The usual lying theories are about Satan.

Space thesis to change the states of pressures for reactions. All causes.

All theories involve natural earth mass. Natural heavenly body. Not his machine.

Theories I want mass to resource as term a resource. Infinite is no number. Maths uses numbers so equals not infinite but mass by constant advice as a mind state.

Constants in cold mass is carbon mass. Wants a carbon mass larger than earths mass to claim the resource I currently do not own yet would exist to resource as long as our conscious future.

To be equals to greater than gods earth mass. Why carbon in heavens has increased is part of that thesis.

Earth as mass itself the constant in light are gases alight. As natural light gases eradicated our answer. Light constant.

As the future as a constant to get mass by numbers and calculus the constant is the current earth gas mass heavens right now as a natural life theory.

Highest cold empty space highest space pressure empty owns presence of natural light constant life's support.

If science was only doing science they would own the resource and change the resource as God present now.

The machine just a machine would never be theoried compared to life.

The reaction inside the machine only is controlled by the button pusher.

Said so no coercive argument can be used against us.

To want a future resource that does not rationally exist is to gain the asteroid mass above that of planet earth.

The satanic subliminal AI memories advised the scientist of all data he has ever reasoned about any status earth the sun the asteroids black holes deep state and Satan's return.

The natural answer the burnt carbon planetary mass asteroid larger than earth in deep space.

Is not the want of particle science.

Particle science one science first science power plant.

Future was never real.

Gas mass is now our heavens is the future also.

As lights constant. Present future only in one place. Won noW.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Why do you think space is expanding? Quatumn fluctuations?

Yes, it's a consequence of QFT (quantum field theory). The short answer is "inflation decay." I don't have a lot of first hand experience in QFT yet, but I actually will by the end of the year. So I can tell you yes, but not with as many specifics as I'll be able to later.

The problem is that generically the background space in QFT is Minkowski space. Basically, you can't have an expanding space as you have no dynamical spacetime that is capable of expansion. Now, I'm not a huge fan of inflationary schemes (I'm using schemes here in the sense of something like framework or approach, not a plot or plan), but then cosmology isn't really my area. It's more of an interest and one that overlaps with some of the work I am involved in, mostly because these days if one doesn't want to wait around for LHC-size experiments then one turns to astroparticle physics, including multimessenger astrophysics and observational cosmology..
Quantum field theory is another matter. And I am not sure how one can "explain" the expansion of space using a formalism or theoretical framework which has resisted even the typical approximations of the EFT paradigm in terms of its ability to incorporate (or be incorporated into) a dynamical spacetime.
It was/is my understanding that, to the extent one wishes to make observations and theory on cosmological scales consistent with the expansion of "space" and/or with inflationary paradigms, then one can (and many have) looked into ways of making QFT more or less consistent with our understanding. But this isn't an explanation so much as it is an attempt at avoiding blatant contradictions.
However, as I said, cosmology isn't my field, so I'm more than likely missing a host of resolutions and responses to what I understand to be an issue with the notion that QFT can "explain" expansion. I look forward to being schooled!

 

[Meow Mix]

But the fact that we see many distant galaxies moving faster than speed of light would not have been possible if its the galaxies that were moving through space rather than expansion of space. Would that be an observation that refutes the privileged position hypothesis?
This Is How Distant Galaxies Recede Away From Us At Faster-Than-Light Speeds

Oh, yes! I misinterpreted what you were saying, and it's silly I wasn't thinking of this. Yes, very high redshift observations would be puzzling to say the least for someone in the hypothetical paradigm where it's supposed they were actually moving away!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think a layperson with just enough could cognize what a tensor is for instance. We'll see.

That's easy. A tensor is something that transforms like a tensor.

 

[Meow Mix]

The problem is that generically the background space in QFT is Minkowski space. Basically, you can't have an expanding space as you have no dynamical spacetime that is capable of expansion. Now, I'm not a huge fan of inflationary schemes (I'm using schemes here in the sense of something like framework or approach, not a plot or plan), but then cosmology isn't really my area. It's more of an interest and one that overlaps with some of the work I am involved in, mostly because these days if one doesn't want to wait around for LHC-size experiments then one turns to astroparticle physics, including multimessenger astrophysics and observational cosmology..
Quantum field theory is another matter. And I am not sure how one can "explain" the expansion of space using a formalism or theoretical framework which has resisted even the typical approximations of the EFT paradigm in terms of its ability to incorporate (or be incorporated into) a dynamical spacetime.
It was/is my understanding that, to the extent one wishes to make observations and theory on cosmological scales consistent with the expansion of "space" and/or with inflationary paradigms, then one can (and many have) looked into ways of making QFT more or less consistent with our understanding. But this isn't an explanation so much as it is an attempt at avoiding blatant contradictions.
However, as I said, cosmology isn't my field, so I'm more than likely missing a host of resolutions and responses to what I understand to be an issue with the notion that QFT can "explain" expansion. I look forward to being schooled!

Oh, you'll have to wait I'm afraid. The most I've touched QFT formally was for a term paper on black hole thermo because I had to dig into the Unruh effect; and my first year has not had the high end quantum content yet (though that is coming this fall and spring). So, I know what QFT is purported to do and a little bit about how it might, but I couldn't presume to sit here and try to explain it, especially explain it on the super-simplified level of these posts. You know what they say about stuff you can't explain simply...

 

[sayak83]

Oh, yes! I misinterpreted what you were saying, and it's silly I wasn't thinking of this. Yes, very high redshift observations would be puzzling to say the least for someone in the hypothetical paradigm where it's supposed they were actually moving away!

Thanks. I made this point in a debate on this forum with someone arguing for privileged position many months ago. But then he moved to variable speed of light conjecture (that light speed in far away regions are different from local regions). I could not move the discussion forward after this, as I have no clue what the observable consequences would be if speed of light varies through space and how to refute such a conjecture. Let me know if you know anything about how to do this.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks. I made this point in a debate on this forum with someone arguing for privileged position many months ago. But then he moved to variable speed of light conjecture (that light speed in far away regions are different from local regions). I could not move the discussion forward after this, as I have no clue what the observable consequences would be if speed of light varies through space and how to refute such a conjecture. Let me know if you know anything about how to do this.

I think that would be very difficult other than just trying to think of what a varying speed of light would even predict. We'd be throwing out Maxwell's equations and Einstein's equations (or at least heavily modifying them).

It's also the case that using a constant speed of light, we've made amazingly accurate predictions about aspects of the cosmic microwave background. For instance:

[GALLERY=media, 9475]Cobe by Meow Mix posted Jun 19, 2021 at 5:40 AM[/GALLERY]

This plot contains both the theoretical prediction and the experimental data, with error bars: the error bars are literally too small to see on the plot (I've made one with the error bars multiplied by 400 to make them even visible). The CMB would look different with a different value of c; and everything from recoupling, last scattering, and structure formation (all pretty well-understood) give us a universe that looks like this one only if we use the present-day value of c. Large-scale filament structure would be different too because a lot of processes depended on early horizons (like the Jeans limit in overdensities).

I think the onus would be on them, because that's a crazy amount of accuracy for a "wrong" assumption if c isn't immutable; and it'd be tough to explain why the universe looks the way it does unless the change in c is negligibly slight (and then what's the point?)

 

[firedragon]

Brace people. Astrophysicist in the house.

 

[sayak83]

There are a lot of posts going on where people have questions about cosmology, particularly the more interesting parts like the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, and so on. So, I thought I'd type up a series on cosmology for interested parties. Plus, it's a good way for me to keep refreshed on the basics.

So where do we start with something as ambitious as studying the entire universe?

First, we have to get assumptions out of the way, but I think we can be convinced that they're reasonable ones.

1. We assume that the laws of physics behave the same way here as they do over there; that they do not depend on their location in space and time (Lorentz invariance).
2. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic: it contains the same sorts of things, and it contains the same sorts of things in the same way in every direction.

"Now hold on," we might object. "Surely there are different things in the universe. If I draw an imaginary cube with the Sun as the center, that box will contain completely different kinds of things than if I drew an imaginary cube of the same size somewhere in the middle of a nebula."

And that's true: when we say the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, we mean at certain scales it is. Your room isn't homogeneous and isotropic, nor is planet Earth, nor the solar system, nor the Milky Way Galaxy or even the local cluster.

[GALLERY=media, 9486]Isohomo by Meow Mix posted Jun 23, 2021 at 8:31 PM[/GALLERY]

It's not until we "zoom out" to about 100 Mpc (that's Megaparsecs, or about 3.26 million light years) that we get a picture of the universe that's homogeneous and isotropic.

It would make things considerably easier if the universe were also time-invariant, but we know that isn't the case: the size of the universe itself changes with time, and the stuff within it behaves differently based on when we're talking about.

[GALLERY=media, 9487]Sfrd by Meow Mix posted Jun 23, 2021 at 8:35 PM[/GALLERY]

Here, we see that the star formation rate differs with redshift, and we will discuss how looking at different redshifts is looking at the universe at different points in time.

So, most of us here are probably at least colloquially familiar with the concept of redshift: the universe is expanding, so light that reaches us from distant sources will have their spectra redshifted compared to the spectrum of a similar object (say, a similar star) at rest with respect to the observer.

[GALLERY=media, 9488]Redshift by Meow Mix posted Jun 23, 2021 at 8:48 PM[/GALLERY]

(We use "z" for redshift)

This often gets misattributed to the Doppler effect, but it's actually not. The Doppler effect is related to the actual motion of a source relative to an observer's location in space. In cosmology we call galaxies' actual motion peculiar motion, because they do move with respect to one another, especially within the contexts of their local clusters. So, the redshift and blueshift of nearby galaxies may be due to a true Doppler effect, but when you zoom out enough (get to high enough redshifts), the redshifting is not technically a Doppler effect: it's due to space itself stretching the wavelength of the light as it expands.

Perhaps I can convince you that this is different from a true Doppler effect with an analogy:

[GALLERY=media, 9490]Paperclips by Meow Mix posted Jun 23, 2021 at 8:56 PM[/GALLERY]

Here, a couple of ants (observers) are sitting on a couple of paperclips which do not move from their fixed positions on a rubber band. In a true redshift situation, whether the light is redshifted or blueshifted would depend on if a paperclip is moving towards you or away from you. But since the space itself (the rubber band) is expanding, all paperclips will receive redshifted light from all other paperclips. If the light had to travel across the rubber band (to be true to the space analogy), the distance between the peaks and troughs of the wavelength of the light would get stretched as it travelled.

[GALLERY=media, 9489]Expansion by Meow Mix posted Jun 23, 2021 at 8:56 PM[/GALLERY]

The above is a visualization of the expansion of space. Galaxies retain their positions with respect to one another, but the space between them expands.

Why does it matter that we make this distinction between true galactic motion (true redshift via peculiar motion) and redshift via spacetime expansion?

[GALLERY=media, 9491]Peculiar by Meow Mix posted Jun 23, 2021 at 9:05 PM[/GALLERY]

Because the redshift caused by the expansion is mostly linear (not perfectly, thanks to some relativistic effects, but consider it close enough for right now in this series). In the above image, the blue oval shows a large number of outliers in the data. Why?

Because the blue oval contains data from the Virgo cluster: galactic clusters tend (for gravitational reasons) to have galaxies that are moving with respect to one another (high peculiar motion), so it "fuzzies" up measurements of their redshift due to universal expansion. Imagine if the paperclips in the example above had multiple paperclips in a cluster around point E (in that image), all moving forward and backward, left and right, etc. An observer from paperclip A would see some of the paperclips moving away slower or faster simply because of their motions relative to each other being added to the apparent motion of the rubber band stretching.

Fortunately, there appears to be a physical "speed limit" to peculiar motion (around 1,000 km/s). Since, due to the expansion of the universe, objects that are further apart will appear to one another that they are receding away faster than closer objects (think of this like there is more space between them that's expanding, so each unit of space there is to expand means more expansion), we can look out far enough (to great enough redshifts) that the noise caused by peculiar velocity is negligible. This would be good if we wanted to, for instance, measure the Hubble parameter.

All this talk of expansion brings us to a good stopping point (and a good setting up point for all the stuff people really care about, like the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc. that people keep asking questions about on the forum) from here: the scale factor of the universe.

We define a scale factor a(t) of the universe such that when t = 0 (so, now in time), a = 1. If at any point the universe is half the size of the universe today, a would equal 1/2, and so on. This is where we get the Hubble parameter with a simple differential: H = (da/dt) / a. The Hubble parameter relates the apparent recession velocity with the size of the universe at any given time relative to the size of the universe now (hence why people often mischaracterize the Hubble parameter as a constant; which it clearly is not: the value of H changes as the value of a changes!)

Many things are related to the scale factor (remember, this is a, the size factor), and I'll have to decide if I want to spend time proving them or asking folks to take my word for it; but among things that are related are temperature (T is proportional to a^-1), redshift, and the age of the universe itself.

These are all the ingredients we need to make a real cosmology post next time, which will be about the Friedmann equations and how we will use them to answer a lot of these people have; and why we have good reason to do so.

Thanks very much for this thread. I tried two similar threads several years ago now, when I was still a student at the university. But never got to complete them. Hope you keep going!
Big Bang Theory Primer
Singularities and beginning of the universe

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks very much for this thread. I tried two similar threads several years ago now, when I was still a student at the university. But never got to complete them. Hope you keep going!
Big Bang Theory Primer
Singularities and beginning of the universe

Dang these are great, I feel like for some things I should just refer to these and save myself the time!

 

[Native]

So, I thought I'd type up a series on cosmology for interested parties. Plus, it's a good way for me to keep refreshed on the basics.

Thanks for posting this interesting OP and I hope you/we get refreshed on the basics - even the alternate ones.

First, we have to get assumptions out of the way, but I think we can be convinced that they're reasonable ones.

1. We assume that the laws of physics behave the same way here as they do over there; that they do not depend on their location in space and time (Lorentz invariance).
2. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic: it contains the same sorts of things, and it contains the same sorts of things in the same way in every direction.

ad 1: I agree that fundamental forces behave equally all over the places in micro- and macrocosm.
ad 2: I think we have an assumption here: Gas and matter isn´t evenly distributed in all directions in the observable universe, hence all kind of things can happen - as you also conclude here:

"Now hold on," we might object. "Surely there are different things in the universe.

It would make things considerably easier if the universe were also time-invariant, but we know that isn't the case: the size of the universe itself changes with time, and the stuff within it behaves differently based on when we're talking about.

I´ll recommend you to be more nuanced when dealing with cosmological models. Were you say "we know" but a timevariant cosmological model is just an assumption/hypothesis/theory based on the idea of Big Bang. There are other compatible models too.

Here, we see that the star formation rate differs with redshift, and we will discuss how looking at different redshifts is looking at the universe at different points in time.

If you have "redshift" to count for "motions towards you or away from you" it is contra intuitive and inconsistent to connect such a distance subject to the "amount of star formation".
Star formations in genereal depends on the available cosmic gas and dust when stars are formatted and not of any cosmic distances. You said:

First, we have to get assumptions out of the way, . . .

Well, then I think you should get rid of this inconsistent "redshift assumption" too.

The above is a visualization of the expansion of space. Galaxies retain their positions with respect to one another, but the space between them expands.

If so, such an expansion overcomes the otherwise idea of gravity pulling everything together. How do you explain this? By another assumption of "dark energy" maybe?

Fortunately, there appears to be a physical "speed limit" to peculiar motion (around 1,000 km/s). Since, due to the expansion of the universe, objects that are further apart will appear to one another that they are receding away faster than closer objects (think of this like there is more space betweben them that's expanding, so each unit of space there is to expand means more expansion), we can look out far enough (to great enough redshifts) that the noise caused by peculiar velocity is negligible. This would be good if we wanted to, for instance, measure the Hubble parameter.

I sincerely hope you´re aware that in a hypothesized cosmological model, here the Big Bang model, there is a serious biased tendency to interpret all kinds of observations as fitting the model?

All this talk of expansion brings us to a good stopping point (and a good setting up point for all the stuff people really care about, like the Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy, etc. that people keep asking questions about on the forum) from here: the scale factor of the universe.

You´re mounting the carriage before the horse here and jumping into assumptive conclusions. You really can´t talk scientifically of a cosmic expansion without explaining HOW this expansion can take place at all and from where this force come from. And it get seriously more worse when claiming an "increasing expansion" of the Universe.

Edit: I otherwise respect your deep interest and efforts for this OP.

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks very much for this thread. I tried two similar threads several years ago now, when I was still a student at the university. But never got to complete them. Hope you keep going!
Big Bang Theory Primer
Singularities and beginning of the universe

That second link has a more beautiful plot of baryon acoustic oscillations, I'm assuming from Planck, than I've been using.

 

[Meow Mix]

Gas and matter isn´t evenly distributed in all directions in the observable universe, hence all kind of things can happen

This is why we specify scales at which things are homogeneous and isotropic. We'd want to look at ~100+ Mpc areas.

I´ll recommend you to be more nuanced when dealing with cosmological models. Were you say "we know" but a timevariant cosmological model is just an assumption/hypothesis/theory based on the idea of Big Bang.

The post isn't intended to cover everything, but just to be a quick primer on a few key terms and concepts to be able to better have conversations about dark matter and dark energy. I did, however, provide a quick example of observations showing time variance (the star formation plot, which we'll talk about here below since you mention it).

If you have "redshift" to count for "motions towards you or away from you" it is contra intuitive and inconsistent to connect such a distance subject to the "amount of star formation".
Star formations in genereal depends on the available cosmic gas and dust when stars are formatted and not of any cosmic distances.

Looking a distance away is looking back a distance in time. If you find that star formation and galaxy quenching differ at various redshifts, then the conclusion is that galaxies behaved differently at different times.

Galaxy quenching is a matter of research to this day (I have colleagues doing specifically this). Active galactic black holes, mergers/collisions, and filamental gas injections all affect quenching. Galaxies were at their most active between certain redshifts called the "high-noon" redshifts, because the size of the universe and the dark matter filaments feeding gas into galaxies were different.

If so, such an expansion overcomes the otherwise idea of gravity pulling everything together. How do you explain this? By another assumption of "dark energy" maybe?

Gravity defeats the expansion locally, this is why star systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters don't expand apart.

 

[sayak83]

That second link has a more beautiful plot of baryon acoustic oscillations, I'm assuming from Planck, than I've been using.

Thanks!
Near the end of the thread I was having a discussion with Polymath on the status of various inflation proposals. Any updates on these would be welcome somewhere in this thread

 

[Meow Mix]

Thanks!
Near the end of the thread I was having a discussion with Polymath on the status of various inflation proposals. Any updates on these would be welcome somewhere in this thread

I'll get to inflation around the time I do dark energy. The biggest new stuff on inflation is the spectropolarimetry on the CMB. Rules out some brane world stuff and some other stuff.

 

[Native]

This often gets misattributed to the Doppler effect, but it's actually not. The Doppler effect is related to the actual motion of a source relative to an observer's location in space. In cosmology we call galaxies' actual motion peculiar motion, because they do move with respect to one another, especially within the contexts of their local clusters. So, the redshift and blueshift of nearby galaxies may be due to a true Doppler effect, but when you zoom out enough (get to high enough redshifts), the redshifting is not technically a Doppler effect: it's due to space itself stretching the wavelength of the light as it expands.

Meow Mix, have you ever heard of Astronomer Halton Arp? He discovered several redshift anomalies with serious different redshift values for objects located in the same overall object at the same distance.

What are your thoughts about this?

 

[Meow Mix]

Meow Mix, have you ever heard of Astronomer Halton Arp? He discovered several redshift anomalies with serious different redshift values for objects located in the same overall object at the same distance.

What are your thoughts about this?

You'd have to give some specific claim you want examined. The very article that you link addresses it:

Since the 1960s, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, and cosmological theory and observation has advanced considerably. Black holes and supermassive black holes have been directly as well as indirectly detected, extremely distant objects are routinely studied and contextualized, and multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory and the Very Large Telescope) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These developments, have led to quasars being understood to be very distant active galaxies with high redshifts.

So it sounds like it's a litany of different claims. Give me a specific one to look at maybe.

 

[Native]

Looking a distance away is looking back a distance in time. If you find that star formation and galaxy quenching differ at various redshifts, then the conclusion is that galaxies behaved differently at different times.

I of course agree that galaxies looks different - but not because of the subject of time but because of the actual different formative motion in single galaxies. I take galaxies as having both an attractive and repulsive formative motion, connected to galaxies without and with a barred structure, regardless of distances.

Galaxy quenching is a matter of research to this day (I have colleagues doing specifically this). Active galactic black holes, mergers/collisions, and filamental gas injections all affect quenching. Galaxies were at their most active between certain redshifts called the "high-noon" redshifts, because the size of the universe and the dark matter filaments feeding gas into galaxies were different.

You have my deepest sympathy for dealing with this bunch of speculative assumptions. (Do you by any chance have a cultural contact to a Native Tribe?)

Gravity defeats the expansion locally, this is why star systems, galaxies, and galaxy clusters don't expand apart.

This sounds almost like "Newtons gravity works in our Solar System but not inside our Milky Way galaxy" in where our Solar System is located.

Don´t you think this is inconsistent?

 

[Meow Mix]

I of course agree that galaxies looks different - but not because of the subject of time but because of the actual different formative motion in single galaxies. I take galaxies as having both an attractive and repulsive formative motion, connected to galaxies without and with a barred structure, regardless of distances.

Great, but can you quantify this? I've asked multiple times for you to quantify your paradigm: what equations are you using to make any of your interpretations, and how did you derive them?

You have my deepest sympathy for dealing with this bunch of speculative assumptions. (Do you by any chance have a cultural contact to a Native Tribe?)

I do not, though there are Native-friendly schools and programs in the area. Why?

This sounds almost like "Newtons gravity works in our Solar System but not inside our Milky Way galaxy" in where our Solar System is located.

Don´t you think this is inconsistent?

No. The more distance there is between objects, the more powerful the Hubble flow. So for a given distance, you'd need a given amount of gravity to resist it. On small scales like solar systems, this isn't a problem. On large scales like clusters, the masses are much greater, so still not a problem.

If I were to make an analogy, I'd go back to the rubber analogy. Say I'm stretching a sheet of rubber, but there are two balls resting on top that are free to roll around on top of the rubber. If they weren't moving, they'd be pulled apart as the rubber stretches. However in this case, they are attracted to each other just enough that they roll towards each other, staying in place (rather than being carried with the "rubber flow"). If they were further apart, they wouldn't be attracted to each other enough, so the "rubber flow" would win out and they'd drift apart.