Is our universe expanding?

[Ignat]

According to Hubble's law, galaxies are moving away from Earth at a speed proportional to their distance. In other words, the further away they are, the faster they move away from the Earth. The speed of galaxies is determined by their redshift.

Based on this law, some scientists have come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding with acceleration. However, there are galaxies that are not moving away, but approaching the Earth, for example Andromeda. Now this approaching is explained by the proximity of the Milky Way and Andromeda and their attraction. But there is, for example, the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy, which is also close to Earth, but moving away from the Milky Way.

Thus, obviously, it is not the expansion of the Universe that is taking place, but the movement of parts of matter, possibly in the form of a vortex. Since this process is very slow for an observer on Earth, we only see an instant of this process. Perhaps, over time, new galaxies will appear, which will not be moving away, but approaching the Earth.

 

[Catastrophe]

The definition of Universe is incorrect. Who is to decide what "all there is" means?

The map is not the territory. There are only observable universes.

Of course, you can imagine "the sum of all the observable universes", but this is metaphysics, not science.

Who is to decide what is "observable" - what is observable by whom or by what?

And what if something cannot be observed in any way by any thing?
Because there is no "observing entity" within observing range.
Does it exist.? This, again, is metaphysics, not science.

As "our" observable universe ages, most of what we now observe will no longer be observable (according to model of observable universe employed) due to expansion and finite speed of light.
Will "all there is" shrink? This is the worst "metaphysics" - just playing around with semantics.

Cat

See also:

Page 3 - Goodbye infinity and all that infinite singularity and infinite density descriptions

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

forums.space.com

 

[Ignat]

The definition of Universe is incorrect. Who is to decide what "all there is"

The map is not the territory. There are only observable universes.

Of course, you can imagine "the sum of all the observable universes", but this is metaphysics, not science.

Who is to decide what is "observable" - what is observable by whom or by what?

And what if something cannot be observed in any way by any thing?
Because there is no "observing entity" within observing range.
Does it exist.? This, again, is metaphysics, not science.

As "our" observable universe ages, most of what we now observe will no longer be observable (according to model of observable universe employed) due to expansion and finite speed of light.
Will "all there is" shrink? This is the worst "metaphysics" - just playing around with semantics.

Cat

See also:

I didn't quite understand your answer. How does it fit in with what I was asking?

 

[Catastrophe]

Ignat, welcome to the Forum.

Hubble's "law" is overruled at 'small' distance, being subservient to gravity, and a few galaxies, like Andromeda, approach, rather than move away.
This means that the "straight line" ceases to apply near the origin.

Perhaps, over time, new galaxies will appear, which will not be moving away, but approaching the Earth.

Thus, for this to happen, new galaxies would have to form nearby.

Local Group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, would your question be, is there new material nearby to form new galaxies?
Would new stars forming from this new material form new galaxies, or would they be more influenced by local galaxies already existing?

One idea is that galaxies could pass through local concentrations of matter.

rotating galaxies new matter - Google Suche

The rotation of galaxies and the existence of dark matter are both complex topics that are still being studied. Some recent research suggests that the existence of dark matter may not be necessary to explain the rotation of galaxies

I hope this helps.

Cat

 

[Ignat]

Hubble's "law" is overruled at 'small' distance, being subservient to gravity, and a few galaxies, like Andromeda, approach, rather than move away.
This means that the "straight line" ceases to apply near the origin.

Hubble's law also does not work at very large distances, so it is doubtful to draw a conclusion about the expansion of our universe based on it. However, I have cited this law not in order to deal with it, but in order to show a contradiction in the proof of the expansion of the universe. Under approximately the same conditions, the two galaxies behave differently in relation to the Milky Way. Based on this, it is quite problematic to talk about the influence of gravity on the rate of expansion. Therefore, it can be assumed that there is no expansion, but there is a movement of material objects in infinite matter.

 

[Ignat]

Thus, for this to happen, new galaxies would have to form nearby.

They should not form, but get into the area that we call our universe. There are countless objects in infinite matter that we cannot yet see.

 

[Ignat]

According to Hubble's law, galaxies are moving away from Earth at a speed proportional to their distance. In other words, the further away they are, the faster they move away from the Earth. The speed of galaxies is determined by their redshift.

Based on this law, some scientists have come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding with acceleration. However, there are galaxies that are not moving away, but approaching the Earth, for example Andromeda. Now this approaching is explained by the proximity of the Milky Way and Andromeda and their attraction. But there is, for example, the Large Magellanic Cloud galaxy, which is also close to Earth, but moving away from the Milky Way.

Thus, obviously, it is not the expansion of the Universe that is taking place, but the movement of parts of matter, possibly in the form of a vortex. Since this process is very slow for an observer on Earth, we only see an instant of this process. Perhaps, over time, new galaxies will appear, which will not be moving away, but approaching the Earth.

In the Cosmology section there is my post "Reflections on matter and our Universe"

 

[Classical Motion]

I don’t think the universe is expanding, but the matter density in it is expanding. At a creep rate. Because gravity is decaying. At a slow rate. A matter rarefaction state.

This dynamic can not be reversed. And has been continuing since first light.

The emission of light consumes matter. The emission energy of matter is used to illuminate and warm space. And other matter.

Matter is composed of quantum rotations. How these rotations respond to light depends on the intensity of the light. Close by light can increase those quantum spins directly. Medium light can only charge those spins half way, and being quantum, will reject and emit, cast off that energy. To remain in a quantum state. Matter can only absorb energy in quantum gulps. If that gulp isn’t large enough, it is spit back out. Re-emitted.

Other matter out farther, can only be shaken with light. Just warmed up, not absorbed.

The temperature of space is not OF space. That temperature is just passing thru space, not a part of space.

The temperature of space is a light blanket, a light quilt blanket, passing and weaving thru space.

Just a supposition.

 

[Ignat]

Я не думаю, что вселенная расширяется, но плотность материи в ней расширяется. С ползучей скоростью. Потому что гравитация ослабевает. С медленной скоростью. Состояние разрежения материи.

When I talk about Matter, I don't mean substace, but the material world. That's the definition of what I'm talking about:
Matter is a philosophical category for the designation of objective reality that exists independently of human consciousness, including everything that is accessible to man through the senses, devices, thinking, as well as everything that is not available to man at the present time, but may to become available in the future, and everything that will never become available to man (full knowledge of the infinite material world is impossible).
Matter can exist both in the form of substance and in the form of a field.

 

[Catastrophe]

Wiki gives:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Material world may refer to:

• All things of matter
• The physical world
  • Nature, the phenomena of the physical world, and life in general
• As a proper noun:
  • Material World (TV series), a Canadian television sitcom in the 1990s
  • Material World (radio programme), a BBC Radio 4 science programme
  • Material World: A Global Family Portrait, a 1994 photo essay by Peter Menzel

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

The probably irretrievable problem is that English (and probably any other language you choose - Esperanto - I don't know) is composed of ill defined words - many with multiple (shades of) meaning.

Such a mess is impossible to resolve, without exactly defining every word you use.

Paradise for con-merchants - the opposite for most of us?

Cat

 

[Classical Motion]

Ignat, I’m not sure I read you. Are you saying that reality is just illusion? And no sense can come from it? Or that just our sense give us our reality, the true reality can never be observed?

I try and stay away from living properties and concepts with understanding dead matter. Like philosophy.

I believe that dead matter physicality is 100% mechanical. No philosophy needed.

Probability, randomness and chaos ONLY come from choice of bio matter.

Dead matter has no choice.

Matter only has one form. e. It’s quantum. Consistent. It’s completely absent of probability, randomness and chaos.

A philosophic man might say that it my philosophy. And concept no further.

Philosophy is not the beginning of knowledge, it’s the end of it.

Just a different view. For none know the truth.

That’s why some look for it. I’m still looking.