Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: contraction of space?

  1. #1 contraction of space? 
    Forum Sophomore somfooleishfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    196
    Does "contraction of space" happen today? sure there is a theory stating it may one day happen after the expansion of space runs out of energy, but at current day, is it possible for the distance between two objects to shorten?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    The distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy (our "neighbour" galaxy) is shortening (showing blue shift) and so the answer to your last question is yes. As far as I'm aware, Andromeda and the Milky Way will collide in ~6bn years.


    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: contraction of space? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by somfooleishfool
    Does "contraction of space" happen today? sure there is a theory stating it may one day happen after the expansion of space runs out of energy, but at current day, is it possible for the distance between two objects to shorten?
    If your thinking of anything beyond galaxy clusters, I would say the answer is no. There are galaxy superclusters, but according to Wikipedia they are not garavitationally bound:
    Superclusters are large groups of smaller galaxy groups and clusters and are among the largest known structures of the cosmos. They are so large that they are not gravitationally bound and, consequently, partake in the Hubble expansion.
    (ref. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercluster )

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore somfooleishfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    The distance between the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxy (our "neighbour" galaxy) is shortening (showing blue shift) and so the answer to your last question is yes. As far as I'm aware, Andromeda and the Milky Way will collide in ~6bn years.
    Is this limited by the speed of light? expansion of space isn't so I was just wondering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    This case is just movement through space as far as I'm aware, so yeah, it'd be limited to light speed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore somfooleishfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    This case is just movement through space as far as I'm aware, so yeah, it'd be limited to light speed.
    would there be any case of contraction of space at faster than c? because otherwise it really is just as you put it, "movement".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    I guess if there were an appropriate cause, space could contract faster than c, but as far as I know, space between the Milky Way and Andromeda is still expanding. The relative velocity of the two galaxies is enough to overcome this though.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    4
    According to Dewey B. Larson, that's what gravitation is: a motion of the same general kind as "expansion of space" but in the inward "direction." Distant objects appear to act on one another "at a distance" because they are all moving toward one another (within the "first gravitational limit" of an aggregate that is a function of its mass). Our perception of space as a three-dimensional container actually arises from the fact that all the objects around us (out to the limits of the Local Group) have this net inward component of motion, but that same "container" limits our ability to perceive motions that are themselves not one-dimensional (vectorial), such as gravitation.

    "The assertion that the gravitational effect is an action of one mass upon another is not a fact of observation, as has been believed; it is purely an assumption, and recognition of this fact opens the way to a clarification of the whole situation."

    "... gravitation is not propagated with the speed of light, nor is it propagated instantaneously; it is not propagated at all: a fact which is fully compatible with Newton's theory."

    (Dewey B. Larson, Beyond Newton, 1964, pp. 41, 122)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,205
    Quote Originally Posted by sathearn
    According to Dewey B. Larson, that's what gravitation is: a motion of the same general kind as "expansion of space" but in the inward "direction." Distant objects appear to act on one another "at a distance" because they are all moving toward one another (within the "first gravitational limit" of an aggregate that is a function of its mass). Our perception of space as a three-dimensional container actually arises from the fact that all the objects around us (out to the limits of the Local Group) have this net inward component of motion, but that same "container" limits our ability to perceive motions that are themselves not one-dimensional (vectorial), such as gravitation.

    "The assertion that the gravitational effect is an action of one mass upon another is not a fact of observation, as has been believed; it is purely an assumption, and recognition of this fact opens the way to a clarification of the whole situation."

    "... gravitation is not propagated with the speed of light, nor is it propagated instantaneously; it is not propagated at all: a fact which is fully compatible with Newton's theory."

    (Dewey B. Larson, Beyond Newton, 1964, pp. 41, 122)
    Larson's ideas are entirely his own and not backed by any physical evidence. Let's keep this discussion on established physics and not on the writings of a engineer turned physicist wanna-be.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore somfooleishfool's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Janus
    Quote Originally Posted by sathearn
    According to Dewey B. Larson, that's what gravitation is: a motion of the same general kind as "expansion of space" but in the inward "direction." Distant objects appear to act on one another "at a distance" because they are all moving toward one another (within the "first gravitational limit" of an aggregate that is a function of its mass). Our perception of space as a three-dimensional container actually arises from the fact that all the objects around us (out to the limits of the Local Group) have this net inward component of motion, but that same "container" limits our ability to perceive motions that are themselves not one-dimensional (vectorial), such as gravitation.

    "The assertion that the gravitational effect is an action of one mass upon another is not a fact of observation, as has been believed; it is purely an assumption, and recognition of this fact opens the way to a clarification of the whole situation."

    "... gravitation is not propagated with the speed of light, nor is it propagated instantaneously; it is not propagated at all: a fact which is fully compatible with Newton's theory."

    (Dewey B. Larson, Beyond Newton, 1964, pp. 41, 122)
    Larson's ideas are entirely his own and not backed by any physical evidence. Let's keep this discussion on established physics and not on the writings of a engineer turned physicist wanna-be.
    I didn't much understand what he was saying anyway
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •