JWT observations destroy most scientific theories about origins of the universe that involve a Big Bang 13.8Billion years ago.

https://youtu.be/EJwEYJb7eks

Anybody got an alternate theory?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology

Next, you're gonna tell us that we aren't going to collide smack dab into the Great Attractor!!

Stop taunting us!!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Next, you're gonna tell us that we aren't going to
> collide smack dab into the Great Attractor!!
>
> Stop taunting us!!

I never said we’re going to collide smack dab into the Great Attractor, but we are heading towards it at 600km/s (1.34 million miles/hr) we just have no idea how fast it’s moving away from us, since we’ve never seen it, and have no idea what it is, since it’s 220 million light yrs away and smack dab in the middle of the Zone of Avoidance.

We will likely never know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2022 10:01PM by schrodingerscat.

> zone of avoidance


They ran out of underarm deodorant?

> I never said we’re going to collide smack dab
> into the Great Attractor,

???


-----------------
> . . .we are heading
> towards it at 6,000km/s (1.34 million miles/hr) we
> just have no idea how fast it’s moving away from
> us. . .

???

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I never said we’re going to collide smack dab
> > into the Great Attractor,
>
> ???
>
>
> -----------------
> > . . .we are heading
> > towards it at 6,000km/s (1.34 million miles/hr)
> we
> > just have no idea how fast it’s moving away
> from
> > us. . .
>
> ???

We live inside of a technicolor dipole spinning torus (doughnut) spiraling inward (dark matter), as it expands exponentially outward(dark energy).

https://science.nasa.gov/cmb-dipole-speeding-through-universe

And we exist in the balance in between, in the Lambda CDM Cosmos


https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/education/graphic_history/univ_evol.html

That NASA image is the inside of the technicolor doughnut hole.
NASA



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2022 09:16AM by schrodingerscat.

Non sequitur.

Ultracrepidarianism

with an occasional dose of the igon value problem thrown in for good measure

Reports of reports, so (ultracrepidarianism)^2 if not more.

Maybe, but Sheldon was always lovably clueless, and Penny was hot.

Theories of the origin of the universe are hardly destroyed. The observations do not appear to match the Big Bang theory. They have yet to be peer-reviewed and scientists have just begun to use the JWT. Let’s see what develops after a few years of research. Wikipedia hasn’t deleted articles on the Big Bang theory yet.

I’d describe this more as intriguing discrepancies, rather than destroying the Big Bang theory.

Cosmologists are now claiming that 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, even though we don’t precisely know what either of those are. So our knowledge of physics and chemistry involves only 5% of the universe. The rest is terra incognita. Now **that’s** a discrepancy.

Re: the Great Attractor

El Gato said:
>I never said we’re going to collide smack dab into the Great Attractor, but we are heading towards it at 6,000km/s (1.34 million miles/hr) we just have no idea how fast it’s moving away from us, since we’ve never seen it, and have no idea what it is, since it’s 400million light yrs away and smack dab in the middle of the Zone of Avoidance.


The figure is 600 km/s, not 6,000. By way of comparison, the sun is rotating around the Milky Way at 230 km/s, and it will take the sun a couple hundred million years to do a full orbit around the center of the Milky Way, an orbital distance of roughly 300,000 lightyears.

Meanwhile the Great Attractor is estimated to be 150 to 250 million lightyears away (not 400 mly, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Attractor). My back of the envelope calculation is that it will take the earth 50 billion years to reach the Great Attractor at 600 km/s. That is about a factor of ten longer than the earth and sun will exist in their present form.

I think it is even longer than that, because the universe is expanding. I would actually have to looks stuff up and think to calculate the Hubble expansion velocity expected between the Milky Way and something 200 mly away. My suspicion is that it is considerably larger than 600 km/s, and the Great Attractor is moving away from us faster than 600 km/s, it is just moving away from us 600 km/s slower than the Hubble formula would predict.

If that is correct, the Milky way will never, ever get to the Great Attractor. But even ignoring expansion of the universe, it would take 50-ish billion years to get there.

Keep in mind, the sun and earth are about 4 billion years old and the hypothetical age of the universe is 13.6 billion years, so 50 billion years into the future is a very very long time, even by cosmology standards.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2022 03:53PM by Brother Of Jerry.

I looked up how to calculate the Hubble velocity. I was expecting something along the lines of having to look up the wavelength of hydrogen, finding a table of redshift frequencies, read articles with partial differential equations in them, all of which I would ignore, and then take a wild stab at making a formula for expansion velocity versus distance.

Turns out it is slightly less complicated than calculating sales tax.

velocity = Hubble Constant (i.e. H-naught) times distance in mega-parsecs (i.e. Mpc)

or v = Hsub0 * D

The value of the Hubble Constant is still being argued about. The two contenders are 67 km/s/Mpc and 73 km/s/Mpc. For my purpose, the difference doesn't matter. Let's just call H-naught 70 km/s/Mpc. Close enough.

According to the wikipedia article on the Great Attractor that I posted earlier, the distance to the G.A. is 150 to 250 million lightyears, or 47 to 79 Mpc (Megaparsecs)

So, low range of recession velocity of the Great Attractor from the Milky Way is 70 km/s/Mpc * 47 Mpc = 3,290 km/sec

High range of the recession velocity = 70 km/s/Mpc * 79 Mpc = 5530 km/s

So, the predicted speed at which the Great Attractor is receding from the Milky Way (and earth) is in the 3 to 5 thousand km/s range, and the actual measured speed is 600 km/s less than that.

Which means the Milky Way will never ever reach the Great Attractor. No need to set your alarm clock for 50 billion years in the future. It simply ain'g gonna happen - ever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/17/2022 05:18PM by Brother Of Jerry.

We live in the Hubble Bubble. When it pops, God will have a huge mess on his beard.

Right, 220million light years away, according to NASA
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/great-attractor.html

And our galaxy is moving 600km/s (still 1.34 million mph) towards the Great Attractor, (relative to the CMB) along with all the other (1,000+/-) galaxies in our galactic neighborhood, Laneakea.

https://science.nasa.gov/cmb-dipole-speeding-through-universe

Which is why the Milky Way is on a collision course with our closest neighbor, Andromeda Galaxy, in about 4.5 billion years.

https://science.nasa.gov/milky-way-galaxy-doomed-collision-andromeda-pending

If you put off buying galaxy collision insurance, you're not going to get a good rate... It might not even be available!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you put off buying galaxy collision insurance,
> you're not going to get a good rate... It might
> not even be available!


I can’t wait for the light show!

I can't wait to meet an entire galaxy's worth of new friends! It will be so awesome!

The nice thing is that, if necessary, scientists are willing to admit that they have been wrong about a particular theory. I think it is still far to early to make any firm statements, but it's clear that the James Webb telescope will facilitate many interesting new discoveries.

How many years did the Catholic church take to admit that it was wrong about Galileo? Religion could learn something from the scientists.

If you ignore 95% of the universe, it all makes perfect sense.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JWT observations destroy most scientific theories
> about origins of the universe that involve a Big
> Bang 13.8Billion years ago.
>
> https://youtu.be/EJwEYJb7eks
>
> Anybody got an alternate theory?
>
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_c
> osmology
The "Big Bang" is now and always has been a THEORY!!!

thedesertrat1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > JWT observations destroy most scientific
> theories
> > about origins of the universe that involve a
> Big
> > Bang 13.8Billion years ago.
> >
> > https://youtu.be/EJwEYJb7eks
> >
> > Anybody got an alternate theory?
> >
> >
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_c
>
> > osmology
> The "Big Bang" is now and always has been a
> THEORY!!!

So is gravity.
So what’s your point?

Obviously then, it was God! Back to church, everybody!!!! Hurry!!!!!

So god is a pencil-necked geek and NASA is our overlord?

Eh. Why not? Jehovah was no prize.

slskipper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obviously then, it was God! Back to church,
> everybody!!!! Hurry!!!!!
Oh skipper skipper skipper would you continue to lead up the garden path to exaltation?

While it states it is from "NASA space news" implying it is from NASA, looking at the details shows it is from nasaspacenews.com. Official NASA info will come from a .gov address, not a .com.
Looking at that site, gives no real indication as to who is running it, but there is no indication that it is an official NASA site.

Further, the video link states "Inspired From:
Eric J. Lerner | President and Chief Scientist of LPPFusion. He is the author of The Big Bang Never Happened."

Eric Lerner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Lerner

"Lerner's ideas have been rejected by the professional physicists and cosmologists who have reviewed them. In these critiques, critics have explained that, contrary to Lerner's assertions, the size of superclusters is a feature limited by subsequent observations to the end of greatness and is consistent with having arisen from a power spectrum of density fluctuations growing from the quantum fluctuations predicted in inflationary models.[23][24][25] Anisotropies were discovered in subsequent analysis of both the COBE and BOOMERanG experiments and were more fully characterized by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe[23][24] and Planck.

Physical cosmologists who have commented on the book have generally dismissed it.[23][25][26][27][28][29] In particular, American astrophysicist and cosmologist Edward L. Wright, a strong Big Bang proponent, criticized Lerner for making errors of fact and interpretation, arguing that:[24]

Lerner's alternative model for Hubble's Law is dynamically unstable
the number density of distant radio sources falsifies Lerner's explanation for the cosmic microwave background
Lerner's explanation that the helium abundance is due to stellar nucleosynthesis fails because of the small observed abundance of heavier elements"

Ah good catch. I was puzzled by the quality and the fact that in a similar video, the narrator used British pronunciation of "Z" as zed, not the American zee

The proximity of the "d" and "e" keys on a standard keyboard make one wonder. . .

You mean my education and entire way of life hinged on a typo? :-/

> You mean my . . . entire . . . life hinged on a typo? :-/

"Well, several typos."

--James Watson

But at least here we didn't have to plow through all the ads.

A different alternative is that our understanding of creation is very limited, just today I've been up big cotton wood and they've got these signs up telling us that big cotton wood was made 2 billion years ago, I began to hypothesize where they came up with this number, they probably built a sand box and let the hose run and then measured how long until there's a salt deposit formation and then extrapolated this number by a factor of 10 +- 20 zillion, to come up with the exact number they're telling us now. Wow got love scientists! And how smart they are.

The (Big) Cat is probably breathing a sigh of relief~~~!

Way to take one for the team, Maca!

So true, Maca! Why don't those stupid scientists know, like you, that the world is only 6,000 years old and that Neanderthals never existed?

Have you considered sharing your calculation methods with them? I'm sure they'd be grateful.

Why were you up in Big Cottonwood on a Wednesday instead of at your job? Are you turning into one of them socialist demoncraps, or are you one of those lazy types that just doesn't want to work any more?

Get back to work. Those burgers won't flip themselves, you know.

Don't be rude. He's at least reading geology markers in a canyon. That means learning something is a clear and present danger. There is still hope

Unlike religious stuff, Maca, you are welcome at any time to inquire further to learn how they arrived at that number. Follow their reasoning and data acquisition methods. They would love to explain it. Most, if not all, has been openly presented in journals for all the world to study. The papers were all reviewed and corrected by people who dedicated their whole careers to understanding such stuff.See if you can find any flaws with their methodology. They would be grateful for that also. But first, you must understand their arguments. Name calling won't get you very far. That's science.

I suspect it was a bit more than a hose in a sandbox. Maybe fossil records, with comparisons to other fossil records whose age has been definitively established? And no, scientists do not dig in their heels when presented with better information. I am a scientist. I have never been invited to one of those meetings which are super secret but yet involve every scientist in the world where we gather to map out our plans to thwart the designs of God. Maybe the other scientists don't like me. Nobody else does.

Maca, either you misinterpreted the sign in Big Cottonwood Canyon, or at least misdescribed it to us. It does not say the canyon is 2 billion years old. In fact, the Wasatch Range is quite young and still growing. The canyon started roughly 20 million years ago when the Wasatch first started to rise, and is still an active canyon.

What the sign was referring to was the rock that formed the canyon wall at that point. Up to about 500 million years back, rocks can be dated by looking at fossils embedded in the rock. That's quick and easy. All the hard work of dating what fossils appeared when has already been done.

Before 500 million years, there weren't animals with shells or skeletons or large multicellular plants to leave fossils, so geologists had to come up with Plan B: radioactive decay. Carbon 14 was the simplest one, useful for dating recent organic material. Organic, because lots of carbon in organic stuff. Recent, because C14 only has a half life of 5 thousand years and change, so after 50,000 years, virtually all the C14 has already decayed.

However, there are lots of other radioactive isotopes that have much longer half lives. One of the longest, perhaps THE longest, is uranium 238. U238 has a half-life in the billions of years. It does do radioactive decay, but very very slowly. When the sun burns out of the sky, taking the earth with it, a fair bit of the original U238 on earth when it was created will still exist.

So, the way they date 2 billion year old rock is to find a really stable crystal that traps uranium in it when it is formed when the liquid rock cools, and then measure how much uranium 238 is in the crystal, and how much of the decay products are in the crystal.

They need a stable crystal that can't be easily cracked open, and one where it is obvious if it has been damaged. Fortunately, zirconium is just such a crystal. Also, surprisingly, U238 is a pretty common element. the more highly radioactive isotopes are rare, but U238 is common. When they talk of military tank shells being made of depleted uranium, it is U238 they are talking about.

There are a lot of details, and other elements that can also be used in dating. I think potassium is another one. If you really care about the gory details (which I doubt) wikipedia will tell you enough to know where to find the details.

As I'm sure you're aware, we've tried to explain isotope decay to him many times, but he is either unable or unwilling to understand it. He can't conceive of anything other than carbon-14.

Here is one such example -

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1846234,1846290#msg-1846290

Good for you for trying, but he's long proven himself to be a hopeless case.

Upthread, schrodingerscat, in a reply to one of my posts, reiterated a number of misleading or just plain wrong statements about the Great Attractor.

I don't know what it is about the Great Attractor. I imagine he thinks the name is cool, and likes writing it. It is a minor cosmological feature, mildly famous mostly because its discovery was a surprise, and it was difficult to observe, being that it is on the opposite side of the Milky Way, which blocks our view if we use visible light (so we now use x-ray telescopes, which get a much better look at the region)

Whatever the reason, El Gato has sunk his teeth into the Great Attractor, and shows no signs of letting go until he shakes all the stuffing out of it. Sometimes cats are weird.

I will respond to his misstatements in individual replies, just to keep the length of each post within human toleration for length.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right, 220million light years away, according to
> NASA
> https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubble/science/
> great-attractor.html
>
> And our galaxy is moving 600km/s (still 1.34
> million mph) towards the Great Attractor,
> (relative to the CMB) along with all the other
> (1,000+/-) galaxies in our galactic neighborhood,
> Laneakea.
>

El Gato seems to think 600 km/s is really fast. It is if you have spent most of your life walking at 3 miles per hour, or even flying a jet at 800 km/hr,

At intergalactic distances, 600 km/s doesn't even qualify as "snail's pace". In an earlier post, I said I did back-of-the-envelope" calculations and determined it would take about 50 billion years for the Milky Way to reach the Great Attractor at that speed.

I actually did it in my head, and slightly botched it. The correct answer is about 110 billion years. That's about 8 times the accepted age of the universe, and 20 times the age of the earth and sun.

Let's do the math:
Distance to G.A. = 220 million lightyears, per El Gato, above.
Speed of light (rounded) = 300,000 km/sec
Speed of Milky Way toward Great Attractor = 600 km/s
(hereinafter referred to as speed MW2GA)

Ratio of speed of light to speed MW2GA = 300,000 / 600 = 500/1

That's a nice easy to remember number that's small enough to wrap your head around. Light travels 500 times faster than the Milky Way is moving toward the Great Attractor. OK

How long does it take light to reach from here to the Great Attractor? If it is 220 million light years away, then it takes light 220 million years to get there. That's kind of the definition of lightyear - the distance covered by light in one year.

You can calculate what that distance is, but it is not really relevant here. I am trying to determine how long it will take to make the trip, not how many miles are involved, so 220 million years for light to reach from the Milky Way to the G.A. is all I really need to know.

OK, and we know that light travels 500 times faster than we are moving toward the G.A., so it will take 500 times long for us to travel same distance light traveled in 220 million years.

And, 500 * 220 million years = 110,000 million years = 110 billion years.


NO, we are not hurtling at breakneck speed toward the Great Attractor. We are hardly moving at all. Our sun will burn down to a white dwarf in about 5 billion years. It and most of the entire Milky Way will be burned out by the time it reaches the Great Attractor.

And that assumes the Great Attractor is not not moving away from us. According to Hubble expansion, it is moving away from us, and as I calculated in a post upthread, that speed is between 3 and 5 thousand km/s.

In other words, the Great Attractor is actually moving away from us at a pretty good clip. It is just moving a little slower (600 km/s slower, to be precise) than then Hubble formula predicts. We are not going to collide with it. Ever.


So I wish El Gato would stop with the breathless reporting that we are careening toward the Great Attractor at 600 km/s. That is not even technically true. It is moving away from us.

[this is my longest response - I promise]

Some of his recent sources have explicitly said that the Milky Way is moving, net of the various forces, away from the Great Attractor and hence will never reach it. So I guess we need to attribute the subsequent, and contradictory, verbal ejaculations to a remarkably copious interpretation of poetic license.

In which case--dare I say it?--your analysis may prove unavailing.

I learned a few things in sufficient detail to actually do the math, as opposed to taking other people's word on it. Not that I doubted the other people, but still, it is nice to know the details. So El Gato has spurred me to learn a few things. I won't exactly say I'm grateful, but I am OK with that.

And I am also writing in the hope that other people might appreciate, or at least not take El Gato's G.A. codswallop at face value.

I like your expository posts very much, learn a lot from them and also enjoy the elegance of the presentation.

Better Contact NASA stat! And let them know they’re full of shit!!!

https://science.nasa.gov/cmb-dipole-speeding-through-universe

“The map indicates that the Local Group moves at about 600 kilometers per second relative to this primordial radiation.”

600km/s = 1.34 million mph, toward the Great Attractor.

More ultracrepidarianism

It begs the question why we can't see further than 13.7 billion light years if the universe didn't begin around that time. You will often here about distant objects being further away than 13.7 lightyears away, but they're talking about the modern object that the image we're looking at turned into, which we will never see, because we cannot look beyond the cosmic horizon. The cosmic horizon is 13.7 billion light years away.

I have wondered before if 13.7 billion years is long enough for the most intense gamma waves imaginable to decay into mere microwaves.

What do we know?

We know that the universe is expanding, which the namesake of the Hubble telescope discovered when he observed the progressive redshift of objects in his telescope that corresponded with their distance.

We know that light travels at a certain speed, namely 186,000 miles per second, and the cosmic horizon is 13.7 billion light-years away. So we know we are looking backwards in time the further away we establish an object to be.

We know the cosmic microwave background radiation is detectable from every direction.

So for a while now we thought the universe had a beginning, roughly 13.7 billion years ago, which is why we can't further than 13.7 billion light-years in any direction, and the CMBR is the afterglow of when all the matter in the universe was super-compact and hot.

Perhaps the theory could be adjusted: perhaps the beginning was much further back in time than we thought, and it's only the expansion of the universe which sets the cosmic horizon at 13.7 billion light years away. This is a little depressing, though, because it means if those baby galaxies exist that we made the James Webb telescope to see, they have long since disappeared behind the veil of the speed of light. We will never see them. Perhaps it may not be possible to confirm how old the universe is or tell what those sections of it behind the curtain are like. Or maybe our ideas about how galaxies form are just wrong. There have been holes in our cosmology for a while: dark matter and dark energy being the biggest ones. Just because we gave them names doesn't mean we know what they are.

I'm no professional cosmologist, but 13.7 billion years doesn't seem like enough time for gamma rays to decay into radio waves, does it? These objects we are discovering that are a mere 200 million years old after the supposed Big Bang... are they that redshifted? I don't think so. So perhaps we just discovered that the cosmic horizon is not the beginning of the cosmos in time, just the furthest extent of what spatial expansion allows us to see. It may all be more ancient than we thought, which would explain some stars we have observed that appear to be older than the Big Bang itself.

The observable universe is considerably larger than 13.7 billion light years, though the details make my head hurt enough that I decide I don't really care all that much and I move on.

For those interested, a rather lengthy article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

But that just pushes the horizon out farther and still leaves us with the problem of what is beyond the horizon. I'm pretty sure there are still major holes in our understanding of cosmology. I take it as a article of faith that we can and will be able to fill those holes with correct explanations, but I could be wrong. Maybe there are some things we will never figure out. There is no way to prove that statement wrong. We will just have to wait and see.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I take it
> as a article of faith that we can and will be able
> to fill those holes with correct explanations, but
> I could be wrong. Maybe there are some things we
> will never figure out.

That is largely a temporal problem. Given infinite time, humans probably stand a decent chance of sussing out most or all of the big questions. But we don't have that margin. The question isn't so much when an asteroid interrupts the process as whether we can manage to survive *until* the asteroid arrives.


-------------------
> We will just have to wait and see.

I can almost hear dagny speaking to the universe: I feel sorry for you because when I die, you and your mysteries will cease to exist.

"But that just pushes the horizon out farther and still leaves us with the problem of what is beyond the horizon."

Science will deal with that the same as Mormons: "I don't know that we teach that".

The JWT paradox is intriguing. We may be imposing our ideas about linear time on a very non-linear Universe. It's as if we are fish in a fishbowl interpreting images we see through the glass.

Does anything beyond the horizon exist? Like a tree falling in the forest, if you can't see it does it exist? Existence could be contingent on a conscious observer. Otherwise, no wave function collapse and no existence.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2022 12:25AM by bradley.

Second reply to schrodingerscat:

Upthread, SC said:
>
> https://science.nasa.gov/cmb-dipole-speeding-through-universe

>Which is why the Milky Way is on a collision course with our closest neighbor, Andromeda Galaxy, in about 4.5 billion years.

> https://science.nasa.gov/milky-way-galaxy-doomed-collision-andromeda-pending


He has mentioned the impending collision with Andromeda in other past threads about the Great Attractor, with what seemed to me to be a clear implication that somehow the Great Attractor is causing the collision.

Then, as above, he posts links that presumably explain the connection, but when I read them, they say nothing whatsoever about the Great Attractor causing Andromeda and the Milky Way to collide. This is exactly the way Hugh Nibley wrote his articles defending the Book of Abraham papyri. I don't know if he was counting on people not reading the footnotes, but I read them, and realized they did not even remotely prove what Nibley was claiming. So I left the Mormon Church. So thanks, Hugh.


But back to the topic at hand. First, the Andromeda Galaxy is not our closest galactic neighbor, or even second or third closest. It is the closest large spiral galaxy. In fact, it is larger than the Milky Way.

https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/nearest_galaxy_info.html
https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/andromeda-galaxy-closest-spiral-to-milky-way/

As far as I can tell, the scientific consensus is that the two galaxies are just wandering through space, and it is just random chance that they will pass close enough to each other that their mutual gravitation will pull them together.

Unless somebody can cite research that indicates that the Great Attractor has anything whatsoever to do with Andromeda colliding with the Milky Way, I'm sticking with the "random collision" story.

WARNING: More calculations follow

Andromeda is 2.537 ly from the Milky Way.
That is 0.7777 parsecs away which in turn is 7.777^-7 Mpc

Using the value of Hubble's constant you used above
7.777^-7 X 70 = 5.44^-5 km/s.

That is how fast cosmic expansion is moving Andromeda away from us.

Meanwhile, gravity is pulling Andromeda towards us at 113 km/s

https://earthsky.org/space/earths-night-sky-milky-way-andromeda-merge/

So we will collide with Andromeda. The difference between Andromeda and the Great Attractor is the distance. The effect of cosmic expansion increases with distance - the farther things are apart, the faster they move apart due to cosmic expansion. The distance to Andromeda is so small on a cosmic scale that cosmic expansion creates only a very small effect which is massively outweighed by the mutual attraction between the Milky way and Andromeda.

The Great Attractor conversely is so far away that the effect of cosmic expansion dwarfs the gravitational attraction.

This ignores the galactic halos as described in the link.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Second reply to schrodingerscat:
>
> Upthread, SC said:
> >
> >
> https://science.nasa.gov/cmb-dipole-speeding-throu
> gh-universe
>
> >Which is why the Milky Way is on a collision
> course with our closest neighbor, Andromeda
> Galaxy, in about 4.5 billion years.
>
> >
> https://science.nasa.gov/milky-way-galaxy-doomed-c
> ollision-andromeda-pending
>
>
> He has mentioned the impending collision with
> Andromeda in other past threads about the Great
> Attractor, with what seemed to me to be a clear
> implication that somehow the Great Attractor is
> causing the collision.
>
> Then, as above, he posts links that presumably
> explain the connection, but when I read them, they
> say nothing whatsoever about the Great Attractor
> causing Andromeda and the Milky Way to collide.
> This is exactly the way Hugh Nibley wrote his
> articles defending the Book of Abraham papyri. I
> don't know if he was counting on people not
> reading the footnotes, but I read them, and
> realized they did not even remotely prove what
> Nibley was claiming. So I left the Mormon Church.
> So thanks, Hugh.
>
>
> But back to the topic at hand. First, the
> Andromeda Galaxy is not our closest galactic
> neighbor, or even second or third closest. It is
> the closest large spiral galaxy. In fact, it is
> larger than the Milky Way.
>
> https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/features/cosmic/near
> est_galaxy_info.html
> https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/and
> romeda-galaxy-closest-spiral-to-milky-way/
>
> As far as I can tell, the scientific consensus is
> that the two galaxies are
> Unless somebody can cite research that indicates
> that the Great Attractor has anything whatsoever
> to do with Andromeda colliding with the Milky Way,
> I'm sticking with the "random collision" story.

Here, https://youtu.be/rENyyRwxpHo

The Journal, Nature, video on Laneakea, our home supercluster, starting at 1:55, shows Laneakea converging on the Great Attractor,

And in your video at 1:30 it specifically says "discounting cosmic expansion ..."

You can't discount cosmic expansion in real life.

Only a few weeks ago we went through the same thing and showed where, in his sources, it was plainly stated that our galaxy was moving away from the Great Attractor and not towards it.

It's utterly absurd: a complete unwillingness to learn a damn thing.

That happens on many of his topics.

Apparently we didn’t watch the same video.
If we were moving away from the GA we’d call it the Great Detractor.

Apparently you didn't watch your own video as it says exactly what I reported. Or else you are just incapable of understanding the facts.

Oh yeah, the opposite of attractor would be repeller, not detractor.

I didn’t ask whether the supercluster was being drawn toward the Great Attractor. I asked what research there was that showed that the Great Attractor was in any way responsible for the impending collision of the Milky Way and Andromeda. Just because they are both being drawn by the G.A. Doesn’t make them collide. They are going to collide in 4 billion years. They are going to reach the G.A. never. It’s not like the supercluster is going to someday converge on a single point and have a giant Astro-car crash.

Two cars both driving from SLC to Ogden don’t automatically collide because they are both going to Ogden.

You’re like Trump with his Sharpie altering the hurricane forecast map to avoid having to admit that he misspoke.