A Portrait of reality 2nd edition.

[Noax]

Dear Noax and uwot, Noax gave a value to the expansion rate. He valued it at 1% every 150 million years.

Oh yea, I hadn't seen it expressed that way. More like a percent every 140 MY, but yes.

Billion I understand to be 10^9. In European nomenclature the same number is called a milliard. A billion in European nomenclature is 10^12. I wrote this to appease uwot who speaks European English. He breathes European English. He thinks in European English. He plays soccer in European English. d-:

Eww...
Unfortunately the EU system makes more sense. We (west of Atlanticans) count powers of 1000: Billion is a thousand cubed, which makes no sense given the prefix Bi meaning two. Trillion means 1000 to the fourth.
EU uses powers of a million, so a billion means literally a million squared, which has to be the more original meaning of the word. It's the Americas that bastardized those terms to the ones I've been using in my posts, just we bastardized the name 'football' to some sport where the feet hardly ever come into play. It's not rugby, but at least more related to it just like baseball is related mostly to cricket. Oh, and we have the nards to call our baseball championship the 'world series' despite not inviting say the Jap and South American teams all of which play a pretty competitive game.

[uwot]

Eww...

Yeah. Steady on, -1-.
Anyway; as far as I can tell, Noax has answered all your issues. If you want to look into it further, this would be a good place to start: https://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/perlmutter.html The team that made the original observations, Supernova Cosmology Project, was headed by Saul Perlmutter. They, as in thousands of scientists across the world, developed the techniques specifically to find out how much gravity was slowing down the expansion of the universe. Imagine everyone's surprise when they discovered exactly the opposite.

Unfortunately the EU system makes more sense. We (west of Atlanticans) count powers of 1000: Billion is a thousand cubed, which makes no sense given the prefix Bi meaning two. Trillion means 1000 to the fourth.

That pretty much is the lingua franca of numbers. Some people still insist on a million million, but for most purposes, it's just the difference between a very, very large number, and a very, very, very large number.

EU uses powers of a million, so a billion means literally a million squared, which has to be the more original meaning of the word. It's the Americas that bastardized those terms to the ones I've been using in my posts, just we bastardized the name 'football' to some sport where the feet hardly ever come into play. It's not rugby, but at least more related to it just like baseball is related mostly to cricket.

Rounders (and loads of other bat and ball games) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounders

Oh, and we have the nards to call our baseball championship the 'world series' despite not inviting say the Jap and South American teams all of which play a pretty competitive game.

Well yeah, but then England had the hubris to assume that Johnny Foreigner couldn't possibly beat a team of eleven Englishmen in a game of 'soccer', so didn't bother to enter the World Cup until 1950. They were promptly knocked out, suffering the ignominy of losing to the USA.

[Dubious]

All that's mentioned, from what I read so far, is that galaxies are separating but what about galaxy groups from local to supercluster. Are they separating as group formations or separating within those groups to eventually "unbind" themselves from those structures?

Whether one scenario or the other, could that cause a major difference in the fate of the universe as a whole possibly dissolving into smaller distinct universes. If due to increasing distance there is less gravitational pull on any single galaxy or group from the outside wouldn't that imply that the gravitational field within would gain ultimate control and possibly crunch the whole structure eventually causing new child universes to emerge (based on its gravitational isolation) from the single one formerly bound by gravitation?

Just speculating way past midnight!

[Noax]

Oh, and we have the nards to call our baseball championship the 'world series' despite not inviting say the Jap and South American teams all of which play a pretty competitive game.

Well yeah, but then England had the hubris to assume that Johnny Foreigner couldn't possibly beat a team of eleven Englishmen in a game of 'soccer', so didn't bother to enter the World Cup until 1950. They were promptly knocked out, suffering the ignominy of losing to the USA.

At least the world cup invites the world.

[Noax]

All that's mentioned, from what I read so far, is that galaxies are separating but what about galaxy groups from local to supercluster. Are they separating as group formations or separating within those groups to eventually "unbind" themselves from those structures?

From what I've read, superclusters are tending to cluster more. Our own galaxy is accelerating towards this 'great attractor', whichever direction that happens to be. Our movement is towards Leo I think, but not necessarily our acceleration vector.

They say the space expansion is greatest where matter density is the thinnest, just like the balloon streatches most away from that dark patch of thicker latex opposite the hole. The superclusters stay superclusters, but get pulled apart from the other ones. If the sky looks less dense 50 billion years from now, it is due to the stars burning out, not due to less local matter to be seen.

Whether one scenario or the other, could that cause a major difference in the fate of the universe as a whole possibly dissolving into smaller distinct universes. If due to increasing distance there is less gravitational pull on any single galaxy or group from the outside wouldn't that imply that the gravitational field within would gain ultimate control and possibly crunch the whole structure eventually causing new child universes to emerge (based on its gravitational isolation) from the single one formerly bound by gravitation?

This has already happened, where local gravity sucked in overly dense places (too many stars, or too much matter in one star), and the whole thing crunches into a black hole. There are those that hypothesize that our own universe was born of a larger black hole in a parent universe of sorts. That doesn't exactly solve a question of why there is something, not nothing, but it has been put out there.

Black holes have been observed to merge. So what if our universe hole just happened to merge with its nearest neighbor? What would that be like to us? What does new ordinary material falling into a black hole look like from the perspective of the little universe born of that black hole? All this crap has to be answered if the hypothesis is to really hold any weight.

[Dubious]

All that's mentioned, from what I read so far, is that galaxies are separating but what about galaxy groups from local to supercluster. Are they separating as group formations or separating within those groups to eventually "unbind" themselves from those structures?

From what I've read, superclusters are tending to cluster more. Our own galaxy is accelerating towards this 'great attractor', whichever direction that happens to be. Our movement is towards Leo I think, but not necessarily our acceleration vector.

They say the space expansion is greatest where matter density is the thinnest, just like the balloon streatches most away from that dark patch of thicker latex opposite the hole. The superclusters stay superclusters, but get pulled apart from the other ones. If the sky looks less dense 50 billion years from now, it is due to the stars burning out, not due to less local matter to be seen.

Whether one scenario or the other, could that cause a major difference in the fate of the universe as a whole possibly dissolving into smaller distinct universes. If due to increasing distance there is less gravitational pull on any single galaxy or group from the outside wouldn't that imply that the gravitational field within would gain ultimate control and possibly crunch the whole structure eventually causing new child universes to emerge (based on its gravitational isolation) from the single one formerly bound by gravitation?

This has already happened, where local gravity sucked in overly dense places (too many stars, or too much matter in one star), and the whole thing crunches into a black hole. There are those that hypothesize that our own universe was born of a larger black hole in a parent universe of sorts. That doesn't exactly solve a question of why there is something, not nothing, but it has been put out there.

Black holes have been observed to merge. So what if our universe hole just happened to merge with its nearest neighbor? What would that be like to us? What does new ordinary material falling into a black hole look like from the perspective of the little universe born of that black hole? All this crap has to be answered if the hypothesis is to really hold any weight.

Good explanation, thanks!

I wonder how much material is required to create a black hole which results in another Big Bang compared to the energy contained in the momentum of that material coming together. In short, would it take a whole universe to create another one or simply parts of it to create many. But as you say all these hot air speculations need reinforcement based on some hard facts to give it a measure of viability.

[uwot]

That's it. No more tinkering. This is the version that I have sent to a couple of agents. With any luck I'll hear by Easter and for all I know, I'll have to completely rewrite it. This version is still available on Amazon. So if you bought a copy, and have nothing but glittering praise for it, a review would be great. Thanks for all your help and support.
https://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk