Does the expansion of the universe explain why the universe doesn't collapse?Origin of motion and relative...
Does an advisor owe his/her student anything? Will an advisor keep a PhD student only out of pity?
Multiplicative persistence
Pre-mixing cryogenic fuels and using only one fuel tank
Do Legal Documents Require Signing In Standard Pen Colors?
Closed-form expression for certain product
Where did Heinlein say "Once you get to Earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the Solar System"?
If a character has darkvision, can they see through an area of nonmagical darkness filled with lightly obscuring gas?
Request info on 12/48v PSU
Travelling outside the UK without a passport
Is "staff" singular or plural?
Can someone explain how this makes sense electrically?
Count the occurrence of each unique word in the file
A social experiment. What is the worst that can happen?
How can we generalize the fact of finite dimensional vector space to an infinte dimensional case?
Argument list too long when zipping large list of certain files in a folder
Is this toilet slogan correct usage of the English language?
Why is so much work done on numerical verification of the Riemann Hypothesis?
Start making guitar arrangements
Intuition of generalized eigenvector.
How much character growth crosses the line into breaking the character
How to implement a feedback to keep the DC gain at zero for this conceptual passive filter?
What should you do when eye contact makes your subordinate uncomfortable?
Where does the bonus feat in the cleric starting package come from?
When a Cleric spontaneously casts a Cure Light Wounds spell, will a Pearl of Power recover the original spell or Cure Light Wounds?
Does the expansion of the universe explain why the universe doesn't collapse?
Origin of motion and relative speed of bodies in the universeBig Bang not really the beginning of a completely new universe?The growing expansion speed of our universeCan the fabric of space-time be contoured into hills instead of just wells?Isn't the Big Bang contradictory with the existance of singularities in black holes?Why doesn't the universe collapse under its own gravity?14 Billion Years: Inprecise misconception. How old really is the “universe”?Cause of observed galactic red shift or acceleration in expansion of the universe: velocity vs gravity.How far can an atom collapse under gravity?Does ALL mass really have a gravitational pull? If so, wouldn't mean that an “anti-mass” exists?
$begingroup$
Notes:
1. I'm in 8th grade so i don't have in-depth schooling on this. Lengthier explanations with more extra information that would improve understanding would be much appreciated.
2. I asked a question on this topic earlier so this is an expansion of it.
3. English isn't perfect yet, so if anyone can give either Russian, Arabic, or Mandarin translations of complex terms, this would also help very much.
Many of the responses mentioned the big bang, and I thought that maybe it's continuous expansion, if the expansion is throughout and not new mass added on the edge of expansion, is this what balances out gravity? And if so, can its rate of movement (due to the loss of energy over time) decrease to a point that gravity overpowers it, and all mass would collapse in on itself?
gravity mass universe big-bang
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notes:
1. I'm in 8th grade so i don't have in-depth schooling on this. Lengthier explanations with more extra information that would improve understanding would be much appreciated.
2. I asked a question on this topic earlier so this is an expansion of it.
3. English isn't perfect yet, so if anyone can give either Russian, Arabic, or Mandarin translations of complex terms, this would also help very much.
Many of the responses mentioned the big bang, and I thought that maybe it's continuous expansion, if the expansion is throughout and not new mass added on the edge of expansion, is this what balances out gravity? And if so, can its rate of movement (due to the loss of energy over time) decrease to a point that gravity overpowers it, and all mass would collapse in on itself?
gravity mass universe big-bang
New contributor
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Notes:
1. I'm in 8th grade so i don't have in-depth schooling on this. Lengthier explanations with more extra information that would improve understanding would be much appreciated.
2. I asked a question on this topic earlier so this is an expansion of it.
3. English isn't perfect yet, so if anyone can give either Russian, Arabic, or Mandarin translations of complex terms, this would also help very much.
Many of the responses mentioned the big bang, and I thought that maybe it's continuous expansion, if the expansion is throughout and not new mass added on the edge of expansion, is this what balances out gravity? And if so, can its rate of movement (due to the loss of energy over time) decrease to a point that gravity overpowers it, and all mass would collapse in on itself?
gravity mass universe big-bang
New contributor
$endgroup$
Notes:
1. I'm in 8th grade so i don't have in-depth schooling on this. Lengthier explanations with more extra information that would improve understanding would be much appreciated.
2. I asked a question on this topic earlier so this is an expansion of it.
3. English isn't perfect yet, so if anyone can give either Russian, Arabic, or Mandarin translations of complex terms, this would also help very much.
Many of the responses mentioned the big bang, and I thought that maybe it's continuous expansion, if the expansion is throughout and not new mass added on the edge of expansion, is this what balances out gravity? And if so, can its rate of movement (due to the loss of energy over time) decrease to a point that gravity overpowers it, and all mass would collapse in on itself?
gravity mass universe big-bang
gravity mass universe big-bang
New contributor
New contributor
edited 2 hours ago
my2cts
5,7172718
5,7172718
New contributor
asked 7 hours ago
dark matter 48dark matter 48
141
141
New contributor
New contributor
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The mere fact that the universe is expanding doesn't mean that it can't collapse, any more than a stone moving upward means it can't turn around and come back down. The universe eventually would stop expanding and collapse back to a Big Crunch if it had enough matter and no dark energy.
But there apparently is dark energy, and it is making the universe expand faster and faster, not slower and slower! The anti-gravity of dark energy has been the dominant force in the universe for the last five or six billion years. Matter is no longer particularly important. According to the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, dark energy now constitutes 69.11% percent of the energy density of the universe, and matter (both visible and dark) only 30.89%.
According to the model, the universe will continue to expand forever, faster and faster, with the Friedmann scale factor $a(t)$ that determines its size eventually doubling every 11.6 billion years. The fraction of the energy density due to matter will approach 0%, while the fraction of the energy density due to dark energy will approach 100%. There is no Big Crunch in our future, according to the model.
Note: There is no "edge" to the expanding universe. Galaxies are not expanding into empty space "beyond the edge". Instead, space is expanding everywhere between galaxies, and there is no distance far from us at which you stop finding galaxies. Also, there is no new mass being added.
If there were no dark energy, the universe would be expanding slower and slower rather than faster and faster. If there was enough matter, it would turn around and collapse. If there was not enough matter, it would keep expanding. It would be like a rocket launched from Earth. If a rocket isn't launched with escape velocity, it falls back to Earth. If it has exactly escape velocity, it can reach infinity with zero velocity. If it has more than escape velocity, it can reach infinity with positive velocity. This is similar to how the universe would work if there were no dark energy.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I will try to give a simple example:
You know that all mass attracts all other mass, but in such a weak way, that only with large bodies can strong enough gravitational fields exist, as with the earth, which can hold the moon in an orbit around it with their mutual attraction.
When throwing a ball , your muscles supply kinetic energy, and it moves, but the earths gravitational pull makes the track a parabola. In space far from the earth, a thrown ball would go straight. The gravitational pull between small masses of each other is very weak , because of the small numbers in front of the formula:
$F=G{m_1m_2}/r^2$
Where F is the force, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects interacting, r is the distance between the centers of the masses and G is the gravitational constant, a very small number.
Because the force for small masses is very weak , when the masses are moving, i.e. have kinetic energy, the effect of the gravitational pull on the trajectory of the small masses can be ignored.
On the surface of the earth we just have a constant g , and only use the attraction of masses to the huge mass of earth.
Take a bomb and trigger it to explode. Why does not the gravity of the individual pieces exploding pull back together? Because chemical energy was supplied and turned into kinetic energy and the pieces flying away have a very small attraction to each other due to their gravity, so small, that the tracks of the break up are straight lines until the earth's large gravity gets them.
The original Big Bang model is about elementary particles and radiation exploding ( energy provided not known) into space. The model , after the energy is dissipated could end up into falling back into itself, in what is the Big Crunch model.
So what is keeping the universe at our time stable is the kinetic energy that masses acquired at the Big Bang, with trajectories which are affected by each other making galaxies etc, but the over all effect still is that clusters of galaxies are moving away from each other , not converging, in a continuous explosive like expansion of space.
Since you are interested in the subject you could read the links I have provided.
For an accurate explanation you should try to understand the answer by G.Smith.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I’m jealous that you have admirers who upvote even before you have explained anything!
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith :) I think the upvote is that I try to preempt the closure by a place holder , which closure is sometimes too precipitate for new users. it is a downvote to closure ;)
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith the reason I do place holders is because it has happened too often that I have worked on an answer, and suddenly the question is closed.As I spend some time in locating inks and figures etc, I feel cheated, so I use place holders and then I can edit even after closure.
$endgroup$
– anna v
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yes, I’ve done placeholders too when an answer takes some time to construct.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
11 mins ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "151"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
dark matter 48 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468290%2fdoes-the-expansion-of-the-universe-explain-why-the-universe-doesnt-collapse%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The mere fact that the universe is expanding doesn't mean that it can't collapse, any more than a stone moving upward means it can't turn around and come back down. The universe eventually would stop expanding and collapse back to a Big Crunch if it had enough matter and no dark energy.
But there apparently is dark energy, and it is making the universe expand faster and faster, not slower and slower! The anti-gravity of dark energy has been the dominant force in the universe for the last five or six billion years. Matter is no longer particularly important. According to the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, dark energy now constitutes 69.11% percent of the energy density of the universe, and matter (both visible and dark) only 30.89%.
According to the model, the universe will continue to expand forever, faster and faster, with the Friedmann scale factor $a(t)$ that determines its size eventually doubling every 11.6 billion years. The fraction of the energy density due to matter will approach 0%, while the fraction of the energy density due to dark energy will approach 100%. There is no Big Crunch in our future, according to the model.
Note: There is no "edge" to the expanding universe. Galaxies are not expanding into empty space "beyond the edge". Instead, space is expanding everywhere between galaxies, and there is no distance far from us at which you stop finding galaxies. Also, there is no new mass being added.
If there were no dark energy, the universe would be expanding slower and slower rather than faster and faster. If there was enough matter, it would turn around and collapse. If there was not enough matter, it would keep expanding. It would be like a rocket launched from Earth. If a rocket isn't launched with escape velocity, it falls back to Earth. If it has exactly escape velocity, it can reach infinity with zero velocity. If it has more than escape velocity, it can reach infinity with positive velocity. This is similar to how the universe would work if there were no dark energy.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mere fact that the universe is expanding doesn't mean that it can't collapse, any more than a stone moving upward means it can't turn around and come back down. The universe eventually would stop expanding and collapse back to a Big Crunch if it had enough matter and no dark energy.
But there apparently is dark energy, and it is making the universe expand faster and faster, not slower and slower! The anti-gravity of dark energy has been the dominant force in the universe for the last five or six billion years. Matter is no longer particularly important. According to the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, dark energy now constitutes 69.11% percent of the energy density of the universe, and matter (both visible and dark) only 30.89%.
According to the model, the universe will continue to expand forever, faster and faster, with the Friedmann scale factor $a(t)$ that determines its size eventually doubling every 11.6 billion years. The fraction of the energy density due to matter will approach 0%, while the fraction of the energy density due to dark energy will approach 100%. There is no Big Crunch in our future, according to the model.
Note: There is no "edge" to the expanding universe. Galaxies are not expanding into empty space "beyond the edge". Instead, space is expanding everywhere between galaxies, and there is no distance far from us at which you stop finding galaxies. Also, there is no new mass being added.
If there were no dark energy, the universe would be expanding slower and slower rather than faster and faster. If there was enough matter, it would turn around and collapse. If there was not enough matter, it would keep expanding. It would be like a rocket launched from Earth. If a rocket isn't launched with escape velocity, it falls back to Earth. If it has exactly escape velocity, it can reach infinity with zero velocity. If it has more than escape velocity, it can reach infinity with positive velocity. This is similar to how the universe would work if there were no dark energy.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The mere fact that the universe is expanding doesn't mean that it can't collapse, any more than a stone moving upward means it can't turn around and come back down. The universe eventually would stop expanding and collapse back to a Big Crunch if it had enough matter and no dark energy.
But there apparently is dark energy, and it is making the universe expand faster and faster, not slower and slower! The anti-gravity of dark energy has been the dominant force in the universe for the last five or six billion years. Matter is no longer particularly important. According to the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, dark energy now constitutes 69.11% percent of the energy density of the universe, and matter (both visible and dark) only 30.89%.
According to the model, the universe will continue to expand forever, faster and faster, with the Friedmann scale factor $a(t)$ that determines its size eventually doubling every 11.6 billion years. The fraction of the energy density due to matter will approach 0%, while the fraction of the energy density due to dark energy will approach 100%. There is no Big Crunch in our future, according to the model.
Note: There is no "edge" to the expanding universe. Galaxies are not expanding into empty space "beyond the edge". Instead, space is expanding everywhere between galaxies, and there is no distance far from us at which you stop finding galaxies. Also, there is no new mass being added.
If there were no dark energy, the universe would be expanding slower and slower rather than faster and faster. If there was enough matter, it would turn around and collapse. If there was not enough matter, it would keep expanding. It would be like a rocket launched from Earth. If a rocket isn't launched with escape velocity, it falls back to Earth. If it has exactly escape velocity, it can reach infinity with zero velocity. If it has more than escape velocity, it can reach infinity with positive velocity. This is similar to how the universe would work if there were no dark energy.
$endgroup$
The mere fact that the universe is expanding doesn't mean that it can't collapse, any more than a stone moving upward means it can't turn around and come back down. The universe eventually would stop expanding and collapse back to a Big Crunch if it had enough matter and no dark energy.
But there apparently is dark energy, and it is making the universe expand faster and faster, not slower and slower! The anti-gravity of dark energy has been the dominant force in the universe for the last five or six billion years. Matter is no longer particularly important. According to the standard Lambda-CDM model of cosmology, dark energy now constitutes 69.11% percent of the energy density of the universe, and matter (both visible and dark) only 30.89%.
According to the model, the universe will continue to expand forever, faster and faster, with the Friedmann scale factor $a(t)$ that determines its size eventually doubling every 11.6 billion years. The fraction of the energy density due to matter will approach 0%, while the fraction of the energy density due to dark energy will approach 100%. There is no Big Crunch in our future, according to the model.
Note: There is no "edge" to the expanding universe. Galaxies are not expanding into empty space "beyond the edge". Instead, space is expanding everywhere between galaxies, and there is no distance far from us at which you stop finding galaxies. Also, there is no new mass being added.
If there were no dark energy, the universe would be expanding slower and slower rather than faster and faster. If there was enough matter, it would turn around and collapse. If there was not enough matter, it would keep expanding. It would be like a rocket launched from Earth. If a rocket isn't launched with escape velocity, it falls back to Earth. If it has exactly escape velocity, it can reach infinity with zero velocity. If it has more than escape velocity, it can reach infinity with positive velocity. This is similar to how the universe would work if there were no dark energy.
edited 54 mins ago
answered 2 hours ago
G. SmithG. Smith
9,63411428
9,63411428
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I will try to give a simple example:
You know that all mass attracts all other mass, but in such a weak way, that only with large bodies can strong enough gravitational fields exist, as with the earth, which can hold the moon in an orbit around it with their mutual attraction.
When throwing a ball , your muscles supply kinetic energy, and it moves, but the earths gravitational pull makes the track a parabola. In space far from the earth, a thrown ball would go straight. The gravitational pull between small masses of each other is very weak , because of the small numbers in front of the formula:
$F=G{m_1m_2}/r^2$
Where F is the force, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects interacting, r is the distance between the centers of the masses and G is the gravitational constant, a very small number.
Because the force for small masses is very weak , when the masses are moving, i.e. have kinetic energy, the effect of the gravitational pull on the trajectory of the small masses can be ignored.
On the surface of the earth we just have a constant g , and only use the attraction of masses to the huge mass of earth.
Take a bomb and trigger it to explode. Why does not the gravity of the individual pieces exploding pull back together? Because chemical energy was supplied and turned into kinetic energy and the pieces flying away have a very small attraction to each other due to their gravity, so small, that the tracks of the break up are straight lines until the earth's large gravity gets them.
The original Big Bang model is about elementary particles and radiation exploding ( energy provided not known) into space. The model , after the energy is dissipated could end up into falling back into itself, in what is the Big Crunch model.
So what is keeping the universe at our time stable is the kinetic energy that masses acquired at the Big Bang, with trajectories which are affected by each other making galaxies etc, but the over all effect still is that clusters of galaxies are moving away from each other , not converging, in a continuous explosive like expansion of space.
Since you are interested in the subject you could read the links I have provided.
For an accurate explanation you should try to understand the answer by G.Smith.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I’m jealous that you have admirers who upvote even before you have explained anything!
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith :) I think the upvote is that I try to preempt the closure by a place holder , which closure is sometimes too precipitate for new users. it is a downvote to closure ;)
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith the reason I do place holders is because it has happened too often that I have worked on an answer, and suddenly the question is closed.As I spend some time in locating inks and figures etc, I feel cheated, so I use place holders and then I can edit even after closure.
$endgroup$
– anna v
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yes, I’ve done placeholders too when an answer takes some time to construct.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I will try to give a simple example:
You know that all mass attracts all other mass, but in such a weak way, that only with large bodies can strong enough gravitational fields exist, as with the earth, which can hold the moon in an orbit around it with their mutual attraction.
When throwing a ball , your muscles supply kinetic energy, and it moves, but the earths gravitational pull makes the track a parabola. In space far from the earth, a thrown ball would go straight. The gravitational pull between small masses of each other is very weak , because of the small numbers in front of the formula:
$F=G{m_1m_2}/r^2$
Where F is the force, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects interacting, r is the distance between the centers of the masses and G is the gravitational constant, a very small number.
Because the force for small masses is very weak , when the masses are moving, i.e. have kinetic energy, the effect of the gravitational pull on the trajectory of the small masses can be ignored.
On the surface of the earth we just have a constant g , and only use the attraction of masses to the huge mass of earth.
Take a bomb and trigger it to explode. Why does not the gravity of the individual pieces exploding pull back together? Because chemical energy was supplied and turned into kinetic energy and the pieces flying away have a very small attraction to each other due to their gravity, so small, that the tracks of the break up are straight lines until the earth's large gravity gets them.
The original Big Bang model is about elementary particles and radiation exploding ( energy provided not known) into space. The model , after the energy is dissipated could end up into falling back into itself, in what is the Big Crunch model.
So what is keeping the universe at our time stable is the kinetic energy that masses acquired at the Big Bang, with trajectories which are affected by each other making galaxies etc, but the over all effect still is that clusters of galaxies are moving away from each other , not converging, in a continuous explosive like expansion of space.
Since you are interested in the subject you could read the links I have provided.
For an accurate explanation you should try to understand the answer by G.Smith.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I’m jealous that you have admirers who upvote even before you have explained anything!
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith :) I think the upvote is that I try to preempt the closure by a place holder , which closure is sometimes too precipitate for new users. it is a downvote to closure ;)
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith the reason I do place holders is because it has happened too often that I have worked on an answer, and suddenly the question is closed.As I spend some time in locating inks and figures etc, I feel cheated, so I use place holders and then I can edit even after closure.
$endgroup$
– anna v
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yes, I’ve done placeholders too when an answer takes some time to construct.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I will try to give a simple example:
You know that all mass attracts all other mass, but in such a weak way, that only with large bodies can strong enough gravitational fields exist, as with the earth, which can hold the moon in an orbit around it with their mutual attraction.
When throwing a ball , your muscles supply kinetic energy, and it moves, but the earths gravitational pull makes the track a parabola. In space far from the earth, a thrown ball would go straight. The gravitational pull between small masses of each other is very weak , because of the small numbers in front of the formula:
$F=G{m_1m_2}/r^2$
Where F is the force, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects interacting, r is the distance between the centers of the masses and G is the gravitational constant, a very small number.
Because the force for small masses is very weak , when the masses are moving, i.e. have kinetic energy, the effect of the gravitational pull on the trajectory of the small masses can be ignored.
On the surface of the earth we just have a constant g , and only use the attraction of masses to the huge mass of earth.
Take a bomb and trigger it to explode. Why does not the gravity of the individual pieces exploding pull back together? Because chemical energy was supplied and turned into kinetic energy and the pieces flying away have a very small attraction to each other due to their gravity, so small, that the tracks of the break up are straight lines until the earth's large gravity gets them.
The original Big Bang model is about elementary particles and radiation exploding ( energy provided not known) into space. The model , after the energy is dissipated could end up into falling back into itself, in what is the Big Crunch model.
So what is keeping the universe at our time stable is the kinetic energy that masses acquired at the Big Bang, with trajectories which are affected by each other making galaxies etc, but the over all effect still is that clusters of galaxies are moving away from each other , not converging, in a continuous explosive like expansion of space.
Since you are interested in the subject you could read the links I have provided.
For an accurate explanation you should try to understand the answer by G.Smith.
$endgroup$
I will try to give a simple example:
You know that all mass attracts all other mass, but in such a weak way, that only with large bodies can strong enough gravitational fields exist, as with the earth, which can hold the moon in an orbit around it with their mutual attraction.
When throwing a ball , your muscles supply kinetic energy, and it moves, but the earths gravitational pull makes the track a parabola. In space far from the earth, a thrown ball would go straight. The gravitational pull between small masses of each other is very weak , because of the small numbers in front of the formula:
$F=G{m_1m_2}/r^2$
Where F is the force, m1 and m2 are the masses of the objects interacting, r is the distance between the centers of the masses and G is the gravitational constant, a very small number.
Because the force for small masses is very weak , when the masses are moving, i.e. have kinetic energy, the effect of the gravitational pull on the trajectory of the small masses can be ignored.
On the surface of the earth we just have a constant g , and only use the attraction of masses to the huge mass of earth.
Take a bomb and trigger it to explode. Why does not the gravity of the individual pieces exploding pull back together? Because chemical energy was supplied and turned into kinetic energy and the pieces flying away have a very small attraction to each other due to their gravity, so small, that the tracks of the break up are straight lines until the earth's large gravity gets them.
The original Big Bang model is about elementary particles and radiation exploding ( energy provided not known) into space. The model , after the energy is dissipated could end up into falling back into itself, in what is the Big Crunch model.
So what is keeping the universe at our time stable is the kinetic energy that masses acquired at the Big Bang, with trajectories which are affected by each other making galaxies etc, but the over all effect still is that clusters of galaxies are moving away from each other , not converging, in a continuous explosive like expansion of space.
Since you are interested in the subject you could read the links I have provided.
For an accurate explanation you should try to understand the answer by G.Smith.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
anna vanna v
160k8153451
160k8153451
$begingroup$
I’m jealous that you have admirers who upvote even before you have explained anything!
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith :) I think the upvote is that I try to preempt the closure by a place holder , which closure is sometimes too precipitate for new users. it is a downvote to closure ;)
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith the reason I do place holders is because it has happened too often that I have worked on an answer, and suddenly the question is closed.As I spend some time in locating inks and figures etc, I feel cheated, so I use place holders and then I can edit even after closure.
$endgroup$
– anna v
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yes, I’ve done placeholders too when an answer takes some time to construct.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
11 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I’m jealous that you have admirers who upvote even before you have explained anything!
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith :) I think the upvote is that I try to preempt the closure by a place holder , which closure is sometimes too precipitate for new users. it is a downvote to closure ;)
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith the reason I do place holders is because it has happened too often that I have worked on an answer, and suddenly the question is closed.As I spend some time in locating inks and figures etc, I feel cheated, so I use place holders and then I can edit even after closure.
$endgroup$
– anna v
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yes, I’ve done placeholders too when an answer takes some time to construct.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
I’m jealous that you have admirers who upvote even before you have explained anything!
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I’m jealous that you have admirers who upvote even before you have explained anything!
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith :) I think the upvote is that I try to preempt the closure by a place holder , which closure is sometimes too precipitate for new users. it is a downvote to closure ;)
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith :) I think the upvote is that I try to preempt the closure by a place holder , which closure is sometimes too precipitate for new users. it is a downvote to closure ;)
$endgroup$
– anna v
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith the reason I do place holders is because it has happened too often that I have worked on an answer, and suddenly the question is closed.As I spend some time in locating inks and figures etc, I feel cheated, so I use place holders and then I can edit even after closure.
$endgroup$
– anna v
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
@G.Smith the reason I do place holders is because it has happened too often that I have worked on an answer, and suddenly the question is closed.As I spend some time in locating inks and figures etc, I feel cheated, so I use place holders and then I can edit even after closure.
$endgroup$
– anna v
13 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yes, I’ve done placeholders too when an answer takes some time to construct.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
11 mins ago
$begingroup$
Yes, I’ve done placeholders too when an answer takes some time to construct.
$endgroup$
– G. Smith
11 mins ago
add a comment |
dark matter 48 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
dark matter 48 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
dark matter 48 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
dark matter 48 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f468290%2fdoes-the-expansion-of-the-universe-explain-why-the-universe-doesnt-collapse%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown