crazunggoy47

crazunggoy47 OP t1_jajyba4 wrote

Hmm. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that an object that's moving away from us due to cosmic expansion has a finite kinetic energy (relative to us). So, from our perspective we should "expect" that kinetic energy to be falling, as our own gravity pulls them back in.

And then that galaxy, will also see the exact same thing. From its perspective every other galaxy is fleeing *it*. And if every galaxy sees this, and it just so happens that every trajectory has too little KE, then every galaxy would see the other galaxies crashing down on them.

Is that right?

3

crazunggoy47 OP t1_jajwm2d wrote

>The expansion of the universe is kinetic energy. [...] Also, the observed speed is always less than the speed of light, so everything has a finite energy.

Is that true? I thought that for distant galaxies, the recessional speed was often greater than c, since c is only a local speed limit, and does not apply to space time inflation.

Consider the rapid inflation of the universe, which went from electron-sized to golf-ball sized in 10–35 seconds; applying a naïve speed calculation would yield speed = distance / time = 43 mm / 10^(–35) seconds >>>>>> 3 x 10^(–8) m/s.

This is all to say, I'm mostly questioning whether the perceived recessional velocity can really correspond to kinetic energy.

3

crazunggoy47 OP t1_irpfue9 wrote

It seems like an evacuated container with high volume and low mass could feel greater buoyant force than air. Especially because an air bubble should reduce in volume due to the surrounding pressure, and therefore reduce its buoyancy (I think).

I’m still looking to better understand how ambient liquid pressure affects bubble velocity. It feels like on the one hand, higher pressure should impact greater force to the bubble. But on the other, higher pressure would contract the bubble and reduce its volume and buoyancy. Does that mean there is a particular optimal water depth that causes the greater bubble velocity?

57