Fair.

That is an artifact of the fact that our number system is completely made up. The natural aspect of the ratio is what is real, and the way we apply numerical concepts to it isn’t perfect. It’s just close enough that we can use mathematics to describe the rules of the universe to a precision far greater than our intuition.

Not a lot of ELI5 answers, but some good history.

The Fibonacci sequence is a set of numbers with a distinct pattern (explained in other comments). What is important is that the ratio of one number to the one following it is always the same. (The second is always 1.618 times larger than the previous). That is called the golden ratio, and it is the golden ratio that is seen everywhere in nature.

If you’ve seen the image of rectangles that form into a spiral, this is what it means:

The small rectangle has sides with that exact ratio. The long side of that rectangle is the short side of the next, and that rectangle uses the golden ratio. The long side of that one is the short side of the next…. And so on. This creates a spiral pattern, and that pattern, in that ratio, happens all the time. Flowers, tree leaves, and animal shells for example. Always 1.618 times bigger than the previous part.

The number isn’t magical. 1.618 isn’t special. There is just a natural order to things, and we created a numerical system that happens to measure that order at that number.

I think that assumes the Galaxy formation was God’s design, or maybe something much denser and he just spun it to begin scattering stars. But that would run up against all of the irregular shaped galaxies that do not take this form, or which have had events happen that take longer than 6,000 years.

Things like collisions that tear apart galaxies and reform them into new shapes. This requires a gravity interaction, and stars that were just slowly moving outward at a pace of {this far}/6000 years would just scatter like pool balls. Or more likely, nothing would happen at all, because galaxies are mostly empty space. In a galactic collision, most of the stars just pass by each other without contact. Nothing to stop the initial outward fling.

If we accept gravity is a force pulling things together, and that these stars have an initial outward momentum that is working against it, we have to assume the outward momentum is much stronger than gravity to keep the normal galaxies from collapsing. But gravity has to be stronger than the outward momentum to recombine collided galaxies into different shapes.

Can you explain the hypothesis? How does a young universe explain dark matter and galaxy rotation?

Is the idea that there just hasn’t been time? Since the galaxies were created 6,000 years ago, we just haven’t seen it yet? If so, does that mean the stars actually ARE flying away from the center?

Andromeda, the Galaxy, is easiest to see if you aren’t looking directly at it. It kind of looks like a smudge on the sky. Cassiopeia points nearly right to it, which you said you know already.

I also think it helps to find the constellations Pegasus and Andromeda (the constellation). They are connected, with andromeda being the legs of Pegasus, and Pegasus being a large square in the sky.

When you have that, there is a bend in andromeda constellation that points to the galaxy. If you use both that and Cassiopeia, it is a bit easier.

I found that quality binoculars do a good job of seeing Andromeda. But no method of optics or referencing constellations will work if there is too much light pollution.

here is an image of a different star.

The problem is, they are so far away it is hard to get the resolution we can get with the sun.

Another interesting point is that the sun is not a particularly big star. It is average, if even on the smaller size. A star like Betelgeuse, the red star in the shoulder of the constellation Orion, is so big that if it sat where our sun is, the Earth would be inside of it.

It also opens A Wrinkle in Time

One possibility- the last stars run out of fuel and die off.

Another possibility- the expansion of space continues, to the point everything gets torn apart and reduced to elementary particles

Yet another- the expansion slows down to the point gravity can take over, collapsing the entire universe back to what it was before the Big Bang. (Maybe starting a new big bang?)

The first thing to consider is that there is no such thing as “faster than light”. The speed of light isn’t just the speed the fastest thing can go. It is the speed of causality. It is the rate at which time moves forward. As you approach that speed, time itself appears to slow down, and at the speed of light, it stops completely. It isn’t just extremely difficult to exceed the speed of light, it is physically impossible in our universe.

But let’s consider your question from the point of a wormhole. Say you are looking at Sirius (brightest star in Canis Major) and you are seeing what it looked like 8,000 years ago. Then, let’s say you step into a wormhole which transports you to that location instantly. The place you transport to will be 8,000 years later than the star you looked at at the start of your journey. If something happened in those intervening years (say, a supernova), the star won’t be there. But if you go back through the wormhole to return to earth, you would still look up and see Sirius.

New Brunswick or Morristown are good bets. But really, there is a train line that ends in Raritan, and you would be going against commuter traffic. You could consider Jersey City (one quick ride on the PATH, then your Raritan train). Or maybe Harrison or (the nicer parts of) Newark. Maybe Union or Westfield.

But Somerville is a great town, and worth considering.

I think the school ratings are old data. The Somerville school system has greatly improved. I have two kids in the elementary system and I think it’s great. Of course, Bridgewater still ranks very highly, and is no doubt a good school, but I don’t think the old Somerville comparison will be around much longer.

The difference between the two towns, IMO, is that Bridgewater has expensive homes and lower taxes. Somerville has median homes and high taxes. But the taxes pay for some great Somerville services.

The towns you have mentioned are all nice, but they are somewhat sleepy. IMO, Somerville, which is nearby is better for families. Parks, street fairs, a nice downtown, community events- Somerville just has a bit more going on.

For reference, Raritan is a neighboring town. Easy access to Somerville. Flemington is (and sorry to any Flemington residents) a dead town. It’s been trying for more than a decade to get back to what it used to be, but it isn’t going to happen. And it is just a bit too far away from everything else. I’d scratch that one from your lost.

Clinton is a nice town. If you are looking for a bit more rural small town feel, it’s a good choice. But If you are looking for more of a suburban small town feel, Somerville is the way to go.