RE: Conventional QTI = False

From: Charles Goodwin <cgoodwin.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:24:56 +1200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Russell Standish [mailto:R.Standish.domain.name.hidden]
>
> I wasn't referring to that snippet, but another one discussing the
> evolution of "superclusters" of galaxies. The theory predicts that the
> universe will ultimately come to be dominated by said clusters. The
> snippet I mentioned seems to be referring to our measured velocity of
> ca 600km/s in the direction of the Virgo supercluster, although that
> wasn't explicitly mentioned in the article.

Yes, I know the one you mean (the snippet and the supercluster). An article on the future evolution of the universe. That suffers
from the same objection to the prediction that we'll fall into our galaxy's black hole, namely that the dynamics of the situation
might be such that our galaxy is 'evaporated off' from the supercluster's potential well rather than 'relaxed into' it. (However I
realise you were just making a casual remark in passing so maybe all this analysis is getting a bit over the top....)

> Re our own supermassive black hole at the heart of the Milky Way - I
> assume we're in a stable orbit about that one, with the usual caveat
> that its impossible to prove stability of any arbitrary n-body orbit
> of course.

The sun does seem to be in a very stable orbit about the galaxy - almost circular, in fact. See "Rare Earth" for an explanation of
why this is one of the many factors that had to come out just right for us to exist at all...

Charles
Received on Wed Sep 12 2001 - 21:23:20 PDT