Preston Guynn Hi Preston. Thank you for your comment. The formula as explained in the presentation is the Newton formula for acceleration = GM/R^2

For this type of problem the Newtonian formula is a very good approximation to the GR formula.

As regards the assumption of being relatively at rest initially it is a reasonable assumption.

The big bang theory starts from a cloud of gas and dust which condenses into galaxies. These are then affected by the expansion of space and gravitational attraction.

The theory that is explained in the link has galaxies forming in a galaxy formation event at points in space at rest relative to the space rest frame.

So in both models the galaxies are initially at rest.

Richard

Preston Guynn Just for clarification for other people who might be reading this discussion: The approach that I would take in considering the muon decay time is based on the idea of a space rest frame.

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

The decay time of the muon is affected by its velocity relative to the space rest frame K0. The distance that it has to travel is not affected by length contraction and is the same when viewed from any inertial reference frame.

This is a digression from the Andromeda problem but I thought I had better mention it. I don’t think the velocity involved in the relative motion of Andromeda is going to be sufficient to require special relativity considerations.

Richard

The relative motion of the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy suggests that the universe must be at least 53.9 billion years old.

I would be really interested to see if anyone can resolve the Andromeda problem in the context of the Big Bang theory in which the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.

Richard

Richard Lewis

But we can't agree with the relative motion of andromeda galaxy and milky Way galaxy because maybe the motion of either milky way or andromeda is influenced by other galaxies in past. So maybe this gives wrong assumption of the age of universe..

But waiting to see what is true.

Ritik Bhardwaj What I found in the analysis is that for galaxies beyond around 4 million light years, the effect of the expansion of space exceeds the gravitational attraction and the galaxies move further apart.

So the calculation is valid as a good estimate. The difference between 53.9 and 13.8 billion years indicates that it cannot be explained away by a hypothesis of other passing galaxies.

It is true that the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxies were the result of previous galaxy mergers which typically take upwards of 20 billion years. Still the relative motion of the Milky way galaxy system and the Andromeda galaxy system would be as calculated.

Richard

“…The relative motion of the Milky Way galaxy and the Andromeda galaxy suggests that the universe must be at least 53.9 billion years old.

I would be really interested to see if anyone can resolve the Andromeda problem in the context of the Big Bang theory in which the universe is only 13.8 billion years old.….”

- generally speaking the age of a galaxy is rather well estimated by its stars nomenclature, for what is observable in Milky Way and Andromeda seems as rather convincingly it follows that they are ~ 10 billions of years old. More aged – “old” galaxies in observable Matter are not too far from this value, and, though seems nobody can too in detail describe what are galaxies if are, say, yet ~20 billions of years old, now seems as rather rational to suggest from cosmological observations, that such galaxies would be rather dim objects in Space, while the galaxies above are well seen.

Recent SS posts in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dwarf_galaxies_orbiting_the_Milky_Way_lie_on_a_single_plane/5 , and

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_reasonable_alternative_to_the_theory_of_the_expanding_universe/613

- are relevant to this thread question.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko Hi Sergey. The approach to the evolution of the universe that I am following predicts the age of formation of the original matter for the Milky Way galaxy is around 100 billion years.

https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc

This is deduced from the position of the Milky Way galaxy at around 26 million light years from the centre. The first galaxy formed an estimated 126 billion years ago and after that the number of galaxies increased by a factor of 20 every 14 billion years. The Milky Way is in the outer region of the 400 galaxies closest to the centre so 100 billion years is a good estimate.

However, the history of the Milky Way galaxy was as follows. First to form are spherical regions of hydrogen and dark matter. Two such regions merge to form a spiral galaxy which leads to star formation.

https://youtu.be/18LnrC6Gs8M

Two such spiral galaxies merge to form the Milky Way galaxy with a high percentage of binary star systems due to the interaction of the merging galaxies.

This history is also explained in the formation of the solar system.

https://youtu.be/QjZg6WQp8mU

So although the original matter of the Milky Way formed 100 billion years ago the star formation is more recent.

Richard

Hi Richard, as to your last post

“…Hi Sergey. The approach to the evolution of the universe that I am following predicts the age of formation of the original matter for the Milky Way galaxy is around 100 billion years.…..”, etc.

- sorry, but I as a rule comment only official mainstream physics, and, if comment some alternative approaches, do that as a rule no more 1-2 times. Since you repeat the commented in SS post above your approach consequences, again sorry, but I cannot add something else to what is written in the SS post above already.

Cheers

Sergey Shevchenko OK understood. Thank you for your original comment.

Richard