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?

Is there a working SACD iso player for Ubuntu?

In Qur'an 7:161, why is "say the word of humility" translated in various ways?

Why do compilers behave differently when static_cast(ing) a function to void*?

Fear of getting stuck on one programming language / technology that is not used in my country

Is there a name for this algorithm to calculate the concentration of a mixture of two solutions containing the same solute?

Offered money to buy a house, seller is asking for more to cover gap between their listing and mortgage owed

Approximating irrational number to rational number

Calculating Wattage for Resistor in High Frequency Application?

How should I respond when I lied about my education and the company finds out through background check?

Why is so much work done on numerical verification of the Riemann Hypothesis?

why `nmap 192.168.1.97` returns less services than `nmap 127.0.0.1`?

250 Floor Tower

Is the U.S. Code copyrighted by the Government?

Problem with TransformedDistribution

Is a bound state a stationary state?

Why does the Sun have different day lengths, but not the gas giants?

What was this official D&D 3.5e Lovecraft-flavored rulebook?

What is the evidence for the "tyranny of the majority problem" in a direct democracy context?

Non-trope happy ending?

On a tidally locked planet, would time be quantized?

Why is it that I can sometimes guess the next note?

Melting point of aspirin, contradicting sources

Are the IPv6 address space and IPv4 address space completely disjoint?

Why did the EU agree to delay the Brexit deadline?



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?













1












$begingroup$


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?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$
















    1












    $begingroup$


    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?










    share|cite|improve this question









    New contributor




    dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.







    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1





      $begingroup$


      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?










      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.







      $endgroup$




      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






      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question









      New contributor




      dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 1 hour ago









      my2cts

      5,7172718




      5,7172718






      New contributor




      dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 6 hours ago









      dark matter 48dark matter 48

      91




      91




      New contributor




      dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      dark matter 48 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2












          $begingroup$

          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$




















            1












            $begingroup$

            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:



            $F=Gm_1m_2/r^2$



            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              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
              37 mins ago










            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.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            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









            2












            $begingroup$

            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$

















              2












              $begingroup$

              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.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















                2












                2








                2





                $begingroup$

                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                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.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 4 mins ago

























                answered 1 hour ago









                G. SmithG. Smith

                9,60411428




                9,60411428





















                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    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:



                    $F=Gm_1m_2/r^2$



                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$












                    • $begingroup$
                      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
                      37 mins ago















                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    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:



                    $F=Gm_1m_2/r^2$



                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$












                    • $begingroup$
                      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
                      37 mins ago













                    1












                    1








                    1





                    $begingroup$

                    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:



                    $F=Gm_1m_2/r^2$



                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$



                    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:



                    $F=Gm_1m_2/r^2$



                    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.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 39 mins ago

























                    answered 1 hour 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
                      37 mins ago
















                    • $begingroup$
                      I’m jealous that you have admirers who upvote even before you have explained anything!
                      $endgroup$
                      – G. Smith
                      1 hour ago










                    • $begingroup$
                      @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
                      37 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
                    37 mins 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
                    37 mins ago










                    dark matter 48 is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                    draft saved

                    draft discarded


















                    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.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    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





















































                    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







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Möglingen Índice Localización Historia Demografía Referencias Enlaces externos Menú de navegación48°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.129166666666748°53′18″N 9°07′45″E / 48.888333333333, 9.1291666666667Sitio web oficial Mapa de Möglingen«Gemeinden in Deutschland nach Fläche, Bevölkerung und Postleitzahl am 30.09.2016»Möglingen

                    Virtualbox - Configuration error: Querying “UUID” failed (VERR_CFGM_VALUE_NOT_FOUND)“VERR_SUPLIB_WORLD_WRITABLE” error when trying to installing OS in virtualboxVirtual Box Kernel errorFailed to open a seesion for the virtual machineFailed to open a session for the virtual machineUbuntu 14.04 LTS Virtualbox errorcan't use VM VirtualBoxusing virtualboxI can't run Linux-64 Bit on VirtualBoxUnable to insert the virtual optical disk (VBoxguestaddition) in virtual machine for ubuntu server in win 10VirtuaBox in Ubuntu 18.04 Issues with Win10.ISO Installation

                    Torre de la Isleta Índice Véase también Referencias Bibliografía Enlaces externos Menú de navegación38°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.3838888938°25′58″N 0°23′02″O / 38.43277778, -0.38388889Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta o Torre Saleta. Base de datos de bienes inmuebles. Patrimonio Cultural. Secretaría de Estado de CulturaFicha BIC Torre de la Illeta de l’Horta. Dirección General de Patrimonio Cultural. Generalitat ValencianaLugares de interés. Ayuntamiento del CampelloTorre de la Isleta en CastillosNet.org