- NEW!
This is NOT a simple google & spit Q. Numbers on the net are all over the map. The first of my #s come directly from the blue shift-I think-& the 2nd from an argument that most of the observed blue shift is due to our solar system presently zooming towards Andromeda in that part of its orbit about the Milky Way.
by engineer is Terminator on February 2nd, 2011
How many fins does a rocket need to stabilize it?
by Answerbag Staff on March 18th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
I have a digital planeterium. What is your favorite projection?
/
by einsteinwasright0116 on May 14th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
What is the distance between Saturn&the sun?
by Answerbag Staff on February 1st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
How many hours does it take for Uranus to rotate?
by Answerbag Staff on January 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Why does a star in the sky turn black
by shell6969 on May 9th, 2012
| 3 people like this
You're reading Andromeda Galaxy soon to hit us!(1) How fast is it coming?(311 or 100 km/sec, or o/w) (2) Collision when?(2.8 or 8.7 billion yrs., or o/w)
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
You are perfectly correct concerning the "non-collision" nature of the collision. Your NASA source is worthless, & I'm not surprized for 2 reasons: (1) lousy previous info I've found on their site & (2)The screwy #s which are all over the internet. They give the distance as 2 million light years(L); contact in 4 billion years; with, thus, an implied speed of .0005c=150 km/sec.
The one thing we can be certain of is our best info on the distance: 2.9 million L, from the Hipparcos satelite. Their 150 km/sec matches with nothing I know of. Right now I'm leaning towards the 100 km/sec & 8.7 billion years, but no one has stated such a long time-the values on the net range from 2 to 7 1/2 billion. These values I derived from info at http://messier.obspm.fr/m/m031.html/
by kenken on February 3rd, 2011
Well, when things are at such vast distance, miscalculations and defective observation is obvious, but compared to other internet links, I do trust NASA more.At least, we have certain genuine pointers which we could reach.
Still, anyone could go wrong and guys at NASA are no exception.
Good analysis from your part, I should say.
by engineer is Terminator on February 3rd, 2011
Appreciate the kind words.
As far as NASA, how did they come up with 4 billion years, which I have seen nowhere? Well, let's see:their first source says 5 billion; their 2nd does not give one, although there is a value implied from their data-would they bother to figure it out? Nahhh; 3rd source, 3 billion; 4th source, 6 billion. And the average is (5+2+6)/3=4.25, rounding off to 4 billion. What do you want to bet!
All I can say is, take their info with a grain of salt. Regretfully, they are at times using their rep for propaganistic purposes. So my warning is to check it out before trusting it.
by kenken on February 5th, 2011
Hello kenken,
not sure what other sources you are talking about, but I don't think NASA's stuffs are propagandist or even close to that.They constantly monitor the movement of galaxy and the shifts through the Hubble and Fermi.I am a regular visitor of the site since my childhood.
I agree sometimes they go wrong as everyone does, later on the update it with new findings.I trust them, because I follow them closely and observe their findings with my reasons.I really don't find anything that's hard to believe.
by engineer is Terminator on February 5th, 2011