# Solving the Andromeda Problem: A Newbie's Guide

In summary, Adam believes that we are seeing Andromeda as it was in the past and that it is moving towards us. However, he does not believe that we can see it as closer than it was 2.537 million years ago because that was in the past and not the present.
Hi, I am new to this forum and I signed up because I am having difficulty working something out. I am no expert whatsoever when it comes to astrophysics so please be kind.

We can measure the distance of galaxies using the speed of light, so we know that a galaxy 8 billion light years away for example has already moved further away by the time we have seen it, also we are looking at it as it was 8 billion years ago. I don't have any issue with this.

My problem is Andromeda, it is 2.537 million light years away and moving towards us at a rate of about 68 miles per second. So we are ofcourse looking at it as it was 2.537 million years ago, but if that is the case and its moving towards us, surely it must be closer than that. If we look at something in the past that began moving towards is it must be closer to us in the present, because we are now 2.537 million years further into the future than the time in which we percieve it, or receive the photons immited from it. Also surely on that premise, if it is closer to us than we percieve it to be, then surely we would be able to see it as closer? How can we look at something in the past that's moving towards us and not be able to percieve it as closer than it was 2.537 million years ago? because that was ofcourse in the past and not the present. Its almost like if I were to throw a ball to you and your reactions were so slow that you were 3 seconds behind, by the time you see the ball thrown it has already hit you

Hope it makes sense and apologies if its a silly question

Your question makes sense but is based on an apparent lack of having thought everything through. Yes, we are seeing it as it was in the past. Yes, it is moving towards us and is closer than we see it as being. There is no conflict here because the speed of light is not instantaneous. I know you realize that but you don't seem to have thought it through. How could we NOT see something in the past (whether it is moving away from us OR towards us) given that by the time the light reaches us, time has passed? And since the object moves WAY slower than light, why would we expect the object to get here before the light?

Your absolutely correct and believe it or not after I posted it I got the calculator out and worked out by doing 68(mps) x 60 x 24 x 365 x 2537000 and came to 9424224000000 miles, which is how far it will have moved, I then realized that this is a very small fraction of the distance away it is in light years (or actual miles), I forgot that light is traveling at 180000 mps (or whatever it is) compared to the 68 mps that andromeda is moving. So I get it now and you are perfectly correct I hadnt thought it through. Its amazing how fast you think after you post something.

Its amazing how fast you think after you post something.
This is an aspect, that often can be observed. To write something down or even better, explain it to others, forces us to view something from a different perspective. I remember a professor, who replied to a remark of mine: "I didn't know you were an expert on ... to give a lecture." with "I am not, but I want to learn it!".

I just hope I didnt make an idiot of myself but rather learned something new today lol

I just hope I didnt make an idiot of myself but rather learned something new today lol
No, you just did something we all do from time to time. I've done it twice in a row in the same thread, which is particularly embarrassing. Glad you learned something new.

I just hope I didnt make an idiot of myself but rather learned something new today lol

Please, you should see the first few hundred of my own posts here on PF. Now THOSE are embarrassing...
@phinds can vouch for me on that.

Drakkith said:
Please, you should see the first few hundred of my own posts here on PF. Now THOSE are embarrassing...
@phinds can vouch for me on that.
Yes, @Adamchiv Drakkith is a complete idiot actually. I can definitely vouch for that.

Well I think to be fair one thing I have already learned from all you intellegent people is, do not try to solve complex questions with logic, choose the maths. Dont assume, investigate. I only wanted to use this forum for this question, but as I was met by very thoughtful and intellegent responses I decided to ask other questions about evolution, and learned other new things. This is a great forum!

Drakkith and berkeman
Well I think to be fair one thing I have already learned from all you intellegent people is, do not try to solve complex questions with logic, choose the maths. Dont assume, investigate.
Well, don't rule out logic entirely, but yes you now have the right approach.

I only wanted to use this forum for this question, but as I was met by very thoughtful and intellegent responses I decided to ask other questions about evolution, and learned other new things. This is a great forum!
Yep, it is

One other thing just FYI, when you get into cosmology (the very large) and quantum mechanics (the very small), you CANNOT rely on "intuition", "common sense" and so forth. We humans evolved in an incredibly narrow range of physical experience and those two areas are completely outside it so our normal responses are not to be trusted.

phinds said:
Well, don't rule out logic entirely, but yes you now have the right approach.

Yep, it is

One other thing just FYI, when you get into cosmology (the very large) and quantum mechanics (the very small), you CANNOT rely on "intuition", "common sense" and so forth. We humans evolved in an incredibly narrow range of physical experience and those two areas are completely outside it so our normal responses are not to be trusted.

Yes ofcourse logic is important, but I think it is used too much by creationists and it doesn't really mirror reality like we think it does, critical scientific analysis is a more productive method and that's what my point was

#humanlogicisoftenflawed

One other thing just FYI, when you get into cosmology (the very large) and quantum mechanics (the very small), you CANNOT rely on "intuition", "common sense" and so forth. We humans evolved in an incredibly narrow range of physical experience and those two areas are completely outside it so our normal responses are not to be trusted.

Exactly that's a far more eloquent way of putting it, the universe does not care about logic or human reason, it may not even care about maths to a certain hypothetical extent.

Last edited by a moderator:
... I think it [logic] is used too much by creationists ...
I disagree. I don't think creationists use much logic at all. I mean how logical is it to think that either facts are irrelevant, or facts that clearly are right are wrong because they don't support your point of view. That's not logic, it's religion.

phinds said:
I disagree. I don't think creationists use much logic at all. I mean how logical is it to think that either facts are irrelevant, or facts that clearly are right are wrong because they don't support your point of view. That's not logic, it's religion.

I like this post very much

## 1. What is the Andromeda Problem?

The Andromeda Problem is a scientific concept that refers to the eventual collision of our galaxy, the Milky Way, with the Andromeda galaxy. It is estimated to occur in approximately 4.5 billion years.

## 2. Why is it important to solve the Andromeda Problem?

Solving the Andromeda Problem is crucial for understanding the fate of our galaxy and the potential impact it may have on our planet and its inhabitants. It also allows us to gain insight into the larger structures and dynamics of the universe.

## 3. What are the current solutions being proposed for the Andromeda Problem?

Some of the current solutions being proposed include studying the gravitational forces between the two galaxies, tracking the movements of stars and gas within the galaxies, and using computer simulations to model the potential outcomes of the collision.

## 4. How can a newbie approach solving the Andromeda Problem?

A newbie can approach solving the Andromeda Problem by first familiarizing themselves with the concept and then delving into the existing research and theories surrounding it. They can also seek guidance from experienced scientists and participate in discussions and collaborations with other researchers.

## 5. What are the potential implications of the Andromeda collision?

The Andromeda collision could have major implications for the structure and composition of our galaxy, as well as the potential for the formation of new stars and planets. It could also impact the habitability of Earth and the survival of life on our planet.

• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
30
Views
3K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
47
Views
3K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
7
Views
677
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
8
Views
2K
• Other Physics Topics
Replies
11
Views
1K
• Special and General Relativity
Replies
98
Views
3K
• Cosmology
Replies
2
Views
1K
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
81
Views
11K
• Cosmology
Replies
11
Views
2K
• Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
1K