[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Hi.

    I'm slightly puzzled:
    The title(s) of the replies seem to change quite often.   It started with "Stationary Model of the solar system",   became  "The Coriolis force acting on earth and in the universe"   and now seems to be "Why are earthquakes more likely to occur at night...."
     There's also a lot of repetition of posts and You Tube links spanning over the 14 pages of this forum thread, irrespective of the titles under which they appear.  Was the same answer appropriate for everything?

    My best guess:   A few different threads and posts are being re-shuffled and merged (by staff possibly).

Best Wishes.

Hello!

It's quite simple, I started one topic, then other topics appeared. They are interconnected.

Best regards, Yusup.

[Origin]

They are interconnected.

I agree, the connection is that they are all nonsense.

[Kryptid]

1. Due to what forces does the Universe expand and contract?

We don't yet know.

Without answers to these questions, the Big Bang hypothesis has no right to exist.

That's not how science works. We can observe that galaxies are moving away from each other without knowing what exact force caused that movement.

a) At the same time, the expansion of the Universe is hampered by mass and gravity.

To an extent.

b) The compression of the Universe is prevented by rotation and centrifugal force.

Not according to the Big Bang theory that I know.

2. It is believed that the Universe is expanding, along with the Solar system.

The metric expansion of space is making the Universe bigger, yes, but not the Solar System. The Solar System is gravitationally bound.

a) Does the diameter and thickness of the Solar System change?

Technically, it is becoming slightly larger as the Sun loses mass over time.

b) Are the diameters of planets and the distance between planets increasing?

Their diameters are not changing, and I'm not sure if the net distances are increasing are not. They are all getting further away from the Sun due to the Sun losing mass.

d) Where is dark matter located in the Solar System?

It's probably distributed very evenly throughout it. The distribution of dark matter seems to vary only on very large scales.

e) Is there an equation for dark energy, and in what units is dark energy measured?

There probably is somewhere, but I'm not sure what it is. Energy can be measured in joules, so there's that.

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

This is something I started writing a day ago but @Kryptid answered most of the questions.   You ( @Yusup Hizirov ) seem to want some other explanation, so I might as well post this bit of what I was writing.

1. Due to what forces does the Universe expand and contract?

     The short answer would be "gravity" but the longer answer would require explaining that gravity is not a "force" under the model used.   In GR gravity is just an effect from the curvature of spacetime.   Under GR, space is not a static background that we can ignore.  Space is a dynamic thing, it changes its behaviour with time.
    Most noteably, the nature of space (I'd say "metric" but just read "nature of space") responds to the content of that space including how that content is distributed in space.   We then have something you could naively consider like a feedback situation:   
    Some content of space changes the nature of space, which changes the movement of (or even just the volume of space occupied by) the content - so the distribution of content is changed, which in turn changes the nature of space, which in turn changes the movement and distribution of the content, which.....
    Overall, starting from the EFE (Einstein Field Equations) there actually aren't many static solutions that we can find.   As soon as we put any content into the universe we end up with space that must change in some dynamic manner.
    It's difficult to say what caused what, it's the chicken and egg dilemma.   All we need to care about is that at some early time, there was some content of the universe and some space in which this content existed,  after that we have a dynamic inter-play between the content and the curvature of space.   
    This is perhaps one of the key differences between Newtonian Mechanics and (General) Relativity.   In Newtonian Mechanics, a moving particle didn't change the nature of space in any way.  Space is just a static background in which particles will move.  As such we can assume that an ordinary sort of Newtonian force must be there and is required to change the motion of any particle.    In GR, space will respond and change as a particle moves through it.

Do we really consider how space responds to the movement of a particle when using GR?
     Not always.   For a small particle, let's say a starship, the change in space caused by this particles movement through it is negligble in comparison to all the other sources of gravitation that exist in the space around it (like planets and stars) and we can reasonably assume it just moves through space without seriously affecting it.   In technical terms, we'd say the starship can be treated as a test particle that is just moving through a background of space whose properties were determined and set by all of those other big things in the region and not by the starship.
    However, when you're considering the whole contents of the universe (as we do in Cosmology) it's clear that you certainly cannot ignore the response of space to the movement of this content.  The content is the whole content of the universe, there is nothing else bigger or more significant as a source of gravitation in the region.   We must seek solutions where the response of space is completely determined by the evolution (e.g. movement and distribution) of the content.    We are precisely in the situation described above,   something we can view as a feed-back situation  and space has to be a dynamic thing.   

Where is dark matter located in the Solar System?

    It's hard to say.    There could be some right next to me and you at the moment.   It doesn't interact much with anything.   There are plenty of experiments underway to try and directly detect some dark matter, i.e. some that is right here on planet earth with us.
    We have some models and theories for how dark matter may be distributed in a galaxy but a galaxy is a much bigger thing, a huge scale up from a single solar system.   There are no models for the distribution of dark matter within an individual solar system that I've seen.

Is there an equation for dark energy, and in what units is dark energy measured?

     There are several equations where a quantity you can call "dark energy" appears. 
     We still can't assume that "dark energy" must be a substance or some content of the universe.   It's just a name we associate with some effect which accounts for the apparent expansion properties of the universe.  In particular, the universe is expanding and more importantly the rate of that expanson is accelerating.
      One way in which we could explain this is to have a strange substance as some content of the universe.  Another way involves adjusting the rules for the way that spacetime curves in response to the content of the universe.  Just using General Relativity we have the ability to have a cosmological constant on one side of an equation, or else to move this to the other side of the equation and consider it as some additional content in the stress-energy tensor.    This corresponds exactly to what has just been discussed  (keep the content and adjust the rules    vs.    adjust the content and keep the original rules).  Technically,  the cosmological constant is only associated with what we should call "vaccum energy" rather than "dark energy" but the distinction is frequently blurred.   For example, "Dark energy" may have an energy density that changes with time, whereas "vaccum energy" is considerd to have a fixed energy density at all times - but this is a minor detail:   The current version of the big bang theory known as the ΛCDM model works quite well and assumes we have a vaccum energy which will only ever have a constant density at all times.
     There are also other theories where the rules of movement for objects are changed in other ways, for example MOND  (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) and doubtlessly many other theories that I'm hardly aware of.   The effect which we, and especially the Pop Sci media, have called "dark energy" is quite possibly a combination of many of these things.   So, despite the name suggesting it is some sort of energy in space, you have to step back and realise that it may not be anything like that.   It's just some effect for which one explanation includes the existence of some strange substance or content of the universe.

     Let's confine our attention to "vaccum energy" which is sufficient to explain most of what we would want "dark energy" to be.   One obvious choice of an equation to look at is the Einstein Field Equations with the cosmological constant and declare that the value of the cosmological constant is an appropriate measurement of the combined effect we could call "dark energy".
    According to Wikipedia, this is a fairly reasonable value that agrees with current results:      Λ = Cosmological constant ≈   1.1 x 10^-52  m^-2.     It would have SI units  of  "per square metre".

     As I mentioned earlier, this is considering "dark energy" as just a change in the rules for how space responds to content.   Let's move the cosmological constant to the other side of the equation and consider what it would represent if it was some content, some sort of substance or energy, in the universe.

    If you consider dark energy as some content existing in a FRW universe, then it is treated as if it is an ideal fluid.   
The word "ideal" means that it doesn't support or exhibit any shear stresses  (so it has 0 viscosity).   The word "fluid" is quite nominal and we cannot run too far with the notion that it is like an ordinary fluid we have experience of in our normal life.  In particular, this thing has a positive energy content (e.g. it has some mass or energy in it) but it has a negative pressure.   There's no ordinary fluid in our normal lives that could have negative pressure.   

    The values for the sort of energy content and pressure it would have you can find in various places.    Wikipedia report an energy density approximately 5 x10⁻¹⁰ J/m³ .   I haven't spent the time finding the pressure in SI units.   The pressure would be precisely -1 times that energy if we work in natural units where c = speed of light=1 etc.   You could find (or calculate) that pressure in some other units like Pascal if you wish.

Best Wishes.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

Thank you very much for your objective criticism.

The statement that galaxies fly away from the center of the Universe does not stand up to criticism, because a galaxy is a nebula behind which there are single stars. https://www.sciencealert.com/bizarre-galaxy-discovered-with-seemingly-no-stars-whatsoever

Best regards, Yusup.

[Kryptid]

Please rate this post too:
The statement that galaxies are moving apart does not stand up to criticism, because galaxies are single stars that are located behind the nebula.

Galaxies contain many, many stars. I suppose that's beside the point: whatever they are or whatever they are made of, they are still moving apart from each other.

[Origin]

Please rate this post too:
The statement that galaxies diverge does not stand up to criticism, because a galaxy is a nebula behind which there are single stars.

I rate this as false.  A galaxy is not a nebula.  A nebula is a relatively tiny volume of gas or dust that is located within a galaxy.

[Origin]

With the same success it can be argued that cyclones and anticyclones consist of stars

If you replace 'success' with 'utter failure' I would agree.

[Kryptid]

With the same success it can be argued that cyclones and anticyclones consist of stars

Not at all. Cyclones are made of air and water droplets.

[Origin]

6. When the axial and orbital speed of the galaxy reaches a critical point, the galaxy, having the properties of a gyroscope, capsizes, causing the galaxy to explode, leaving the asteroid and turning into a meteor swarm.

Your posts sound like the barely coherent ramblings of someone one taking horse tranquilizers and LSD.

[Bored chemist]

What has been said can be easily verified by performing a simple experiment.

Do the experiment; post your results.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

There is a high probability that, due to the degassing of magma, a gas layer (foam) is formed between the earth?s crust and the magma, thanks to which the earth?s crust does not overheat and the magma does not cool. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumice
It is possible that flammable gases are the result of degassing of foam.
The assertion that flammable gases are formed from the decay products of animals and plants, which are not known to sink to a depth of more than 10 km, is questionable. At the same time, seismic activity is observed on other planets and satellites, in particular, explosions on Jupiter?s satellite Io. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

[Origin]

. Next, the light, moving along the edge of the Solar system, bla, bla, bla...

CQSH, chuckle quietly shaking head.

[paul cotter]

My computer had a hiccup and Origin beat me to it. This stuff is absolute unmitigated nonsense and a major misuse of scientific terms.

[Bored chemist]

The above can be easily verified by performing a simple experiment.

Then get on with it + then claim your Nobel prize.
Please don't wast any further time here talking to teh likes  of us, when you could be engaged in such an important quest.

[paul cotter]

This stuff is so far into the "not even wrong" category that I feel it should be closed/deleted- not up to me of course. There are several other long argumentative threads but most of these have at least semi intelligent posts and questions. This particular thread has zero value and I cannot envisage a change at this stage, given the amount of pure waffle that has already been posted.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

6. I believe that minerals were formed in vertical and horizontal faults under the influence of pressure, temperature and time at the beginning of mountain building.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_ore
a) There is a high probability that as a result of the explosions in the faults, iron ore was formed from iron vapors, due to the fact that after the explosion, iron particles could penetrate the walls of the faults. https://new-science.ru/mozhet-li-metall-byt-gazom/
Perhaps, vapors of radioactive metals could also explode.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

[Bored chemist]

This stuff is so far into the "not even wrong" category that I feel it should be closed/deleted

I second that suggestion.

[Yusup Hizirov (OP)]

The geological activity coefficient

You still haven't said what it is.

The reason for the geological activity of the planets is also the Coriolis solar force.
The side of the Earth located at dawn, as a result of the axial rotation of the Earth, approaches the Sun at a speed of 1600 km/h, and the side of the Earth located at sunset moves away from the Sun at a speed of 1600 km/h. due to which the Solar Coriolis force stretches the Earth along the Earth?s orbit, and as a result, the geological activity of planets and satellites increases. (Rotating planets heat up, like a flat tire on a car.)
The high geological activity of Jupiter's moon Io can be explained by the fact that the axial and orbital velocity of Io is 15 times greater than that of the Moon.
Io's orbital speed is 17 km / s, and the Moon's orbital speed is 1 km / s. Io's axial velocity is 1 revolution per 42 hours, and the moon's axial velocity is 1 revolution per month.
The distance from Jupiter to Io, the surface temperature and diameter of Io are the same as those of the Moon.
Geologically active are also Earth, Jupiter, Ceres, Enceladus, etc.
The geological activity of Venus and Mercury is extremely low due to their slow rotation.
The coefficient of geological activity of the planets depends on the diameter, axial and orbital speed of the planets. Magma circulation also contributes.
The video shows how the Coriolis force of the Sun stretches the Earth and the orbit of the Moon along the orbit of the Earth.

The assertion that tidal forces, due to the large eccentricity of Io's orbit, are the cause of Io's high geological activity is questionable, since many planetary satellites have large eccentricities, but high geological activity is not observed for some reason.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity
https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%83%D0%BB%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%98%D0%BE

[Halc]

This stuff is so far into the "not even wrong" category that I feel it should be closed/deleted

I second that suggestion.

You know what?  I must agree. Topic locked.  Subject not to be continued in new topic.
Please support speculations with mathematics/evidence.

The last post was entirely full of just plain made-up nonsense. There is no model, no mathematics, and no predictions.  Coriolis solar force?  Gimme a break. Tidal stress has nothing to do with a pseudo-force, and the energy driving IO's geologic activity is from its orbital eccentricity, not its rotation, and certainly not from the sun, so far away.