The Black Hole at The Center of The Universe

[astrocat]

I say falling due to Gravity causes speeding up (Newton) and Speeding up leads to Loss of pressure (Bernoulli) and a loss of pressure equals expansion (Boyle) and expansion leads to cooling down (the Joule-Thomson Effect) That said...
There are 2 kinds of expansion - 1) The kind that starts fast and slows down and 2) the kind that starts slowly and speeds up.
The first kind 1) is an Outward Expansion, your popping seed-case or explosion or Big Bang. The second kind 2) is an Inward Expansion. Allow me to explain.

Air approaching the Nozzle of a Central-Vac starts slowly, speeding up and losing pressure (expanding) all the way to the Nozzle. At the Nozzle is the point of Maximum Speed, Minimum Temperature, Minimum Pressure and Maximum Expansion. Note: a) The slow start b) the Speeding up Expansion and c) the Inward direction (into the Nozzle)

All Speeding up expansions are Inward.

Every time a bird flaps its wing, it creates a (free) vortex. The outside of a vortex turns slowly (no ore room)

[lucaspa]

I say falling due to Gravity causes speeding up (Newton) and Speeding up leads to Loss of pressure (Bernoulli) and a loss of pressure equals expansion (Boyle) and expansion leads to cooling down (the Joule-Thomson Effect)

All of these happen in relatively dense gasses. Since the universe is mostly vacuum, this doesn't apply. That said...
There are 2 kinds of expansion - 1) The kind that starts fast and slows down and 2) the kind that starts slowly and speeds up.
The first kind 1) is an Outward Expansion, your popping seed-case or explosion or Big Bang. The second kind 2) is an Inward Expansion.

Unfortunately, the data show the outward expansion of the universe is speeding up. The expansion is accelerating. The data is very conclusive.

Second, there is no "center of the universe" as you are thinking of it. In a very real sense, the universe has no center. It's part of the math of spacetime. I strongly suggest the article:
Lineweaver CH and Davis TM Misconceptions about the Big Bang, Scientific American 36-45 March 2005 http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID ... 414B7F0147

[astrocat]

Nobody has ever observed the expansion of the Universe. This is entirely without evidence. What is known, and this is well documented, is that the Observable Universe - the part we can know about - is expanding at an ever increasing rate.

When you say 'These things happen only in dense gasses,' you are really saying that Boyle's Law and Bernoulli's Theorem work only on Earth - and not in space. This I strongly disagree with. These effects are Universal!

You say, 'Secondly, the Universe has no center, which - to me - is odd. If there was a Big-Bang, didn't it happen at a central point? And haven't we been expanding away from this central point for billions of years, according to the Big-Bang theorists. I want to say right now, that everything with Mass must have a Center of Mass (C of M). That's not me, that's Physics 101.

You're probably a Mathematician. Math isn't a Science, that's because anything is possible in Math. You can prove two plus two equals five, in Math. I myself can show you Mathematically, that you have eleven fingers.
I'm sure you could prove there was a Big-Bang in Math.

And something else - there's no such thing as an Outward Expansion that speeds up. Any expansion that speeds up is Inward. Look, every time a bird flaps its wing, it makes a (free) vortex. The outside of any vortex turns only slowly, speeding up as the pressure falls (expanding) into the center. That's an expansion that speeds up - Inwards.

And another thing. In 1998 they all thought the expansion was slowing down, but it was then that they found out the expansion was speeding up. Instead of re-evaluating their Big-Bang, Modern Scientists promptly invented (fabricated) a new force - an Anti-Gravity force they called Dark Energy, a 'cooler' sounding name and much easier to sell - especially as Anti-Gravity doesn't exist!

Science tho', is bound by Laws, Laws which have been sometimes bitterly fought for - Laws which are Universal. But I don't think you know that.

[Watson]

Hi Astrocat, some one takes the time to read your post, and make some construtive and accurate comments and you come back with this. I would be really interested in the math that proves you have eleven fingers? Genetics?

[astrocat]

Hi Watson,
About the eleven fingers - okay, hold up both hands, fingers stretched.
Now, take one hand and put away one finger. As you do this, say 'Ten.'
On the same hand, put away the rest of your fingers, 'Nine, eight seven and six.
Are you with me so far?
So the last number you mentioned was six. Correct?
Six, plus the five fingers of your other hand is eleven, is it not?

Accurate comments? 'The Universe is expanding?' That's something that has never been observed, you must agree? Without observation, there can be no evidence. I'm sorry, but I'm a scientist. We have to go by the evidence.
Now, as I said before, there is tons of information proving the Observable Universe is expanding. Constructive comments - that the Universe has no center? It must certainly have a Center of Mass because everything with mass must have a Center of Mass - unless you can tell me different?

Even after the first second of the Big-Bang the Universe could not have been 400.000 miles across - even travelling at the speed of light. Surely you can see that? Well, that 400,00 miles I mentioned - that's a finite number, wouldn't you agree? So I have a question for you - how do you go from finite to infinite? Is it something that happens fast, or perhaps only very slowly. I wish someone would tell me.

Well, Watson - it was nice of you to reply, I can't deny. But there's no such thing as an outward expansion that speeds up. The only kind of expansion that speeds up is Inward. We're not going 'out' we're going 'in'.

We're currently moving thru' Space at around 15 million miles-per-hour, with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration. Any outward expansion is going to slow down and stop. It was looking for this slowing down that Astronomers found that the expansion was accelerating. The only kind of expansion that accelerates is Inward. But Thanks, anyway.





\\

[Marshall]

...You say, 'Secondly, the Universe has no center, which - to me - is odd. If there was a Big-Bang, didn't it happen at a central point? And haven't we been expanding away from this central point for billions of years, according to the Big-Bang theorists. I want to say right now, that everything with Mass must have a Center of Mass (C of M). That's not me, that's Physics 101.
...

"didn't it happen at a central point? And haven't we been expanding away from this central point for billions of years, according to the Big-Bang theorists"

No. By "big bang theorists" I assume you mean cosmologists. They don't say there is a central point somewhere that we have been expanding away from.

You ought to try to learn what the standard picture is first. the main difference between a learner and a crackpot is that a crackpot has his own theory and won't listen. He doesn't want to learn.

If you want to talk about cosmology you need to understand the standard picture that astronomers have, and then if you find it unsatisfactory you can try branching out from there, blaze your own trail out from the common homebase.

Lucaspa suggested you read a SciAm piece by Lineweaver. Lineweaver is a recognized worldclass cosmologist---the it a type of astronomer who specializes in studying the big picture.

You just dismissed what Lucaspa said. Did not read the Lineweaver article. I get the strong impression that you cannot learn from us here, or do not want to. Just want to promote the eccentric "alternative" misconceptions you have arrived at on your own.

That's just my first impression from how you just acted. I will keep an open mind and keep watching to see how you act. I may get a different idea if I see you asking questions in an openminded way and being willing to read stuff occasionally, and listen.

[Marshall]

"We're currently moving thru' Space at around 15 million miles-per-hour, with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration. Any outward expansion is going to slow down and stop. It was looking for this slowing down that Astronomers found that the expansion was accelerating. The only kind of expansion that accelerates is Inward. But Thanks, anyway."

What are you talking about? In what reference frame are we moving at that speed? In what direction? Why do you think we are accelerating in that direction?

Learn the standard model that astronomers use first, then go off on your own wild tangent if you find reason to.

The reference frame most commonly used by astronomers who do cosmology is called "CMB rest"
(at rest with respect to the ancient light, i.e relative to the most ancient matter whose light we can see all around us as microwave)

Relative to ancient light we are moving at 370 km/second but we are NOT accelerating in that direction.

That works out to around 828,000 miles per hour and the 370 was rounded off so I better say 830,000 mph.
I can tell you the direction if you want to learn.

But please do not say "15 million miles per hour" it is not even ONE million. And astronomers do NOT say that this speed of motion is accelerating.
(That is different from the expansion rate of distances speeding up. Hubble law expansion is about the increase in distance between stationary observers---observers at CMB rest---not conventional motion thru space.)

[Watson]

About the eleven fingers - okay, hold up both hands, fingers stretched.
Now, take one hand and put away one finger. As you do this, say 'Ten.'
On the same hand, put away the rest of your fingers, 'Nine, eight seven and six.
Are you with me so far?
So the last number you mentioned was six. Correct?
Six, plus the five fingers of your other hand is eleven, is it not?

Oh I see, sorry for doubting you. But there is just one thing still puzzles me, if you don't mind indulging me. It won't take long.

We have ten fingures, remove one and count ten......9,8,7,6, then take the six and add to the five on the other hand, yes? Clever we do have eleven fingers. But here's the problem.

If we continue to count down on the other hand, the exact same way, we have, 6,5,4,3,2,1 and we are left with one instead of six. Do ya follow me so far? Here's the thing we now have one, but no fingers to add to it. Six plus 1 is eleven, but then one plus nothing is still one.
Ya see professor, your same math proves we only have one finger. Great trick for the younsters, but it ain't maths.

[Watson]

Accurate comments? 'The Universe is expanding?' That's something that has never been observed, you must agree? Without observation, there can be no evidence. I'm sorry, but I'm a scientist. We have to go by the evidence

From our limited perch, viewing the Universe directly is difficult, but indirectly, observing the light from distant object can tell us at what speed they are moving away from us. So I think it is the speed increases with distance, showing up as increased red shifted light. Most everything out there is moving away from us seems like evidence of expansion.

So, no I do not agree. What is your area of science?

[Watson]

Well, Watson - it was nice of you to reply, I can't deny. But there's no such thing as an outward expansion that speeds up. The only kind of expansion that speeds up is Inward. We're not going 'out' we're going 'in'.

We're currently moving thru' Space at around 15 million miles-per-hour, with an ever increasing Rate of Acceleration. Any outward expansion is going to slow down and stop. It was looking for this slowing down that Astronomers found that the expansion was accelerating. The only kind of expansion that accelerates is Inward. But Thanks, anyway

I don't think the vacuum nozzle is an accurate dipiction here. I think centrifucal forces would be a better representation. Personally I think the Universe is rotating, but that would give a center of ration, and center of the Universe and as we know that is problematic. So we'll just keep that between us.

[Marshall]

... but indirectly, observing the light from distant object can tell us at what speed they are moving away from us...

Whoa! Hi Watson! Here is a chance to learn or teach something. How do you tell, from the redshift? Suppose we train our telescope on some galaxy today and find that the light we are getting from it has redshift z = 3. At what rate was the distance to it increasing when the light was emitted and started on its way to us?

You may know how to find this recession rate. If not you should learn! It's easy. And if you already know how to convert redshifts into rates of distance increase then maybe someone else reading here doesn't and you can share the knowledge.

You are quite right that observing the light can tell recession rates. So what do you think redshift z=3 translates into?
Either in terms of kilometers per second, or some fraction or multiple of the speed of light.

[Watson]

Hi Marshall, I'm more here to learn the technical stuff, not teach, so I'm happy to hear what you have to say. On occasion I can tell if someone is way off with facts, and point them in the right direction of the truth. If they listen then others can provide the facts beyond that. But, did you know I can prove mathematically that you only have one finger?

[Marshall]

But, did you know I can prove mathematically that you only have one finger?

Yes Watson, I saw you demonstrate.

About converting galaxy's z into other information about the galaxy, first see if you can get this handy online calculator by googling "cosmology calculator 2010"

Can you get it?

There are several of these online gadgets and they all give essentially the same answers but this one seems to me easiest to use. Also google "cosmological calculator 2010" and you get the same thing.
Let me know if you get it.

You just have to put 3 into the z-box and click "calculate". But I'd still like to talk to you about it if you want, about the usual meaning of distance in this Hubble expansion law context and a few things like that.
Finding the recession rates (distance increase rates) is simple, but it's worthwhile talking a bit about what they mean in cosmology.

I see that what I called the "z-box" is labeled "redshift of the source" in this calculator. that's where you put the number 3.

[Watson]

Well I looked up the calculater you suggested, and didn't find the z-box you suggested. We have discussed this in the past, and am happy to do so in more detail here and now for astocat, but here it is late so I'll look this up tomorrow.

[Marshall]

As I said in the previous post, it is labeled "redshift of the source".

In cosmology the symbol z is often used for redshift. Maybe I should not have said "put the number 3 in the z-box" but instead "put the number 3 in the redshift box" and press calculate.

Please try it. See what you get for recession rates. I will check with you tomorrow.

[Watson]

Ressession speed 65.49 c. ?

[astrocat]

All Outwards Expansions start fast (from an initial kick) and slow down. There is no such thing as an Outward Expansion that speeds up as it goes.

The only kind of expansion that speeds up is 'Inwards.' All inward expansions start slowly and speed up. Any speeding up expansion is inwards.

Every time a bird flaps it's wing, it makes a (free) vortex. Any such vortex starts slowly at the outside and speeds up as the air moves towardse the center, losing pressure and expanding. Any expansion that speeds up is inwards.

As for the Universe has no center - anything with masse has a center of mass. That's not me, that's Physics 101.


I realise this is new to you, but that doesn't make me wrong.

[Watson]

Well Astrocat, I think inflation was an outward expansion that speeded up exponentially. And isn't inward expansion a contraction? In any case, I'm not sure what the birds wing votex has to do with either.

Any understanding of the Universe is way, way beyond Physic 101.

Yes it does.

[astrocat]

...You say, 'Secondly, the Universe has no center, which - to me - is odd. If there was a Big-Bang, didn't it happen at a central point? And haven't we been expanding away from this central point for billions of years, according to the Big-Bang theorists. I want to say right now, that everything with Mass must have a Center of Mass (C of M). That's not me, that's Physics 101.
...

"didn't it happen at a central point? And haven't we been expanding away from this central point for billions of years, according to the Big-Bang theorists"

No. By "big bang theorists" I assume you mean cosmologists. They don't say there is a central point somewhere that we have been expanding away from.

You ought to try to learn what the standard picture is first. the main difference between a learner and a crackpot is that a crackpot has his own theory and won't listen. He doesn't want to learn.

If you want to talk about cosmology you need to understand the standard picture that astronomers have, and then if you find it unsatisfactory you can try branching out from there, blaze your own trail out from the common homebase.

Lucaspa suggested you read a SciAm piece by Lineweaver. Lineweaver is a recognized worldclass cosmologist---the it a type of astronomer who specializes in studying the big picture.

You just dismissed what Lucaspa said. Did not read the Lineweaver article. I get the strong impression that you cannot learn from us here, or do not want to. Just want to promote the eccentric "alternative" misconceptions you have arrived at on your own.

That's just my first impression from how you just acted. I will keep an open mind and keep watching to see how you act. I may get a different idea if I see you asking questions in an openminded way and being willing to read stuff occasionally, and listen.

I'm well aware of the 'Standard Model' of the Universe - your Universe is run by Anti-Gravity, and mine is run by Gravity. Come on now, Marshal, are you so sure you're right? Do you think Dark Energy is any different to Anti-Gravity? Well, according to Wiki - Anti-Gravity doesn't exist!

[astrocat]

Well Astrocat, I think inflation was an outward expansion that speeded up exponentially. And isn't inward expansion a contraction? In any case, I'm not sure what the birds wing votex has to do with either.

Any understanding of the Universe is way, way beyond Physic 101.

Yes it does.

Okay, how about a snowball rolling down a snowy bank? Due to gravity from Earth's Center of Mass? That's Inward.

[astrocat]

Well Astrocat, I think inflation was an outward expansion that speeded up exponentially. And isn't inward expansion a contraction? In any case, I'm not sure what the birds wing votex has to do with either.

Any understanding of the Universe is way, way beyond Physic 101.

Yes it does.

I mean n real life, Watson - come on, tell me one Outward Expansion that speeds up and I'll quit this thread and my Mable Theory. Mable is the Mother of All Black hoLEs, my name for the Black Hole at The Center Of the Universe.

[astrocat]

About the eleven fingers - okay, hold up both hands, fingers stretched.
Now, take one hand and put away one finger. As you do this, say 'Ten.'
On the same hand, put away the rest of your fingers, 'Nine, eight seven and six.
Are you with me so far?
So the last number you mentioned was six. Correct?
Six, plus the five fingers of your other hand is eleven, is it not?

Oh I see, sorry for doubting you. But there is just one thing still puzzles me, if you don't mind indulging me. It won't take long.

We have ten fingures, remove one and count ten......9,8,7,6, then take the six and add to the five on the other hand, yes? Clever we do have eleven fingers. But here's the problem.

If we continue to count down on the other hand, the exact same way, we have, 6,5,4,3,2,1 and we are left with one instead of six. Do ya follow me so far? Here's the thing we now have one, but no fingers to add to it. Six plus 1 is eleven, but then one plus nothing is still one.
Ya see professor, your same math proves we only have one finger. Great trick for the younsters, but it ain't maths.

Like I said, Watson - you can do anything in Math. That's why Math isn't a Science. Science is bound by hard and faset rules - Laws actually.

[astrocat]

Well Astrocat, I think inflation was an outward expansion that speeded up exponentially. And isn't inward expansion a contraction? In any case, I'm not sure what the birds wing votex has to do with either.

Any understanding of the Universe is way, way beyond Physic 101.

Yes it does.

Okay, how about a snowball rolling down a snowy bank? Due to gravity from Earth's Center of Mass? That's Inward. And I'm Kinda surprised that you can't see the speeding up expansion of the vortex of the bird's wing. That happens to be inward. Why can't you see this?

[Gregorygregg1]

All Speeding up expansions are Inward.

this makes sense. It makes a good argument against accelerated expansion of the particulate portion of the universe.
Thanks.

[Gregorygregg1]

Unfortunately, the data show the outward expansion of the universe is speeding up. The expansion is accelerating. The data is very conclusive.

Second, there is no "center of the universe" as you are thinking of it. In a very real sense, the universe has no center. It's part of the math of spacetime.

Unless there is some unknown source of propulsion, I would give this argument to astrocat. Acceleration indicates inward movement. The very conclusive evidence would support an implosion, or perhaps be misinterpreted. The evidence for the big bang might support a number of other hypotheses. We do agree that an infinite universe would have no center.

[astrocat]

Accurate comments? 'The Universe is expanding?' That's something that has never been observed, you must agree? Without observation, there can be no evidence. I'm sorry, but I'm a scientist. We have to go by the evidence

From our limited perch, viewing the Universe directly is difficult, but indirectly, observing the light from distant object can tell us at what speed they are moving away from us. So I think it is the speed increases with distance, showing up as increased red shifted light. Most everything out there is moving away from us seems like evidence of expansion.

So, no I do not agree. What is your area of science?

All you're telling me is that the Observable Universe is expanding. I already know that. Speed increases with distance? Of course it does. That fact alone should tell you the speed of the expansion of the Observable Universe is increasing.

Let me ask you, is the Universe run by Gravity or Anti-Gravity? Where do you see evidence of this Anti-Gravity? Only in the expansion. Anti-Gravity is what's causing the expansion, according to you, but the expansion is actually a result of us (in the Observable Universe) falling.

When things fall they speed up. I hope you know that. Speeding up leadse to a losse of Pressure, first noticed I beleve by Dan Bernoulli. And a loss of pressure equals expansion. That comes from Robert Boyle.

There is just Gravity. All the other forces you have operating the Cosmos havge been invented, or fabricated.

What's my area of Science? I have devoted myselft to this Black Hole I call Mable - for it must really be the Mother of Allp Black hoLEs, this black hole where I sawy it is.

[flannel jesus]

About the eleven fingers - okay, hold up both hands, fingers stretched.
Now, take one hand and put away one finger. As you do this, say 'Ten.'
On the same hand, put away the rest of your fingers, 'Nine, eight seven and six.
Are you with me so far?
So the last number you mentioned was six. Correct?
Six, plus the five fingers of your other hand is eleven, is it not?

Oh I see, sorry for doubting you.

For the record -- not that this matters -- this is nonsense for some obvious reasons.

He says "put away one finger and say 10." In other words, "Put away one finger, and then say the number that corresponds to the number of fingers you're holding up plus 1" And then he has you put the other five down and say 6, which is again, the number of fingers you're holding up plus 1. So, then he tells you to add the five fingers you're holding up with the value that is "the number of fingers you're holding up plus one." Which is a calculation that doesn't actually correspond to anything, certainly not your total number of fingers. Why would you add the number of fingers you're holding up to that same value plus 1? How is that supposed to result in the total number of fingers you have? It doesn't conceptually make sense on any level.

So yes, he's right, you can do anything with numbers if you don't know how to use them.

I can show how you have 11 fingers: use a base-9 number system. Now start with all your fingers down, and move each one up as we count each number.

1
2
3
4
5

move to the next hand now

6
7
8
10
11

[astrocat]

All Speeding up expansions are Inward.

this makes sense. It makes a good argument against accelerated expansion of the particulate portion of the universe.
Thanks.

Thanks Gregory. IT's true tho' that any expansion that accelerates is Inward. And the Universe isn't expanding - that's the Observable Universe, the part we can see.

Think of any expansion that speeds up. It will be inwards. Any Outward expansion is going to slow down. That's just the nature of the beast. There's no such thing as an Outward Expansio0n that speeds up. I tell people I'll quit this theory as soon as they can tell mke an Outward Expansion that speeds up - in real life. Nobody can - such a thing is imposseible.

We're expanding Inwardly into the center of mass of the Cosmos. If there4 was nothing there at the center, our Rate of Acce4leration would decline. As it is, our Rate of accfeleration is increaseing.

Lee Smolin of String Theory agrees with me that the expansion is increasing 'exponentially.' If the expansion is increasingy exponentially, that indicates an increaseing Rate of Acce4leratio0n, wouldn't you say?

I set my kitchen tap to a trickle, but the stream breaks up on the way down, and it beats a drum tattoo on my stainless-steel sink bottom. Now the stream speeds up as it falls, breaking up as it reseponds to Gravity. Now - my point - that broken up part of the stream, the lower portion, that takes up more room in its broken form. It is expanded, I hope you can see that?

IT's an expansion that speeds up, and it's Inward - into the Earth. Can you see that? It's Inward.
Any expansion that speeds up is Inward.

[astrocat]

Well I looked up the calculater you suggested, and didn't find the z-box you suggested. We have discussed this in the past, and am happy to do so in more detail here and now for astocat, but here it is late so I'll look this up tomorrow.

This response came from someone else. I'd like to answer the posts myself, if possible.

Look, any expansion that speeds up is Inward. WE're going in, there can be no doubt. If there was nothing there our Rate of Acceleration wouldr decfline. As it s, our Rate of Acceleration is increasing, and it would take a Black Hole to cause this.

They used to think Man was created 'poof,' just like in thue Bible, but Darwin came and taught us Man 'evolved' slowly. People still think the Universe was createdr 'poof,' just like inb the Bible, but I'm saying the Universe evolved, from a huge cloud of Hydrogen, from the center where presesurese and temperatures were highest
rather in the same manner of the sun (Sol), only on a different scale. Mable, the Black Hole at the center of the Universe is also on a drfferent scale to anything we know. This is the 'Mable Theory'.

[astrocat]

Well Astrocat, I think inflation was an outward expansion that speeded up exponentially. And isn't inward expansion a contraction? In any case, I'm not sure what the birds wing votex has to do with either.

Any understanding of the Universe is way, way beyond Physic 101.

Yes it does.

An Inward Expansion is a Contraction? Does the air entering the nozzle of a Central-Vac Contract? Or does it expand, Watson, as it loses presssure?

And the air moving toward the center of a vortex contracts? Or does it expand inwardly as it loses pressure on the way to the center?

And a snowball rolling down a snowy bank contracts? Or doese it expand, Watson, inwardly - on it's way to Earth's Center of Gravity?

There are other people looking at this thread. How do you want them to see you?