Center of Mass

[Will Due]

14 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Likely. Highly likely. 

 

Since it's highly likely that in the universe there's a single object that has more mass than any other object, what's the probability that this object would be located at the center of the universe, just like the sun is at the center of the solar system and a nucleus of greatest mass is at the center of every atom?

 

 

[Waspie_Dwarf]

17 hours ago, Guyver said:

Mass is relative to density.  The greater the density of the object, the more mass it has.  

This is not strictly true. Lead is considerably denser than feathers, but a ton of feathers will still have twice as much mass as a half ton of lead.

Density is relative to mass AND volume. Your statement is true if you say, for a given volume the greater the density, the more mass it has.

[psyche101]

4 hours ago, Will Do said:

Since it's highly likely that in the universe there's a single object that has more mass than any other object, what's the probability that this object would be located at the center of the universe, just like the sun is at the center of the solar system and a nucleus of greatest mass is at the center of every atom?

Extremely unlikely. Almost zero. 

The universe is expanding. Not spinning. 

Have a look at the picture of our sun bending spacetime. If that situation was universal it would be drop dead obvious and space would not look like it does. 

[Occupational Hubris]

23 hours ago, Will Do said:

 

Sorry but this does not make sense.

If "all places" are expanding equally, then the expansion of the whole universe would cancel itself out.

Because every "place" would be expanding into every other place.

 

 

No. Because space itself is what is expanding. 

[Will Due]

On 2/23/2021 at 3:48 PM, psyche101 said:

Extremely unlikely. Almost zero. 

The universe is expanding. Not spinning. 

Have a look at the picture of our sun bending spacetime. If that situation was universal it would be drop dead obvious and space would not look like it does. 

 

The laws of physics apply equally across the board in the universe from the smallest to the largest (except on the quantum level of an electron) do they not?

Electrons whirl about the object of greatest mass at the center of atoms.

Planets and their moons whirl about the object of greatest mass at the center of solar systems. 

Solar systems whirl about black holes at the center of galaxies. 

Groups of galaxies whirl about even greater objects of mass at their center.

And so on.

To be consistent, why wouldn't EVERYTHING whirl about an object of greatest mass at the center of the entire universe?

 

 

Edited February 27, 2021 by Will Do

[psyche101]

On 2/27/2021 at 3:43 PM, Will Do said:

 

The laws of physics apply equally across the board in the universe from the smallest to the largest (except on the quantum level of an electron) do they not?

Electrons whirl about the object of greatest mass at the center of atoms.

Planets and their moons whirl about the object of greatest mass at the center of solar systems. 

Solar systems whirl about black holes at the center of galaxies. 

Groups of galaxies whirl about even greater objects of mass at their center.

And so on.

To be consistent, why wouldn't EVERYTHING whirl about an object of greatest mass at the center of the entire universe?

 

 

No. You're dismissing size. The universe has potholes. It's not one big funnel. 

You don't seem to grasp the size of the universe. 

[Will Due]

18 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

one big funnel. 

 

Well whatever the universe is, at least it has a form that's consistent from smallest to largest.

 

 

[psyche101]

4 minutes ago, Will Do said:

Well whatever the universe is, at least it has a form that's consistent from smallest to largest.

There's no form. There's large things and small things in no particular order. 

With your idea, the entire universe should be revolving around R136a1. It's not. 

Edited March 1, 2021 by psyche101

[Will Due]

19 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

There's no form. There's large things and small things in no particular order. 

With your idea, the entire universe should be revolving around R136a1. It's not. 

 

That's because R136a1 is not the object of greatest mass in the universe. But something else is. Just like there is an object of greatest mass at the center of the smallest to the largest. 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2021 by Will Do

[Duke Wellington]

On 2/23/2021 at 3:33 AM, Will Do said:

Does the universe have a center of mass?

A star system does, a galaxy does, a universe will have too.

Determining where it is would be another feat altogether. Some peoples views about the Big Bang Theory are wrong here. Firstly its a theory, not proven fact. Next it wasn`t an explosion radiating out matter from a central point. Its believed that the space between matter is thought to be expanding.

The Big Bang is at odds with quantum mechanics when it comes to the creation of our universe. With QM parallel universe theories its not just all parallel futures that exist, but parallel pasts too. What is to each of us at the present moment in time selects and narrows down the possible pasts and futures in order to be coherent with the now.

[+Razman]

I dont know but the universe is looking like a macrocosm of the micro like in our cells , ironic that there are such small particles in quantum physics and the universe is so large . Like it could be a giant brain or body of some sort. 

[+Razman]

Like this , a bunch of cells in a system.   Except huge galaxies to us. Like maybe the idea of the design of the human body comes from the universe. Fascinating pic nevertheless , as these are said to be billions and trillions of light years apart , and each galaxy can contain billions or more suns , and be billions of light years across. yet through the lens of a telescope you can see it all at once.

Edited March 1, 2021 by razman

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Will Do said:

 

That's because R136a1 is not the object of greatest mass in the universe. But something else is. Just like there is an object of greatest mass at the center of the smallest to the largest. 

Name a single larger object.

Why doesn't spacetime all funnel to one place?

[+and-then]

Wait... this isn't a shooting discussion?  

[Emma_Acid]

On 2/23/2021 at 5:19 AM, Guyver said:

The problem is that the universe is constantly expanding, so it’s exact center will also be constantly moving.  In physics as I know it.

It doesn't have an "exact centre". Expansion happened everywhere, not outward from a single point.

[Will Due]

 

"a new theory proposes that black holes may not be black at all. According to a new study, these black holes may instead be dark stars

https://www.livescience.com/black-holes-not-black-planck-hearts.html

 

 

"The Dark Islands of Space. These are the dead suns and other large aggregations of matter devoid of light and heat. The dark islands are sometimes enormous in mass and exert a powerful influence in universe equilibrium and energy manipulation. The density of some of these large masses is well-nigh unbelievable. And this great concentration of mass enables these dark islands to function as powerful balance wheels, holding large neighboring systems in effective leash. They hold the gravity balance of power in many constellations; many physical systems which would otherwise speedily dive to destruction in near-by suns are held securely in the gravity grasp of these guardian dark islands.

The Spheres of Space

 

 

Edited March 5, 2021 by Will Do

[Piney]

9 hours ago, Will Do said:

"The Dark Islands of Space. These are the dead suns and other large aggregations of matter devoid of light and heat. The dark islands are sometimes enormous in mass and exert a powerful influence in universe equilibrium and energy manipulation. The density of some of these large masses is well-nigh unbelievable. And this great concentration of mass enables these dark islands to function as powerful balance wheels, holding large neighboring systems in effective leash. They hold the gravity balance of power in many constellations; many physical systems which would otherwise speedily dive to destruction in near-by suns are held securely in the gravity grasp of these guardian dark islands.

Singularities are not actually "holes". They are star "creation engines" which pull in cold gas and release hot gas. They are not devoid of heat and light but gather photons(light)  with their massive gravity which doesn't allow it/them to escape. They don't hold together constellations, or neighboring systems (which are moving away from each other) but do trap things in stable orbits sometimes. That is the things they don't suck into their mass.

[Occupational Hubris]

On 2/28/2021 at 11:21 PM, razman said:

I dont know but the universe is looking like a macrocosm of the micro like in our cells , ironic that there are such small particles in quantum physics and the universe is so large . Like it could be a giant brain or body of some sort. 

 

On 2/28/2021 at 11:23 PM, razman said:

Like this , a bunch of cells in a system.   Except huge galaxies to us. Like maybe the idea of the design of the human body comes from the universe. Fascinating pic nevertheless , as these are said to be billions and trillions of light years apart , and each galaxy can contain billions or more suns , and be billions of light years across. yet through the lens of a telescope you can see it all at once.

The resemblance is superficial, at best, and completely breaks down the more you know about astronomy and/or particle physics. Star systems are not analogous to atoms. This is often taught in schools, however, and is the basis of this misconception  that the universe is in anyway the same on difference scales. Planets rotate on a plane in a general ovoid shape as defined by classical physics based on mass, velocity, etc. Electrons have multiple shells they can be found in that don't conform to those same laws of physics at all. Just look at the different orbitals of elections in hydrogen in the image below. Not very solar system like at all.

 

As far as cells go, galaxies are also not analogous. Where are the organelles? Where is the wall of lipids? The ATP pumps? And galaxiea are filled with star systems, which would mean that ells are filled with atoms? It just doesn't work. 

[Will Due]

 

Here's an article where the term "dark stars" is used to describe objects referred to below as "Dark Islands". The comparison is interesting. 

 

What if black holes, those all-consuming gravitational behemoths of the cosmos, aren’t actually black at all—or even holes, for that matter? Instead, a new theory suggests black holes may be dark stars with hearts of extremely dense, exotic matter. This could help explain one of the biggest mysteries of the universe: the origin and nature of dark matter.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a35875454/what-are-black-holes-new-theory/

 

 

"The Dark Islands of Space. These are the dead suns and other large aggregations of matter devoid of light and heat. The dark islands are sometimes enormous in mass and exert a powerful influence in universe equilibrium and energy manipulation. The density of some of these large masses is well-nigh unbelievable. And this great concentration of mass enables these dark islands to function as powerful balance wheels, holding large neighboring systems in effective leash. They hold the gravity balance of power in many constellations; many physical systems which would otherwise speedily dive to destruction in near-by suns are held securely in the gravity grasp of these guardian dark islands.

Source

 

This just got me thinking. Maybe this is why everything orbiting the sun doesn't "dive to destruction" into the sun. Because somewhere "nearby" a massive Dark Island is countering the gravity pull of the sun which might partially explain why the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not circular.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Will Do

[+Nuclear Wessel]

28 minutes ago, Will Do said:

 

Here's an article where the term "dark stars" is used to describe objects referred to below as "Dark Islands". The comparison is interesting. 

 

What if black holes, those all-consuming gravitational behemoths of the cosmos, aren’t actually black at all—or even holes, for that matter? Instead, a new theory suggests black holes may be dark stars with hearts of extremely dense, exotic matter. This could help explain one of the biggest mysteries of the universe: the origin and nature of dark matter.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a35875454/what-are-black-holes-new-theory/

 

 

"The Dark Islands of Space. These are the dead suns and other large aggregations of matter devoid of light and heat. The dark islands are sometimes enormous in mass and exert a powerful influence in universe equilibrium and energy manipulation. The density of some of these large masses is well-nigh unbelievable. And this great concentration of mass enables these dark islands to function as powerful balance wheels, holding large neighboring systems in effective leash. They hold the gravity balance of power in many constellations; many physical systems which would otherwise speedily dive to destruction in near-by suns are held securely in the gravity grasp of these guardian dark islands.

Source

 

This just got me thinking. Maybe this is why everything orbiting the sun doesn't "dive to destruction" into the sun. Because somewhere "nearby" a massive Dark Island is countering the gravity pull of the sun which might partially explain why the orbits of the planets are elliptical and not circular.

 

 

https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/why-do-objects-in-space-follow-elliptical-orbits/

Edited March 19, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Kenemet]

20 minutes ago, Will Do said:

They hold the gravity balance of power in many constellations

I don't know where you got this information from, but I suggest you drop that source from your information sources.

Constellations aren't in "gravitational balance."  The stars are millions of light years away; too far for anything to actually impact them (see Newton's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_law_of_universal_gravitation)

Quote

This just got me thinking. Maybe this is why everything orbiting the sun doesn't "dive to destruction" into the sun. Because somewhere "nearby" a massive Dark Island is countering the gravity pull of the sun which might partially explain why the orbits of the planets are elliptical. 

No.  The reason that planets don't fall into the sun is the velocity of their orbits.

Here's a much better page (than your sources) on orbital mechanics that goes into specifics (Newton's laws) about why planets don't fall into the sun: https://wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2013/07/01/why-doesnt-the-earth-fall-down/

Neither the article at the link you've provided nor the original paper (linked in that article) mention "dark islands" or even support the notion of such a thing.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

@Will Do Is it necessary to bring Urantia to every discussion you have, regarding science? It is never relevant...it has no place in a science discussion. 

It’s akin to taking a butter knife to a gun fight. 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel