There is a Black Hole at the Cosmic core, and I'm the only on who knows. I call this Black Hole Mable, Mother of All Black hoLEs. Mable has the most masively attractive body in the Universe and this is the Mable Theory.

Hubble's Increasing Expansion of the Cosmos (E/) is only PART (1/4 to be exact) of the pattern of effects the Cosmos is undergoing. The other parts are the Speeding Up (S/) the Cooling Down (T\) and the Loss of PRESSure (P\), so that we get S/T\E/P\.

All falling objects do the S/T\E/P\ thing as they fall.

LANDING Objects, say, a Ball, Slow and Stop (S\) Warm (T/) Compact Up (E\) and ComPRESS (P/) or S\T/E\P/. The opposite pattern, if you will note.

That's the important part, seeing the difference between these two patterns.
If you can see the difference, then don't you agree the Cosmos could be falling? Into a Black Hole. At the Center of the Universe? Why not?

1. Because there is no center of the universe.
2. Because the matter in the universe is moving apart, not coming together.

(Thread moved from Astronomy to ATM, with a temporary redirect.)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Does anyone else reading these kinds of posts get the impression that someone poured a little too much milk on their fruit loops in the morning?

__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."

Should we, or should we not, tell this fellow about Lawsonomy?

Fred

__________________
"For shame, gentlemen, pack your evidence a little better against another time."
-- John Dryden, "The Vindication of The Duke of Guise" 1684

ok i like you you are smart thanks for sayin what i wanted to

There could be a universal attractor, but it could not be at the center of a "ball" shaped or spherical universe. If it were, we would see blue shift dominate the skies as matter would be squeezed closer together.

I believe there may be a universal attractor, but the shape of the universe would be funnel shaped as described by the Steiner Group of the Universitat of Ulm in Germany (btw, my idea predates his paper). Although Steiner never mentions a great attractor, I have considered such an attractor at the narrow end of the funnel. If the mass of the funnel is rotating with its angular momentum being decayed by the radial attraction of the universal attractor as it moves down the funnel, a red shift dominated sky would be predicted due to the inverse square law along with acceleration of the "expansion". This is a long shot however.

So there would be no center per say as I believe you have visualized, but there could be a universal attractor.

mugs. thanks it was a long day today....pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids
A second rate theory explains after the fact
A first rate theory predicts...A. Lomonosov

[I believe there may be a universal attractor, but the shape of the universe would be funnel shaped as described by the Steiner Group]

Yes, and I cover this concept in the Cosmic Censorship thread.

Which means that the wording in the title itself is badly convoluted!

It is the 'singularity' that would be at the 'so called' center of the universe, NOT the Black Hole, and the world lines from that singularity would have to be in a 'cone shape' out to the Event Horizon, which cannot be 360 degrees.

As for the redshift/blueshift, as long as we (our galaxy) are going faster towards the 'singualrity'/great attractor, than all the galaxies behind us, they would be redshifted, as would the ones ahead of us that are going faster towards it, BUT ALL of the galaxies on the 'other side' of the 'cone shape' funnel, that are going towards the singularity would be blueshifted, and we definitely do not see that.

But the thing that makes it even more unlikely is the Fractal clusters and especially the Voids, where we 'see' all of the clusters spreading apart from.

I believe this would be absolutely impossible regardless of how large the Black Hole that we would be in was!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

A tootsie roll universe? To say it has a center means it must have boundaries. Find an edge and you are onto something.

A good first post.
Astronomers have collected evidence that suggest all galaxies have supermassive black holes at their centres. Their masses are about 0.5 per cent (typically several million to a billion solar masses) of that of their host galaxies.
http://www.nrao.edu/pr/2004/quasarbh/

How they came to exist is a mystery. Which came first, the galaxy or the supermassive blackhole? Or did they form together in the early universe? And if they did form together, how could a young galaxy develop a supermassive black hole so quickly? Is it not more likely that the supermassive black hole was a fragment blasted out from something bigger – an ultra-suppermassive black hole or MABLE, which could be the center of our visible universe? Our visible universe could itself be part of a bigger universe.

No, it simply doesn't work that way.

To form any black hole there needs to be a gravitational collapse. The first hypothesized black holes were stars and it was pretty well established that it took a star somewhere between 3 and 8 times larger than our sun for the degenerative matter process below the Neutron stage to occur, for the mass to be large enough for a black hole to form.

Now they believe they have found a Netron star that may have been 40 times the size of our sun originally (can't remember where I saw that), so that 3 to 8 may be wrong, OR their could be some variables about star sizes and processes that have not been well constrained yet.

BUT, the 2 real problems come into play when it comes to HyperNova and the progenitors of SMBH's.

The Nuker Team have determined that the star speeds in the outer edges of the discs of spiral galaxies, has a direct proportionality to the Mass of the SMBH's in each of their repective galaxies, and this could only be true if the Birth of the MBH was intimately tied to the 'materials' in the outer disc at Birth.

BUT OF Course, they are adhering to (better known as Job Security) the highly speculative concept that the entire universe was 'full' of Hydogen/Helium, from the promordial Gamma Radiation (and because NO ONE can figure out what 'could' have graviationally collapsed!), so they are trying to show how a 'large cloud of hydrogen' could have collapsed to create a SMBH.

However,"IF"the highly speculative concept that the universe started off as High Energy Gamma Radiation is not right, then the creation of the SMBH is what causes the High Energy Gamma Radiation that makes the electrons/protons and the Hydrogen/Helium to make the baryonic matter for each galaxy.

And, this can also show how the statement that SR forbids Black Holes and GR demands them, can be remedied!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Hubble only got 1/4 of the Cosmic Pattern S/T\E/P\, where S/ represents the increasing Speed of the Cosmos and T\ is the loss of Temperature, E/ is the increasing Expansion that Hubble noticed, and P\ represents the declining Pressure.

That's S/ T\ E/ P\ , okay?

When you drop a Ball, for example, it will Speed Up S/, lose Temperature T\, gain Expansion (E/) and lose Pressure P\. Note;- same pattern as Cosmos.

When this ball LANDS on the floor, it Slows and Stops (S\) Warms Up (T/) Compacts (opposite of Expands) (E\) and comPRESSes (P/) against the floor. That's S\T/E\P/ , the exact OPPOSITE to the Falling Ball. Hope you can see the difference between these two opposite patterns (The Cosmos and the falling Ball, versus the LANDING ball).

The Cosmos is falling (Gravitating). Besides that, it has an AXIS, about which it rotates. The Cosmos is a Whirlpool or Vortex, and there is a Black Hole propelling it. That's Mable, Mother of All Black hoLEs, the Black Hole at the Center of The Universe.

Hello,

Just a layman's question ....

As a result of Hubble's discovery/conclusion of the increasing rate of universe expansion, one theory proposes "dark Energy" as the source the "acceleration".

Could it be that relativity is a work. That is, as gravity slows the galatic matter, the reduction in relatavistic speed is causing distance/time to lenthen causing Hubble's observations?

Regards ...

Hey Nereid,

What questions? I haven't seen any posted, but I could have missed something.

In this ATM idea of yours, astrocat, what role does gravity play?

Specifically, to what extent does your idea incorporate a theory of gravity different from GR?

I like wisp. He talks Science! Yes, of course, the Observable Universe is called that because it is the part of the Universe we can know about. Why don't we start by looking at everything we know about the Observable Universe, so that we can better visualise ther rest of the Cosmos? How about it. I'll start the ball rolling by saying the Observable Universe is Cooling Down. Anyone agree?

I don't know. How about you give us your evidence for why you think the Observable Universe is cooling down, and then ask if we agree?

I'm seeing too many mentions of Hubble's increasing expansion to let them go unchecked.

Hubble observed the redshift of objects and it was theorised that these redshifts meant the universe was expanding. Just expanding. Hubble knew of no increasing expansion, except in the way that, by definition, expansion means an increase in distance. Saying increasing expansion in relation to Hubble is like saying expanding growth or lengthening stretching!

Now, the acceleration of the metric expansion of space was only discovered a few years ago, long after Hubble was dead.

The cosmos is falling or gravitating relative to what? An axis implies a centre but there seems to be no centre to our observable universe. Everything is expanding away from everything else, at the large scales, so anywhere can be considered the centre.

Everything, Nereid. That's the beauty of the Mable Theory, it requires only gravity to operate. There is no need for any of the 'repulsive' forces (Big Bang, Dark Energy) that really nobody can understand. My theory is based on the Laws of Newton, Bernoulli, Boyle, and the Joule-Thomson Effect. I also agree with Einstein, that the Cosmological Constant was indeed,the 'greatest blunder' of his career. All I am trying to do, is put the 'Science' back in Astronomy.