Summations Only

The CBR is distributed throughout space. It is not located some distance away from any point, and accordingly the idea that some location is 'further in' the CBR is completely without meaning. How old are you? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

No, Peter you are wrong. You have a gross misconception regarding the CBR. We detect the CBR by detecting the radiation that reaches detectors on earth or detectors in space near earth. The radiation itself fills all of space and is highly isotropic (uniform through out space). Earth and the solar system are already as far into the CBR as it is possible to get. You mean the star nurseries such as the ones in the Orion Nebula, a mere 1300 light years away from us? Where 1300ly is a tiny fraction of the radius of the observable universe? Is that what you mean by 'further in' to the CBR. Please think this through. About that evidence... Probably the most accurate thing you've said yet.

Here is an example in contradiction.When Jupiter and Saturn are on the same side of the solar system, the center of mass of the solar system is outside of the sun, and clearly not in the most dense part of the solar system which would be in the sun's core.Below is a simulation of the sun's motion with respect to the solar system barycenterGravity Simulator

You aren't making any sense.The barycenter can be completely outside of the sun's photosphere but not beyond the sun's corona. The corona region is very sparse, and is nowhere near as dense as the core of the sun. Surely you can understand that.It turns out that the center of mass of the solar system varies with the location of the planets. The center of mass is at the most dense part of the core of the sun only very rarely.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that the universe is trillions of years old. But given your claim that old people don't put much stock in 'your physics', I think it is only natural that I would be interested in how old you are. I am not aware of any evidence that there is any such thing as anti-gravity. What does 'run by gravity' mean? No. I find your suggestion ridiculous. What direction is 'inward'?

Yes, there is such a thing as density at a point.We can talk about density at a point by assigning it the value of the mass divided by volume of a small differential volume enclosing that point. The concept is analogous to the concept of instantaneous velocity at time = t. L'Hospitals rule would work if you had a continuous, differential expression for the mass at points in space.There is no difficulty in assigning a density to the barycenter of the solar system. But the value varies with time.

I'll take a shot at it.The short answer is that L'Hopital's rule is the mathematical basis for evaluating a derivative. So what you are asking me to do is to find an application for a derivative to evaluate density at a point.Let's take an example where the mass distribution of an object that is spherically symmetrical about the origin, but where the mass per unit volume increases as some continuous function of r, where r is from to the objects center.We can imagine that when we measure the mass of spherical shells at a distance r1, we see that the mass of a sufficiently thin shell is approximately deltaM = C(r)* 4*pi* r1^2 *delta r for small values of delta, and where C is a function of r alone and reflects the distribution of a matter per unit volume as a function of r.Then the density at a given point would be the limit of Delta M over delta V for the thin shell spherical shell centerd at the origin, with C being [i]constant for the entire spherical shell[i] of radius r and thickness delta r. We see that density at point r is simply limit deltaM/deltaV as r->0. in this case both delta M, given by the expression above, and delta V (which is simply) 4*pi*r^2*dr, are both zero for delta r=0 which allowing us to apply L'Hopital's rule.Of course that application of the rule results in the density at a points r away from the center of the object being simply C(r). We would conventionally use rho instead of C to describe this function, but I thought that would make the explanation too circular.But in any event, you are probably well aware that the density of a planet like the earth is roughly a function of distance from the core, and that if we had physical access we could evaluate that density by weighing small fixed volumes at various depths. Doing so approximates the derivative dM/dV which addresses the issue that it is normal and conventional to talk about density at a point.

I think I need a 12 step forum.

Actually, you did not show any such thing.You simply provided a couple of likely to be non-analogous examples, and then generalized to the universe, something that isn't all that much like the a bird flapping its wings, a snowball, or air approaching a vacuum nozzle. Do we need special or general relativity (GR) to describe those things? No, so we should expect the physics of expansion modeled using GR to be different, probably in significant ways.When you keep asserting that you have clearly established something using Observation evidence, when you actually mean look at this similar things you've likely misinterpreted, then you look like a dime a dozen physics crank. First, you are making the same mistake you are accusing everyone else of making. Is the entire universe actually undergoing accelerated expansion, or is the observed expansion actually of a completely local effect?Secondly, show me the math. Or is that part to be left to the scientists?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This post is hilarious on about five levels. It brings to mind Shelley's poem on Ozymandias. Well, except for the part were Shelley actually managed to convey something that reflected well on his own intellect.

Surely you can at least see the irony in your posting a message asking me to be more "coherant".But more to the point, asking me to be more clear in response to the collection of belly-farts that make up your position in this thread approaches Ozymandias level hubris. "We're going in?" Please.

First, your nonsense does not constitute a theory. Secondly, I haven't called the laws of physics belly-farts. That term refers to your extrapolation of those laws into dissimilar situations. Thirdly, I could not care less about your opinion of me.Density of a location in empty space is the highest average density of a system? That's an indefensible belly fart. It's clear. I have provided you with the poet's name. I think the average person could have found the poem by now. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Well, let's see who is actually telling the truth:Here is my paraphrase which you suggest is a misquote: And here is what your actual burp (i.e. posted nonsense) states verbatim. Of course after posting a few more bits of nonsense on highest average density that isn't between your ears, you indicated that you did not want to discuss the subject anymore because no one else could follow you.Ozymandias, by Percy Bysshe ShelleyI met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away". Edited by NoNukes, : some poetry

I do understand average density, and unlike you, I know that the average density of an empty area of space is zero.But that's all beside the point, which is that your accusation that I misquoted you was way off base.

That would be one type of extrapolation, but it is not the one you are being accused of doing.What you are doing is taking a thought experiment regarding motion of air molecules in a vortex, and insisting that space time behaves similarly. Nobody is going to accept that your analogy is correct without seeing the math, and you don't have any math.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.