Summations Only

People used to believe Man was made 'Poof,' just like in the bible, but Darwin showed us Man evolved slowly. People still believe the Universe was made 'Poof,' just like in the bible, but I say the Universe evolved only slowly...
...from a huge cloud of hydrogen that went critical in the center (rather like Sol, but on a different scale.) I'm saying the Universe is finite, and anything finite has a Center of Mass.
Naturally, because Pressures and Temperatures were greratest at the center, the center evolved fastest, and black holes would have appeareed there first, altering the situation from a place of Slow, Hot, Compression - to the Fast, Cold, Vacuum we see tonite.
At the center is a war-zone, completely dark and cold (any light or heat gets eaten) You'd have to be a black hole just to survive here. Contrast this with the Outside of this Gas-Cloud, still warm from the original compression, and still strongly reminiscent of the Original Cloud. This is totally peaceful and the expansion is at one (1) mile per hour. Completely un-evolved!
Going further in, a long way in, you'd recognise the Constellations etc. You'd be here. Here the evolution is greater, with Stars, and black holes. Here the expansion is very much faster too.
Well, that's how we got here. This is the Mable Theory. Mable is the Mother of All Black hoLEs, the black hole at the very center.
So here goes... Edited by Peter Lamont, : Wanted to add name of the Theory.

Ihope to explain the entire theory, bit by bit in this forum. Will you permit me? I agree with you - observational evidence is the very best. I read in wiki that anti-gravity doesn't exist, but gravity certainly does. It's Gravity that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth - not anti-gravity.

Observational Evidence...
There are two kinds of expansion, the first kind (1) Accelerates and then slows down, and the second kind (2) which starts slowly and then accelerates.The first kind (1) is Outward - an explosion, Big Bang?, popping seed-case, Solar Wind etc. An explosion begins with acceleration.The second kind (2) is Inward. Air nearing the nozzle of a Central-Vac will start slowly and then accelerate, losing pressure (expanding) as it enters the nozzle.Observe:- a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward Direction.A snowball that the kids just managed to push over the edge of the snowy bank accelerates as it expands on its way to Earth's Center of Mass.Observe:- a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward Direction.Each time a bird flaps its wing, it makes a (free) vortex. The outside of any such vortex turns only slowly but air caught up in this vortex will then accelerate, losing pressure and expanding on its way to the center.Observe:- a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward Direction.What is happening in the three (3) examples above is:The Expansion 'et al' is being pulled (hence the acceleration) by an ongoing (and seemingly increasing) attractive force, emminating from an 'All Relative' Central Point.This allows me to say that ANY accelerating expansion is Inward.In 1998 they found that the expansion of the Observable was accelerating. I can only conclude that we are not 'going out' but 'going in' to the Center of Mass of the Universe, whatever is there.

I was really talking about the subject of 'Accelerating Expansion' the kind the Observable Universe is currently engaged in. I find it difficult to believe that you missed this.I maintain that we are going 'in' not 'out'. I thought I had shown that!Sure, this is 'backyard' Physics, but the same laws apply to backyard Physics as apply to Astronomy. I am surprised that you would object to that. Sometimes the best way to show something is by comparisons to every-day occurances, rather than any high-flown waffling. Something else - Anti-Gravity doesn't exist, according to Wiki. Dark Energy is nothing more than Anti-Gravity, and dressing it up doesn't make it real.Ask yourself, please, if you believe the Universe is run by Gravity or Anti-Gravity? Where does Gravity run out? It doesn't according to Newton - it's Universal. I don't know.. Maybe this Forum is not for me...

You have completely misunderstood me. I maintain that in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) the rate of expansion is slow and that increases further in.Of course the Universe is finite. One second after your Big Bang, the Universe could not have been more than 400 million miles across, even travelling at the speed of light. That's a finite distance, is it not? So how do you go from 'finite' to 'infinite'? Is it something that happens fast, or perhaps only very slowly?The CBR is the densest part of the Universe - it's where we find Star Nurseries, for example. Do you think the densest part of the Universe is expanding fastest? Or could it be just sitting there, the CBR, as it is in my Universe? Which possibility seems more likely to you?I don't even think you read my 'Observed Evidence'. Just because it doesn't involve telescopes doesn't make it valueless. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, who-ever you are.Something I've noticed = Old people don't like this theory. Young people are 'glad I came'.

You said, 'If you can provide Observational Evidence in support of your theory, I will promote your thread. You have ignored it! You didn't mention 'telescopes etc.'I did that in my 'Observed Evidence' piece. All you could do was laugh at it. You won't read what I write, you don't like my Physics, i can't seem to get anywhere in this forum.So I'll leave it to you. to keep your promise - or else let me go.

Well, thanks for replying. The reason they call it the CBR is because it refers to the Cosmic Background Radiation. Yes, it exists in the back-ground, rather than nearby. This mysterious radiation is a result of the early compression (see my first entry.) This is also the densest part of the Universe, as born out by the Star Nurseries found there. How old am I? How old is the Universe - trillions of years.If you go to Wiki, under 'expansion of the Universe,' there's a graph that shows a fast start to the expansion with a slowing down - except there's no evidence of any slowing down. No, the expansion started only slowly and has since accelerated, in the manner of any Inward Expansion. Go back to my 'Observational Evidence,' that I use to support my Theory.Anyway, it's been great chattingv with you. Hope to hear from you bagain.

Interesting question. Now, if there is such a thing as 'average density,' then the highest 'average density' will always be at the barycenter, Virgo Cluster included.If,as I say, the Universe evolved from a huge hydrogen cloud, the simplest, most abundant element - then surely pressures and temperatures would be greatest at the barycenter (Center of Mass) and evolution would have been fastest there also?Do get back to me. I enjoy talking to you.

You have to come clean with me. Do you believe the Universe is a mere 13 billion years old, or are you agreeing with me that the Universe is trillions of years old? Do you believe the Universe is run by Gravity or Anti-Gravity? Are you aware that any 'accelerating expansion' is Inward (as opposed to Outward) ?Get back to me on this. As for the CBR, you seem to know a lot about it. Could it not be strongly akin to the Original Hydrogen Cloud that I maintain started the Universe?And did the original Expansion start slowly or did it start fast - and then slowed down, before accelerating (as is shown in Wiki)?
Your suggestion filled me with hope. Do get back to me.

If, as you say, equal weights are at both ends - then each weight represents the 'average' weight of the system (can we assume the cross-piece is weightless?)At the barycenter, or fulcrum, the weight of both ends combine to the highest density on the teeter-totter. If I'm wrong, please show me!

No Nukes, if Jupiter and Saturn are on one side of the sun, that pulls the barycenter out of the sun? I find that hard to believe, but if it does, then at the barycenter is the densest 'average density' because we are including the masses of Jupiter and Saturn in these calculations.

That makes sense, No Nukes. I can see the barycenter moves within the sun, I don't dispute that.You don't understand the difference between an Outward Expansion and an Inward Expansion? Please go back to my 'Observed Evidence' post, very early on in this thread.No, what I need to know about you is whether you believe the Expansion started slowly and has since accelerated, or whether you believe the Wiki graph, showing the Expansion started by accelerating and then slowed down, before accelerating in the present style? There is no evidence of any 'slowing down' of the expansion, but I will leave the answer up to you.

Density is Mass divided by Volume, is it not? I don't know if one can talk about 'average density,' but the highest 'average density' can always be found at the barycenter.At the barycenter, you might be weightless, but pressures and temperatures might be high. If there was nothing there, at the barycenter of the Universe, our Rate of Acceleration would decline all the way to the center, where we would not be accelerating at all. The moment we passed the center, we would begin to decelerate. Everything I read tells me the Rate of Acceleration is increasing - and since we're going 'in' rather than 'out', that can only spell "Black Hole,'We're going in, not out? Why yes, it's in my 'Observed Evidence.' Any 'Accelerating Expansion,' is Inward. It's a much more natural movement - and besides, nothing else in the Universe is going out.

Taq, the barycenter of a binary star system, even though there may be nothing there - has still the highest 'average density.'I don't think you're going to see that. So let's drop it. Talk about something else. Like do you think the expansion started slowly and then accelerated? Or do you think the expansion started by accelerating, then slowed down and started accelerating again?Did you read my "Observational Evidence' right at the beginning? What do you think of it?

When in 1998, while looking to see how fast the expansion of the Observbable Universe was slowing down in the manner of all Outward Expansions, Modern Scientists dug up Einstein's Cosmological Constant (Anti-Gravity) which Einstein himself had denouced in the strongest language possible, calling it 'The greatest blunder in his career.'
Einstein lived another 25 years after this confession, never saying anything about his Cosmological Constant except how much he regretted it.What is Dark Energy except Anti-Gravity? They say Anti-Gravity doesn't exist in Wiki - pushing our Universe apart? What nonsence.It's Gravity that operates our Universe. It's Gravity that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth.