Summations Only

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.

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

There is no such thing as the highest average in your system. There is only the average.Perhaps we can use a teeter totter to help illustrate this. If you have two people of equal weight at an equal distance from the fulcrum of a teeter totter you can balance out the system, in effect putting the barycenter at the fulcrum. So where is most of the mass in the system? At the ends of the plank, not at the barycenter. Where is the "average density" found? At the fulcrum. That is not what the cosmic microwave background shows. Instead, matter and energy were spread out almost uniformly. The small fluctuations from perfect uniformity were also spread out all over the place, as you can see here:Cosmic microwave background - WikipediaIf, as you claim, there is a center to the universe and it was the most dense then we would expect to see that signal in this data. It isn't there. Instead, we see nearly the same level of energy coming from all directions, exactly what we would expect to see from an early universe where matter was evenly distributed.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

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.

Barycenter or center of mass is not a scalar, a measure of mass, but a vector, a measure of coordinates. It is that unique point in a massive system where the average density of mass for a coordinate point is equal in all directions and thus sums to 0.The center of gravity is that unique point in the coordinate system where the gravity on all sides is equal and thus sums to 0.Quite the opposite of what you are saying it is not the "densest average density", whatever the hell that is supposed to mean, but is the point at which the forces or masses balance in all directions. Sum to 0.

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'?

Density is the amount of mass within a volume divided by that volume. It is a property of a system and is not located at a point. Insofar as the "location" of density might be meaningful, its location is the entire extent of the system.The fulcrum (or barycenter of a group of masses) is a point with no volume. So you can't just calculate the density at that point by dividing the total mass by zero volume. In this case L'Hopital's rule doesn't help. You can't divide by zero and therefore, by definition there's no such thing as "density at the barycenter". There's no such thing as density at any point. Your claims of such a thing are meaningless.If you want to calculate density in a small volume near the fulcrum or barycenter, then divide the mass contained within that volume by the volume.Of course, of you divide the mass of both people and the teeter-totter and divide by their total volume, that is almost certain to be the highest density of any set of the parts of the system (unless the board is aerogel and big). But that density is not located at a point, it's a property of the system.

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.

You'll have to convince me that L'Hopital's rule is applicable. Assume any reasonable function you want for the mass within a volume.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

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.