Summations Only

OK, I'll give that one to you, you are correct.However, the density at a point is not a function of things which are far away from that point (unless you can think up some pathological case in which it is). Especially, the density at the barycenter of the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn system when the barycenter is outside the sun is damn close to zero. I'm not sure what PL is trying to say, but he obviously does not know what density is.

Nope, the majority of the weight is a the ends of the plank, not at the fulcrum.

Be careful here, Taq, it was not what he was talking about, I know, but there isn't anything else holding up the plank and bearing its entire load.

The argument seems to be that there had to be a black hole at the center of the universe because the most dense point in any finite system must be at the barycenter. I was using a teeter totter as an analogy showing that this just isn't so. We could use real world examples like binary star systems as another example. We could use two figure skaters holding on to each other in a spin as another example.This "average density" and the even funnier "highest average density" nonsense is just a way to ignore the obvious.

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?

You can talk about the average density within a volume or over several points. Not at a point. An average by definition requires more than one density and more than one point or volume.You probably can't talk about average density in whatever way you mean it. The average density of the Sun-Jupiter-Saturn system can be calculated, but it has no location. It's just a property of the system.Note that the barycenter of that system is a point. When the barycenter is outside the Sun, the density at the barycenter is near zero; it's the vacuum of space. You need to define precisely and mathematically what you mean by "average density". I think you don't know what you mean, but you certainly don't mean it in any conventional manner.Give us your formula for calculating average density. Until then your claims about it are meaningless.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as the highest average density. There is only the average density. The initial expansion was extreme, and the subsequent acceleration has been slow in comparison. This picture speaks a thousand words: The size of the cone shows us the size of the universe, and as you can see the size increased very quickly at the beginning. You are confusing gravity and expansion. One is not the other.The fact of the matter is that space is expanding everywhere. From our vantage point, everything in the universe appears to be moving away from us (excluding galaxies speeding towards us because of gravitational attraction). But guess what? You will observe the very same thing no matter where you are in the universe. Space is not expanding from a central point. It is expanding everywhere at the same rate.The balloon analogy is often used to explain this. Imagine if we took our three dimensional universe and chopped it down to two dimensions. We then make this two dimensional universe the surface of a balloon. As we inflate the balloon all points move apart from one another, and there is no center of expansion on the 2D surface of the balloon. That is how expansion works.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Well, if you define a region, and then sub-regions, and calculate the average density of each sub-region, then "highest average density" does have some meaning.BUt I have no idea what PL means by "highest average density" or even "density". It's his own idiosyncratic and so far secret meaining

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.

Einstein's "greatest blunder" was using a cosmological constant set to 0 to describe a static universe. When Hubble demonstrated expansion, this number had to be reset to a positive term. Do some research before you post this crap

Taq, nobody seems to understand this 'average density' so- let's drop it.I think the expansion happened only slowly at first, and has since accelerated. Now, what do you think of that?

This Some research, seriouslyversus

Wow, so this Dark Energy was made up, in order to keep the expansion Outward. You also have an 'accelerating expansion' that is Outward - and I demonstrate quite clearly in my "Observational Evidence," earlier in this thread, that any 'accelerating expansion' is Inward.You have many things backward in your Big-bang scenario. I see also you have the Universe going Out, but I show (in the same piece) that we're going 'in'. Please read my 'Observational Evidence' and let me know what you think of it.