Questions on Space

[Gman]

The moon revolves around the earth. The earth revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around a super massive black hole. Does the super massive black whole revolve around anything? Is that possible? Is our view of space limited by current technology? Is the universe closed or have we just not discovered any new ways to see further into the darkness? If anyone can help me with some clarity on these issues I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Wyote]

Much of what we know about space-time is simply theoretical and subject to change.
We don't know for sure how expansive things are, but we do have a decent idea of the size of our "local" universe.
We are just hurdling through space along with the collections of space dust that are our solar system and galaxy.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

The moon revolves around the earth. The earth revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around a super massive black hole. Does the super massive black whole revolve around anything? Is that possible? Is our view of space limited by current technology? Is the universe closed or have we just not discovered any new ways to see further into the darkness? If anyone can help me with some clarity on these issues I would greatly appreciate it.

Yes it's absolutely possible for a black hole of any mass to orbit around something.
It revolves around our Local Galactic Group's center of gravity, which likely exists between our galaxy & Andromeda, some 2.4 million lightyears away.
Our Local Group and the other galactic clusters are part of a supercluster structure named Laniakea, which has its own center of gravity and 'flows' within that, if you like.
I'd imagine it also interacts gravitationally with the other superclusters in our light cone.
Our observation is limited by the speed of light, and we can't yet determine what form creation has taken. It's possible we may find another way to determine that someday, though how remains a mystery.

What piqued your curiosity about this subject?

 

[John K]

The moon revolves around the earth. The earth revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around a super massive black hole. Does the super massive black whole revolve around anything? Is that possible? Is our view of space limited by current technology? Is the universe closed or have we just not discovered any new ways to see further into the darkness? If anyone can help me with some clarity on these issues I would greatly appreciate it.

It's like @Wyote and @Winterflowers say.

There's nothing magic about a black hole gravitationally - it has a located mass, and this attracts and is attracted gravitationally by other masses in the usual way. One of the most fascinating things out there is when two very large stars in a binary system become black holes rotating around their common centre of gravity. They create gravitational waves that leak energy away and the two holes spiral in ever closer until they coalesce in a huge burst of energy. This can happen on an even bigger scale when galaxies collide and merge, their huge central black holes may eventually combine in a titanic explosion. This could happen to our galaxy in a few billion years from now when we merge with the Andromeda galaxy.

As you go to larger scales still though, bigger than our local galactic cluster, gravity is no longer the only thing acting. The universe is expanding, and the expansion is accelerating. This is not because the galaxies are flying apart but because the amount of space between them is increasing. On the largest cosmic scales this effect balances out against gravity and the galaxies are distributed along filaments, like the surfaces of bubbles that are expanding. Away from these filaments, inside the bubbles, there is the eternal darkness lit only by the dim light from afar, and this is growing all the time. This expansion is not the same as speed, and it can push galaxies away from us at faster than light can travel. The recession is greater with distance and beyond a certain distance it is actually faster than light, so we are no longer causally connected to anything that is further away - it is as if it doesn't exist as far as we are concerned, and vice versa. It seems likely that the vast bulk of the universe that came from the Big Bang has disappeared this way, and that we only see a small fraction of what was created then.

But this is present understanding, and is only a decade or so old. Maybe it won't look like this in another 10 years. Stay intellectually agile, be skeptical in a positive way, and roll with the waves of new insight as they come, because my guess is that there is a lot out there we don't know yet. It's great fun to keep open minded about it all.

 

[Gman]

Yes it's absolutely possible for a black hole of any mass to orbit around something.
It revolves around our Local Galactic Group's center of gravity, which likely exists between our galaxy & Andromeda, some 2.4 million lightyears away.
Our Local Group and the other galactic clusters are part of a supercluster structure named Laniakea, which has its own center of gravity and 'flows' within that, if you like.
I'd imagine it also interacts gravitationally with the other superclusters in our light cone.
Our observation is limited by the speed of light, and we can't yet determine what form creation has taken. It's possible we may find another way to determine that someday, though how remains a mystery.

What piqued your curiosity about this subject?

 

[Gman]

My curiosity has always been high when it comes to the universe. I just see things a little differently and am trying to connect my thoughts with current theory. For example: I don't care for the idea of gravity. Some seemingly magical force at the center of all things that somehow naturally attracts other objects.

Granted this is purely theoretical, but I wonder if it is more about atmospheric pressure than gravity. I akin it to a snowball. On a cold day the snow is in a neutral state on the ground until I change the atmospheric density around by picking it up and smashing it into a ball. I release the additional atmospheric pressure from the snow, and it keeps its form and, is back in it's original atmosphere. So the original atmosphere has no real effect on the newly formed snowball unless the temperature of the original atmosphere increases causing the snowball to melt.

One of my observations that is leading me to this conclusion is that it seems like when space is described on a larger scale everything is in a bubble. You have physical planet earth surrounded by an atmosphere, which is surrounded by electromagnetic field, which is surrounded by particles being dispersed by the sun, which is surrounded by the atmosphere provided by the Milky Way Galaxy, witch seems to be in a bubble itself. So it appears to me that atmospheric density is what allows matter to either be formed and maintained in a certain state or destroyed.

I see gravity more as increasing and decreasing atmospheric pressures that if increased will allow matter to form and if slowly released will allow matter to maintain it's form. As atmospheric pressure decreases the matter will begin to fall apart. This is just a small part of a much larger theory that has the potential to explain many more things.

I don't know for sure, but I would say that I see the universe as more fluid than solid. If that makes any sense. More like Jello than air with a bunch solid objects in it.

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

My curiosity has always been high when it comes to the universe. I just see things a little differently and am trying to connect my thoughts with current theory. For example: I don't care for the idea of gravity. Some seemingly magical force at the center of all things that somehow naturally attracts other objects.

Granted this is purely theoretical, but I wonder if it is more about atmospheric pressure than gravity. I akin it to a snowball. On a cold day the snow is in a neutral state on the ground until I change the atmospheric density around by picking it up and smashing it into a ball. I release the additional atmospheric pressure from the snow, and it keeps its form and, is back in it's original atmosphere. So the original atmosphere has no real effect on the newly formed snowball unless the temperature of the original atmosphere increases causing the snowball to melt.

One of my observations that is leading me to this conclusion is that it seems like when space is described on a larger scale everything is in a bubble. You have physical planet earth surrounded by an atmosphere, which is surrounded by electromagnetic field, which is surrounded by particles being dispersed by the sun, which is surrounded by the atmosphere provided by the Milky Way Galaxy, witch seems to be in a bubble itself. So it appears to me that atmospheric density is what allows matter to either be formed and maintained in a certain state or destroyed.

I see gravity more as increasing and decreasing atmospheric pressures that if increased will allow matter to form and if slowly released will allow matter to maintain it's form. As atmospheric pressure decreases the matter will begin to fall apart. This is just a small part of a much larger theory that has the potential to explain many more things.

I don't know for sure, but I would say that I see the universe as more fluid than solid. If that makes any sense. More like Jello than air with a bunch solid objects in it.

I commend your thinking outside the box.
I'm curious about your scientific background. And also why gravity is more or less magical than pressure, or thermodynamics.
There's a lot of other things I could say about this but it might be quite a long post and my brain is a little scattered right now.

 

[John K]

For example: I don't care for the idea of gravity. Some seemingly magical force at the center of all things that somehow naturally attracts other objects.

Modern physics doesn’t see gravity as a force acting at a distance, but as an interaction between matter and space-time. In fact one strong hypothesis is that space-time is the expression of gravity. This is very significant because it implies very strongly that space isn’t just the absence of stuff but has its own concrete existence.

Obviously air doesn’t fill the universe but space does. It sounds similar to what you are proposing, but of course the terminology is different.

 

[Gman]

Modern physics doesn’t see gravity as a force acting at a distance, but as an interaction between matter and space-time. In fact one strong hypothesis is that space-time is the expression of gravity. This is very significant because it implies very strongly that space isn’t just the absence of stuff but has its own concrete existence.

Obviously air doesn’t fill the universe but space does. It sounds similar to what you are proposing, but of course the terminology is different.

I agree that this sounds very similar and describes similar dynamics with different wording. Thank You for the added insight.

 

[Gman]

I commend your thinking outside the box.
I'm curious about your scientific background. And also why gravity is more or less magical than pressure, or thermodynamics.
There's a lot of other things I could say about this but it might be quite a long post and my brain is a little scattered right now.

I don't know if I would call it background or just curiosity. I was injured on the job in 2006 and was totally disabled and in intractable pain 24/7 for 10 years. During this time I watched tv. But not sitcoms or dramas. I watched documentaries and documentary channels (ie. Science, Military, History) in search of an answer to explain why and how I ended up in the situation I was in. For someone who has a natural ability to notice patterns and use that knowledge to extrapolate on potential futures with relative accuracy this can be considered the worst form of torture. On the upside, I was unwittingly studying every aspect of humanity and the way we work. I did finally find an explanation but it wasn't at all what I was expecting.

Through this process I discovered a way to break down complex subjects into simpler more easy to understand concepts that can be expanded to encompass more complex theories as well. For me this means that I have a basic formula that I can apply to any aspect of humanity, whether it be social, scientific, or histrionic. This allows me to grasp a basic understanding of complex concepts being presented very quickly. Unfortunately, this formula is like math, it starts out with 1+1 and evolves into things like trigonometry and calculus which makes it very hard to explain. I have taught the basics to an handful of people but it takes from 6 months to a year depending on there willingness to accept and apply the concepts. But each of them has a much improved and more peaceful life which was my intention at the outset.

The reason gravity seems more magical to me is because I don't know for sure what is causing the effect. With my concept I understand the effect to be caused by the interaction of matter which allows me to keep my theories simple and grounded in things I understand. I apply new knowledge as it is discovered or presented which allows me to either further the theories without contradicting them or examine the contradiction and see if the theory needs to be adjusted to compensate. I have yet to find a situation that would cause me to abandon the theory altogether. In my personal experience these concepts always have and continue to work flawlessly. That being said, you may notice that these theories are similar to the ideas of thermodynamics or gravity being matter's interaction with space-time. Similar ideas just worded differently.

For me, I am virtually always talking about the same thing. I am just using different words to create different imagery to tell the story. Same formula. Different outcomes. For the onlooker, I am telling completely different stories on completely different subjects and it seems impossible that the two can connect. For me EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED.

Hope this answers your curiosity. I am always open to questions, questioning myself and my viewpoint.

THE ONLY TIME WE STOP GROWING IS WHEN WE STOP LEARNING!

 

[dZpADTLrPmX4c]

Okay, thank you for your thorough reply!
May I suggest taking college courses for the related fields? you might be able to contribute something to our broader understanding.

 

[Gman]

Okay, thank you for your thorough reply!
May I suggest taking college courses for the related fields? you might be able to contribute something to our broader understanding.

Thanks for the input. I have been looking to that very thing.

 

[dragulagu]

The moon revolves around the earth. The earth revolves around the sun. The sun revolves around a super massive black hole. Does the super massive black whole revolve around anything? Is that possible? Is our view of space limited by current technology? Is the universe closed or have we just not discovered any new ways to see further into the darkness? If anyone can help me with some clarity on these issues I would greatly appreciate it.

It revolves around other (Supermassive) Black holes. Eventually gravitating to and leading to the future that is the black hole era. Some will evolve into even bigger, massive, black holes. Others will just
evolve further in their own isolated gravitational future.

https://astronomy.com/magazine/news...o-the-end-of-the-universe-a-cold-lonely-death

 

[o2b]

Hi @Gman -

Given your interest in physics, I think you would enjoy having a look at some of the thoughts of a guy named Miles Mathis.

I think much of physics is BS, partly thanks to The Copenhagen Confession which basically confesses that a mechanical solution at the quantum level is impossible. This is a problem since that is much of what physics is. Physics has been largely replaced by super esoteric mathematics that models reported behavior.

This might be a cool introduction to Mathis.

http://milesmathis.com/quest.html

He built the periodic table from the ground up. Having a chemistry background myself, after reading Mathis, I let go of a couple of vary basic orthodox scientific beliefs. One, the position that electrons bond (why would particles of the same charge be attracted to each other?). Two, the idea that a nucleus houses all protons with the strong force.

 

[mintoots]

How could I have missed this thread? The universe that I'm somewhat obsessed with currently is the universe within us. Somehow our existences seem to oscillate between the fluidity of what's within and then some definite physicality and then fluidity again. It's fascinating. It's also nice to just wonder about it. Truly wanting to learn more about it means subscribing to rigorous studies though. Abstract is wonderful, but the world of logic and quantitative validity gives it a nice fullness. Idk what I'm talking about. I'm just fascinated that people are fascinated.

 

[Wyote]

Somewhat related. This is a great explanation/visual breakdown.

 

[dragulagu]

Somewhat related. This is a great explanation/visual breakdown.

Space, doth thy be trampolineth. It's a general misconception.
Spacetime curvature geometry in general relativity is represented way differently.

You have to take Spacetime from a perception of light itself (not from our own perspective). Then adjust Spacetime (both parts) around it.
This explains it more realistically:

\

It is not an easy concept.