Neil Obstat

I wrote a nice detailed answer to your question but someone apparently thinks it was somehow unmentionable so it was deleted. Therefore your question cannot be answered. My apologies. I tried.

Please excuse me for being pinched here but I'm afraid to attempt any more than one reply to one statement otherwise the platform shuffles the cards and there goes intelligence. Our observable portion of the universe is the only part that we can verify and test and observe (by definition of "observable"). By what means could we ever arrive at any degree of confidence that SOMETHING ELSE, OTHER THAN this observable "part" exists? Furthermore, by what means could we ever hope to observe, test, know or verify that which is beyond our ability to observe, test, know or verify? I personally appreciate the various diagrams you have drawn previously. I think you did a good job. I'm having some trouble, however, in reconciling concepts being presented here that impute relevance to "parts" of the Universe which are not "parts" of the observable universe. We can all collectively thank the retarded platform for "merging" my two posts again, effectively DARING you to distinguish between them when or if you quote me.

Last time I checked this is English describing that. Or are you presuming that the topic of the center of mass of the universe must somehow be confined to the language of mathematics?

Perhaps you didn't notice yet that I added more to the post you're replying to, while you were posting your reply?

It seems to me that you are presuming that mathematics can provide the answer to a question that is utterly beyond the scope of mathematics per se. I see you have replied to that statement with, "I don't follow this." But it seems perhaps while you were posting that, I continued adding to my post here with the following three sentences: Mathematics can deal with the reality of quantity all right, but when you proceed to other categories beyond the limits of quantity, mathematics fails to cope. You are wondering here about scaling up a dimension or two, when you ought to be stepping up to a higher realm than that to which mathematics is confined. It would seem that the question you have (why cannot a finite thing become infinite) is similar to asking why mathematics is confined to quantity.

It would seem to me that if something that is finite can become infinite, then there is no inherent barrier that exists keeping finite things as finite things, and any one of them or perhaps two of them or more of them (they are finite so their number may be great but never unlimited) could hence become infinite. If there is anything that is finite which CANNOT become infinite but something else finite that CAN become infinite, what is the principle which stands selectively in the way of the one but not in the way of the other?

Perhaps this conversation is a kind of "big bang" inasmuch as it could go on forever... If the known universe had a beginning, and at that time it was unknown since there was no one around to know it yet, therefore, the unknown and the known were one and the same thing. If the unknown and the known began as one thing they would consequently continue as the same thing, since what they were was as it was when it was, as it were. And it would remain as it was when it was, at any time in the future, when the future would refer back to its former existence, as we are doing now. But then you have: "the remainder of the Universe may have been finite, or may not have been." This would seem to apply to the remainder of the Universe which would not have been included in the "entirety of the universe as we know it," which had been contained in a volume smaller than the nucleus of an atom "at least as far back as t+10-43 seconds," in other words, the entirety of the universe as we know it did not include the remainder of the Universe. Correct? Dear studiot, that was Mordred saying, "no finite quantity can become infinite," and then it was the retarded platform that put his words in someone else's mouth or whatever. This stuff is hard enough to keep straight, without being unsure of who said what when someone else was quoted. And of course, my replies were merged. Again. Is this retarded platform designed to chase away members? (And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha They're coming to take me away hoho he he ha ha to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be ...)

So the nice young men in their clean white coats came to take him away? Ha-ha? (They're coming to take me away, ho-ho he-he ha-ha, to the Funny Farm - where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away, ha ha...)

I don't necessarily but it would become a matter of blind faith not Science to believe it exists, before the event. I can never prove it. Whoever designed this platform needs to get medical help. This is a nightmare. It's impossible for me to post what I want to say. I can't quote members AS THEY POSTED. The platform simply won't allow accurate quotes. It's like the system is set up to PREVENT intelligent discussion. I got a message saying my browser won't allow copy and past like that. Then the tab went blank and I had to open a new tab. This thread is moving very quickly and it's hard to keep up with it especially when I have to take all this time to post something that the system doesn't allow me to post. Now I can't remember what I was going to say! Studiot, I hear you saying you can't prove that (some part of?) the historical universe (which existed in the past?) no longer exists, and it would be "a matter of blind faith not Science to believe it exists, before the event." What event? Is the "event" to which you refer "the present?" The topic seems to be too abstract for this retarded platform to allow any reasonable discussion of it. The website is obstructing the conversation. The FINAL STRAW is when I try to post a reply to another person (Mordred, below) and the system merges my post with this one, such that anyone quoting this whole post will get my two different replies WITHOUT any indication that I was talking to two different people. The conversation is thereby DESTROYED with confusion, because I'm not saying to Mordred what I was saying to studiot and I am not saying to studiot what I was saying to Mordred. All right, maybe I can deal with this much. You said, "no finite quantity can become infinite," therefore, since the essence of the "big bang" says the entirety of the known universe was contained in a volume smaller than the nucleus of an atom, that seems to be obviously a finite entity, does it not? And since it (as it were) began as a finite entity it must continue to remain a finite entity. Consequently, the universe as it exists now and as it will ever exist in the future is equally finite as it has always been, from the beginning.

Thank you for your reply, beecee. I'm having a hard time understanding this material. I hope you can help me! Please forgive me for changing the emphasis of your post I'm quoting here, because I'd like to focus on words other than the ones you had in bold and it got too messy that way. You said, "...all of what we can know that existed, existed in a volume smaller [than] an atomic nucleus." However, you also said, "It is wrong to view the BB as an explosion emanating from any one point...," therefore, interpreted, you are distinguishing with the greatest possible emphasis between a volume smaller than an atomic nucleus and any one point, correct? I'm sorry, but that seems to be a very clear contradiction. If you don't think it is a contradiction, can you explain why you think it's not a contradiction? I'm asking this question, because I hear you saying that since all of reality was hypothetically contained in this tiny volume smaller than an atomic nucleus, from that axiom we can conclude that therefore there was no "space or location" as we know it outside of those confines "at least as far back as t+10-43 seconds," consequently, we are (under whatever set of someone's rules, you didn't say) forbidden from equating the "BB" with an explosion, because (am I right?) any explosion, as we know it, is necessarily surrounded by existing "space and location" as we know it, into which the explosion expands (Yes? No?), which was hypothetically not the case with the "BB," since EVERYTHING was within the confines of that very small space which must by all means be distinguished from such a thing as "any one point." Is that correct, or am I somehow off track? It would seem, if I'm not off track, that you (and whoever else it is making the rules for this conceptual hypothesis) are not so much interested in the so-called tiny volume (smaller than an atomic nucleus), but everything outside of that -- which, by the way, according to this conceptual hypothesis, was NOTHING at all (since "everything" was INSIDE of that so-called tiny volume. Yes, or no? In other words, it is literally nothing, with which you are most concerned. Correct? Yes or no? It seems to me that the subject of a center of mass of the universe (this thread's title therefore the TOPIC, no?) is not missing here, because, this "tiny volume smaller than an atomic nucleus" which hypothetically was the universe as we know it, certainly would have had a center of mass, would it not? I have a problem with this proposition, "The term centre of mass is only strictly applicable to rigid bodies." Mechanical engineers deal with systems in motion every day of the week, in which they assess the changing location of center of mass. In fact, typical examples include but are not limited to aircraft (fuel consumption is regulated so as not to leave one side or the other heavier), ships (whose changing centroid of buoyancy and hypercenter determine whether the ship would be in danger of capsizing), and submarines (whose complex systems of weight distribution must constantly be under intense supervision by engineers on board lest the submarine becomes unstable or rolls to the side, disrupting fuel storage tanks which are open to the salt water environment).

I found no mention of "satellite maps" anywhere in that thread. Did you post the wrong link?

Hi, studiot. Thanks for the response. I'm just now seeing it. I was afraid a mod might delete my post for being "off topic" or whatever. But I have questions regarding the contents of this thread and thought it would be nice to keep it all in the same place, is all. It was a while ago when I wrote that and as I recall I came to new insight AS I was typing the post! Sometimes I have to read and re-read posts even on subsequent days to be sure I'm not missing a hidden meaning because lots of posts are made with one or more typos, grammatical errors or whatever which can change how the final product turns out. I wasn't sure if you were saying that a one-thousand meter tall hill or bulge (a rise) on the ocean floor produces a 2 meter rise or a 2 meter dip in the ocean's surface. I'm still not sure which it is. A "change" or "effect" could go either way. A mound of rock or sediment, on the bottom, would have more density than surrounding water, so that should cause increased gravitational attraction making water COLLECT there, I would think. Is that true? Or would it pull the water down making the surface DIP? I'm trying to be brief without being vague. If the reality is the former, which I suspect is the case, then a so-called flat lake bottom could be one that is gently concave, that is, not really following the ellipsoid very well, which might cause the water surface to be less convex, as the earth's curvature would normally have it, but this effect could be too small for it to have any significant effect on the surface of a lake. What do you think of that idea? As for the sea's surface (a sea could be smaller than a very large lake, such as the Dead Sea (605 km2), which is smaller than Lake Erie (25,700 km2)), since a body of water is constantly moving (little ripples, waves, undulations), the measurement of the elevation of any water surface must be an enormous problem, especially under agitated conditions like during a storm. It would make sense if some kind of floating GPS receiver would be required so that 4 satellites could send ephemerides to it which could be processed for elevation data which could then be relayed to a nearby monitoring station (since GPS satellites do not RECEIVE information from ground receivers). That would require a battery, and maintenance. Sounds expensive. But I have not seen that described anywhere. Have you? How else could the elevation profile of a large body of water be mapped out? Are there specially-designed satellites capable of receiving data from such a fluid surface as is water? I have read about the difference between "flat" and "level." Some forum members have been very helpful with their diagrams. Level, as in the local plane, tangent to a plumb line through the local geoid, is a relative term that only applies to a small zone, and when combined with other nearby zones effectively copies the geoid itself. Any ONE of those local planes are flat, but over a large area, the most you can ask for is an AVERAGE plane in regards to "flatness." Such an average plane would for example, cut right through a mountain or span above a valley. I have studied a little in water hydraulics and open channel flow, so I understand how currents can affect the surface of moving water. The center or midstream of an open channel is lower in elevation than the extremities, depending on depth, bottom contour, channel width, and velocity of flow. A lot of factors to keep track of. Finally, I haven't seen anything here on "critique of the experimental method." Perhaps you can point me in the right direction? Thanks again for your help!

Is this the way scientists think? How does what you believe have any bearing on what is real?

But when does the effect of the asteroid begin? When it collides, or before that? Since the the rigidity or deformation of the system is assessed without collisions taking place, it would seem the asteroid should be part of the system before collision. Therefore, the asteroid should be considered long before it collides with the rocket, just as the rocket exhaust is considered in your COM calculation. Therefore, it ought to be a COM calculation of rocket, rocket exhaust, and approaching asteroid all considered together! What happened -- someone forgot to anticipate the asteroid? It's too bad that right angle / sideways "L" artifact got included in your z-bar equation because it makes the otherwise neat appearance rather messy.

In the motorhome business here in California large bus type motorhomes often have the diesel engine in the rear, behind the rear axle, and they're called "diesel pushers." That design has been in production for many decades now, one of the more prominent brands being Crown Coach. They made a lot of passenger buses and school buses and earned a high reputation. Even after many years of productive service retired buses were made over ("conversions") into motorhomes and traveled the country's highways. Nowadays, the older converted buses are not welcome in trailer parks where it's getting to be a standard rule that to rent a parking space with hookups long term you must have an RV (recreational vehicle) that is no older than 10 years. They don't want the old ones around anymore, which makes it rather pointless to build really well-constructed motorhomes. You're wasting money if it's built to last any more than 10 years! I was very impressed with a particular model, by Itasca with a Mercedes diesel in the front end. The cab is a lot like an aircraft cockpit but a LOT bigger. The cabinets, furniture, external fresh bait drawer, storage compartments are solid, durable and easy to use. But the price ($70K) is about 30% more than similar competition (of less durability). Good for 10 years of fancy travel, I guess. After that, it's going to be challenging to find a parking space with hookups. I hope this isn't getting too off-topic. The Tesla trucks would make excellent motorhomes, I'm sure, but it seems rather contradictory to make it fit that market when Tesla trucks are built very well and certainly should have a useful life of more than 10 years. I just heard on the news that Elon Musk is laying off thousands of employees, something to do with cutbacks for volume deficiencies and a need to turn a profit this year. So it seems rather unlikely that there would ever be a Tesla motorhome version of the truck (lorry for our Brits).