A
atlantisworp
Guest
If all planets and stars circle around the heaviest object, their must, somewhere, be the one, as center of the universe, where is it dear fellows Americans?
Keep up to date with the Space calendar 2022: Rocket launches, sky events, missions and more!
‘objects in the Universe aren't circling anything‘MeteorWayne":3q21qzff said:Sorry, but since the objects in the Universe aren't circling anything, there is no such object. There is also no center of the Universe.
Supermassive black holes at the center of Galaxies are probably the heaviest in a small space, but then again, a Galaxy could be considered and object as well. So could a cluster of galaxies.
Really, a black hole will continue moving in the same direction it was moving before it became a black hole. It's the same amount of mass, just in a smaller package, so will respond gravitationally in exactly the same way. Of course any force generated in the forming explosion could have an effect, but that's jusy basic gravity.atlantisworp":1o13s5iu said:I assume by these explanations, that black holes go no where else or move in orbit of anything at all.
Right?
I don't understand what exactly you mean by "go no where else". Black holes (BHs) at the center of galaxies go wherever the galaxy as a whole goes. There's some research that suggest it's possible for a BH to escape it's own galaxy during the merger of 2 or more BHs.atlantisworp":1hyauwvj said:I assume by these explanations, that black holes go no where else or move in orbit of anything at all.
Right?
There seems to be a misconception that has propagated in this thread.atlantisworp":17zo6xz2 said:If all planets and stars circle around the heaviest object, their must, somewhere, be the one, as center of the universe, where is it dear fellows Americans?
How would you describe many-body systems? Say a globular clustar of stars, they are gravitationaly bound together but none of the stars is orbiting anything?DrRocket":a37rrk6o said:[The universe cannot, no matter how you shake and bake the equations, or slice and dice them, be considered as anything other than a many-body system. Two-body models just don't apply. There is no clear orbital structure and no clear center for orbits that probably are not well defined anyway.
For the detailed and accurate answer please read Dr Rocket's reply just above your question.atlantisworp":35on7imc said:‘It goes whereever gravity tells it to go‘
But gravity depends on mass amount, so probably the whole universe orbits around a huge mass or monolite.
Right?
If black holes move as stars do, do they orbit to something heavier them themselves, or is this the limit to human understanding?
Is there any object`(star) in the universe not moving?
I ask this all, because motion and stillness may be the clue to something.
That is correct. As I said to atlantisworp, Dr Rocket's answer is technically correct. Hope he won't mind if I paraphrase....Once there are 3 bodies in a system, the solution is chaotic. There is no way to predict how the motion of the objects will evolve with infinite precision forever.kg":2mngrur2 said:How would you describe many-body systems? Say a globular clustar of stars, they are gravitationaly bound together but none of the stars is orbiting anything?DrRocket":2mngrur2 said:[The universe cannot, no matter how you shake and bake the equations, or slice and dice them, be considered as anything other than a many-body system. Two-body models just don't apply. There is no clear orbital structure and no clear center for orbits that probably are not well defined anyway.
Wayne,drwayne":3o8iqmbn said:My wife can tell you what the most dense object in the universe is.
Wayne
The N-body in dynamics describes any dynamical system consisting of 3 or more bodies. Generally they interact gravitationally, which is the case of interest here.kg":hp20f8iw said:How would you describe many-body systems? Say a globular clustar of stars, they are gravitationaly bound together but none of the stars is orbiting anything?DrRocket":hp20f8iw said:[The universe cannot, no matter how you shake and bake the equations, or slice and dice them, be considered as anything other than a many-body system. Two-body models just don't apply. There is no clear orbital structure and no clear center for orbits that probably are not well defined anyway.
atlantisworp":33duxhue said:If all planets and stars circle around the heaviest object, their must, somewhere, be the one, as center of the universe, where is it dear fellows Americans?
Thanks for the simulations speedy, but come on, remember that I said that I dislike the term chaotic systems when it is not used precisely and it almost never is used precisely. :shock:SpeedFreek":3sfio1si said:Here are some simulations of gravity, to illustrate what DrRocket means when he talks of chaotic systems
SpeedFreek":2v1ozgdj said:I wasn't using it precisely either, of course. To me, in the context of this thread, it means that smaller things don't travel in circles around larger things, or sit still for very long!
I don't like the term chaotic either, especially when applied to the dynamics of the universe, as it implies a lack of order. The universe doesn't lack order, it just seems to have a very complicated kind of order (in the context of gravity, at least)!