Were the universe uniformly populated with matter, the density of the 
universe* would be constant across all scales; as the mass enclosed in a 
sphere of radius r would increase as r^3.

As observed, matter is condensed into stars and stuff and galaxies and 
clusters of galaxies. By the time we are getting to clusters and 
superclusters of galaxies, I believe we're told that the large scale 
structure is more like a foam, with large voids and matter (as galaxies) 
forming sheets and nodes between sheets.

If the suggestion is that clusters of galaxies are found as 'sheets' rather 
than 'volumes', does this mean that the mass enclosed in a sphere of radius 
r increases with an exponent less than 3?  , r^2.5 perhaps?

Do we have an 'accepted value' for the exponent over sufficiently large 
scales?


*assuming a simplistic 'static' model

On Feb 5, 6:13 pm, "OG"  wrote:
> Were the universe uniformly populated with matter, the density of the
> universe* would be constant across all scales; as the mass enclosed in a
> sphere of radius r would increase as r^3.
>
> As observed, matter is condensed into stars and stuff and galaxies and
> clusters of galaxies. By the time we are getting to clusters and
> superclusters of galaxies, I believe we're told that the large scale
> structure is more like a foam, with large voids and matter (as galaxies)
> forming sheets and nodes between sheets.
>
> If the suggestion is that clusters of galaxies are found as 'sheets' rather
> than 'volumes', does this mean that the mass enclosed in a sphere of radius
> r increases with an exponent less than 3?  , r^2.5 perhaps?
>
> Do we have an 'accepted value' for the exponent over sufficiently large
> scales?
>
> *assuming a simplistic 'static' model

I believe Einstein's Cosmological Constant for a static Universe is
true.

I believe the density of the Universe in terms of mass varies over
vast regions,
that the voids that we see black connecting channels of galactic flows
are
full of matter and channels carry mass to less dense regions. I think
when
there is a large accumulation of mass, this mass flows. Just like
water in
mountains. The direction of flow is down the hill, and hills arise.

Only with flows temperature rises to 2.7 Kelvin as in our region.
These
flows make spiral galaxies rotate, while matter in the dark voids has
fewer cosmic heat and activities to form galaxies, but stars form,
maybe small constellations, we just don't see them.

www.geocities.com/gmbajszar/void.JPG

The constancy varies, think of it that where you see channels of
galaxies
flowing, more mass flows toward regions where there is less mass.

Why the expansion effect? What direction these flows take corresponds
with reduced accumulation of mass in our vicinities, but elsewhere in
the
great vast of the Universe matter may be accumulating and not
spreading
as we see it.

If you look at the sponge of the Universe in the picture you see a
varying
picture to the density of the Universe.

Another way to think of it.

In article ,
 "OG"  wrote:

<snip>
> 
> If the suggestion is that clusters of galaxies are found as 'sheets' rather 
> than 'volumes', does this mean that the mass enclosed in a sphere of radius 
> r increases with an exponent less than 3?  , r^2.5 perhaps?
> 
> Do we have an 'accepted value' for the exponent over sufficiently large 
> scales?

A quick search turned up this abstract at <http://tinyurl.com/2r79s2> 
that looks relevant: Montuori, Labini, & Amici, "Statistical properties 
of galaxy cluster distribution", 1997.

"We analyze subsamples of Abell and ACO cluster catalogs, in order to 
study the spatial properties of the large-scale matter distribution. 
[...] The cluster samples show fractal correlations up to sample limits 
(‰70h^-1 Mpc) with fractal dimension D ‰ 2, without any tendency towards 
homogenization. Our analysis shows that the standard correlation methods 
are incorrect [...] Moreover we conclude that galaxies and clusters are 
two different representations of the same self-similar structure and 
that the correlations of clusters are the continuation of those of 
galaxies to larger scales."

And this New Scientist article from a few years back:

<http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg16322004.500-fractured-universe.
html>

"From their measurements, Pietronero and his colleagues estimate that D 
is about 2.1, implying that the Universe is fractal on scales up to 300 
million light years. There is a proviso, however. "We should not forget 
the invisible 'dark' matter, which is thought to account for at least 90 
per cent of the mass in the Universe," says Sylos Labini."

-- 
Odysseus