[layedgebiamma]

I apologize if this question is not well articulated.

From the Wikipedia article on the Great Attractor:

"In 2005, astronomers conducting an X-ray survey of part of the sky known as the Clusters in the Zone of Avoidance (CIZA) project reported that the Great Attractor was actually only one tenth the mass that scientists had originally estimated. The survey also confirmed earlier theories that the Milky Way galaxy was in fact being pulled towards a much more massive cluster of galaxies near the Shapley Supercluster which lies beyond the Great Attractor.[4]"

What I want to ask is, could there be greater and greater gravitational clusters affecting the path of matter in the universe? Does our current cosmological knowledge necessarily exclude a gravitational attractor above a certain mass? If so, what is the limit? Can we say for certain that there is no collection of matter in the universe greater than ascertain mass?

[zU8KbeIU]

> What I want to ask is, could there be greater and greater gravitational clusters affecting the path of matter in the universe? Does our current cosmological knowledge necessarily exclude a gravitational attractor above a certain mass? If so, what is the limit? Can we say for certain that there is no collection of matter in the universe greater than ascertain mass?

I once made up a list of greater and greater galactic superclusters. Although larger and larger superclusters exist, they also become less dense as they get larger. I would be prepared to lay good odds that we can ignore superclusters beyond the Shapley supercluster. I'm also wondering whether some of this motion is not primarily gravitational at the present time, but more like a gravitational slingshot in which the original source of gravity has long since departed.

[seatlyled]

Since the universe is expanding over large scales, I would say no.

[qikolax]

Since the universe is expanding over large scales, I would say no.

That's the crux of my question, B.C.

Universal expansion presumably discludes the possibility of universal attractors of x mass or greater. What is the value of x in this instance?

[Sipewrio]

Maybe in terms you would better understand' B.C. (but I apologize again for not really being sure of the correct wording for my question), what is the established maximum limit of a single mass in the universe given what we know about universal expansion and localized decoupling from that expansion?

[Cyncceply]

Like, I'd guess we can exclude the possibility of an object which exists in the universe trillions of light years in diameter as dense as a Nuetron star, but between the gravitational attraction demonstrated by an atom and the attraction demonstrated by this imaginary object, what is the currently demonstrable "cut off" point?

[spineeupsenry]

Maybe in terms you would better understand' B.C. (but I apologize again for not really being sure of the correct wording for my question), what is the established maximum limit of a single mass in the universe given what we know about universal expansion and localized decoupling from that expansion?

Good question but I don't really know.
I suppose that scale which we now observe...but who knows in reality.

[viagradiscounttt]

*multi posts are bad ettiquitte*

*sorry*

*bump*