Genady

It does not matter. You are simply wrong, and it is known for 300 years by now. You have nothing to show for and there is a pile of arguments against your guess. It does not fit a definition of Speculation by the rules of these forums. IMO, this thread is to be closed.

Doesn't CBH1 affect S2? Doesn't CBH2 affect S1? To the other questions, the general answer is, the more gravitating sources surrounding the observable universe, so more they diminish each other's effect on the observable universe. Ultimately, there will be no gravitational effect from these sources on the observable universe at all. This is the consequence of the same Newton's shell theorem that I've mentioned earlier.

Not much. You need only one additional step: 1. Using the same formulae as before, calculate \(ra\) for each gravitational source. 2. Add all the \(ra\) vectors. 3. Using the same formulae as before, calculate the angle \(x\).

R.I.P. "the simplest cause."

which is 15 orders of magnitude higher than our models have been tested so far, right?

No, it is not. It is rather quite straightforward. Here: You could make a table in Excel that calculates the angle \(x\) and you could play with different configurations of distances between the Earth and the CBH, \(EB\), the Galaxy and the CBH, \(GB\), and the Earth and the Galaxy, \(EG\). When \(x \lt \pi/2\), the Galaxy accelerates toward the Earth. When \(x \gt \pi/2\), the Galaxy accelerates away from the Earth.

This figure is also incorrect. If the mass of CBH and its distance are such that the accelerations are almost parallel, then these mass and distance would make the accelerations almost equal. I.e., \(ra_1 \approx 0\).

Hardly. Big Bang is not a point.

They are incorrect. There are several errors in these figures: 1. If CBH is very far, the dotted curves should be very close to parallel lines. 2. The accelerations should be perpendicular to the dotted curves. 3. If CBH is very far, the magnitudes of the accelerations should be very similar to each other. 4. As \(a_1\) and \(a_2\) shown incorrectly, so the \(ra_1\) is also incorrect.

Arctangent is not a calculation. I want to know, what part of the sphere is in the cones when CBH is far away. To show it, algebra / trig / calculus / computer can be used, but not hand waving.

BTW, you can stop wasting time on drawing sizes of CBH. You can just mark their centers. According to the Newton's shell theorem, their gravitational effects do not depend on their sizes anyway.

No, there was no such misunderstanding. When I said "as CBH gets farther", I was not talking about it moving farther away. I was talking about comparing cases when it is farther from vs closer to the Earth.

Show your calculation.

I think that as CBH gets farther, the angle gets closer to 90 degrees, and the volume of A+B gets closer to 30%.

It is a mistake to think that only the bodies at the exact distance of the Earth would be accelerating toward the Earth and all the rest would be accelerating away from it. In fact, there would be two cones, A and B, where the bodies will be accelerating away from the Earth, and the 3D volume, C, where they would be accelerating toward the Earth: The relative sizes of A+B vs C depend on the angle of the cones, which depend on the distance from CBH. In case of the angle being 90 degrees, as on the drawing above, the volume of the two cones, A+B, is about 30% and the volume of the C is about 70% of the blue sphere. This means that in this case, about 30% of the observed supernovae would be accelerating away and about 70% would be accelerating toward the Earth.

These supernovae are not located on a line. If you see a supernova that accelerates away from the Earth, then looking in a roughly perpendicular direction you'd see supernovae which accelerate toward the Earth. The fact that the supernovae in all directions accelerate away from the Earth contradicts this model.

It is much more likely that more of them are located tangentially rather than radially, because there is only one radial dimension but there are two tangential dimensions.

However, objects located tangentially rather than radially from E would be accelerating toward E.

Yes. Why wouldn't you draw all four bodies aligned? If you did, S1 and S2 would certainly be accelerating away from E.

Because this is how "toward" and "away" are defined.

Both S1 and S2 in the drawing are accelerating rather toward the Earth:

My dogs certainly would. (Don't know about your diving experiences, but I 'communicated' with dozens of octopi in their natural habitat. The latter includes divers.)

Yes, in my own way.

The octopus saw divers making this thing and wanted the diver to finish it because it is currently useless, to the octopus.

If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.