Center of the universe

[igorsboss]

No matter how many digits of pi are computed, there are additional nonrepeating nonzero digits which may be computed.<br /><br />For every finitely long computed value of pi, there exists a rational number which has exactly that same value.<br /><br />However, once one adds one more nonzero digit on the end of the computed value of pi, we find that the above rational number no longer has that exact same value.<br /><br />Hence there is no rational number which is precicely equal to pi.

 

[worthj1970]

I think a beer might help me get my mind around this. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lewcos]

My conclusion is that we don't know jack about jack.<br /><br />We don't even know why we are here, forget about where we are going or how we got here.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">My conclusion is that we don't know jack about jack. </font><br /><br />Why be so negative, there has been a revolution in the understanding of the universe around us in the last 100 years alone. Perhaps you should find out a bit more before extending your ignorance to the rest of us. <br /><br />How we got he is pretty much sorted bar the shouting, big bang a little luck and lots of evolution. Where we are going is sorted to, we are on our way to the Virgo cluster, what we do in the mean while is up to us. As to why, I don’t think there is a why but that’s down to personal belief and unless something changes radically the only unanswerable you posed.<br /><br />I agree there is still alot of stuff to be learnt but there is no need to be overly dismisive, learn a bit more, its all good stuff <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[lewcos]

"Perhaps you should find out a bit more before extending your ignorance to the rest of us. "<br /><br />You have no idea what I know - so who is being ignorant?<br /><br />"How we got he is pretty much sorted bar the shouting, big bang a little luck and lots of evolution."<br /><br />It's a guess - nothing more. For all you KNOW, we could have been planted here by aliens as a Petry dish experiment or by god as it says in the bible. <br /><br />"Where we are going is sorted to, we are on our way to the Virgo cluster"<br /><br />Such a short term thinker you are. I mean at the end, if there is one. Please enlighten me as to where our final destiny lies and then prove it to me, anything short will show YOUR ingorance at calling others ingorant.<br /><br />What I have learned from history and science is that we don't know JACK <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br />

 

[Maddad]

ranur<br />"<font color="yellow">Claiming there is is a centre demands also an edge.</font><br />Not so. Zero is the center of the number line, with positive and negative numbers stretching to infinity on both sides. There is no edge to the number line even though it has a center.

 

[jcdenton]

<font color="yellow">Not so. Zero is the center of the number line, with positive and negative numbers stretching to infinity on both sides. There is no edge to the number line even though it has a center.</font><br /><br />Infinity and negative infinity are the edges, well sort-of... They are virtual numbers after all.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Maddad]

The claim of no center for the universe arises from the improbability of finding ourselves at the center of what we can see, but knowing that only by coincidence would we occupy that spot. The problem goes away when you realize that the observable universe is vastly smaller than the full universe. When we see all objects equally moving away from us, we are only seeing objects in a small section of the total universe. Within that small section, that part we call the observable universe, it does indeed look like everything moves away from us equally fast at equal distances.<br /><br />Since we do not know where our observable universe is within the total universe, we are unable to say that all parts of the total universe move away from us equally fast at equal distances. Because of that inability, we are unable to make a valid claim that the universe has no center.

 

[cubinno1]

We are the center?Please recall the picture taken from mars of earth===if you did not see it let me remind you--<br />a pin head sized white light!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br />thats us!<br />get real<br /><br />regards<br /><br />george ormondy<br />

 

[newtonian]

George- Yes, we are but a speck of dust in our universe, [edited out as per killium's request}<br /><br />Of course it is mathematically extremely unlikely we are at the center of our universe.<br /><br />Maddad - good posts.<br /><br />You all - [edited out] indicatates our universe is expanding like a stretching fine gauze or cloth.<br /><br />Normally, one would consider a cloth as finite in mass.<br /><br />Likewise most astronomers agree that our universe is finite in mass.<br /><br />As our universe is stretching, the density (average) is decreasing. Since the primitive Hebrew root for the stretching fine gauze includes "crumbling" and since [ edited out] indicates interstellar bonds can either be tied fast or loosened, and since stretching a gauze can cause breaking of bonds in the threads and filaments, it is logical to conclude that the threads and filaments in our universe can either hold fast (e.g. gravitationally bound) or be loosened by expansion (e.g. dark energy).<br /><br />Either way, a finite mass with an observable density must have limits in diameter or dimensions. That implies a center. However, that center may be in space-time rather than in miles - or it may be in both.<br /><br />Anyone have proof there is no center in miles (or units of length and width)?<br /><br />From observing how our universe is being stretched: cause and effect: have we determined where the dark energy causing acceleration of expansion is being applied, introduced? <br /><br />BTW - we may be one of many universes within another much larger universe [edited out]- where our space time occupies a moving position in comparison with other universes with their respective space-times, and the much larger universe would then contain primordial time during which cause and effect proceeded during the creation of our universe and its space-time.

 

[newtonian]

You all -on the matter of an edge - or, edge of the matter:<br /><br />[edited out]indicates there are stars with no set course (not gravitationally bound) that are in darkness forever. Whether this implies they are black holes seems likely.<br /><br />More important: it indicates that some stars are beyond the light cone of our universe.<br /><br />So much for the light cone of our universe being an edge.<br /><br />The [edited out] also implies these stars may have escaped the gravitational influence of our universe - like escape velocity, if you will - since they have no set course. [Or it may simply be relative and apply to stars that have no set course in a galaxy, or supercluster, but they would only be in relative darkness].<br /><br />Can this be explained by inflation theory? <br /><br />What are the upper limits of expansion speed due to dark energy?<br /><br />Since the age of these stars is finite and has an upper limit below the age of our universe, we could determine the limit to an "edge" if we could determine a limit to expansion rate by dark energy.<br /><br />Please consider the possiblity that our universe is already interacting with another universe (e.g. the much larger universe postulated above), and that dark energy is part of that interaction - i.e. our universe may be an open system acted on from outside the system.<br /><br />Until we know the cause of dark energy, we should consider all reasonable possibilities,<br /><br />How do you all think about all of this?<br />BTW- have we determined a center for the local group of galaxies? Or a center for our supercluster heading for the great attractor?<br />

 

[Maddad]

What do we think of all this? The bible is fine, but if you want to learn about science you'll need to put it down.

 

[mooware]

Agreed Maddad.<br />

 

[lewcos]

"What do we think of all this? The bible is fine, but if you want to learn about science you'll need to put it down. "<br /><br />Why limit your possible answers? I think some of the predictions in the bible (which I have never read but see from posts here) are pretty amazing.<br /><br />I think you need to look at all the possibilities to come to a sound scientific conclusion - wouldn't you agree?<br /><br />

 

[Maddad]

No, I would not agree at all. When the bible was written people had no concept of science at all. The idea that you can learn about the universe by observing, forming a guess to explain what you see, and checking to see if the natural consequence of your guess holds up would not be born for another 15 centuries minimum. Some of the bible was written 28 centuries before anyone ever considered science.<br /><br />On the contrary, at the time the bible was written, the way you obtained knowledge was to ask someone who talked to God. All these thousands of years ago this person was writing not from the viewpoint of telling you how God put the world together, but rather why He did it that way.<br /><br />The bible crazies here take verses out of the context in which they were written and put them into a much different modern one. This violates one of the most fundamental principles of interpreting the bible. With rules as loose as this, it is no wonder that you can use the bible to prove anything in the world at all, even to prove contradictions in other parts of it.<br /><br />If you want to learn about science, then you'll need to put the bible down. It's not even the same subject.

 

[newtonian]

lewcos - Yes, I agree. I don't agree with maddad about [edited out], however we do seem to agree that there may or may not be a center for our universe.<br /><br />[Edited out] is not out of context, btw. The context deals with earth compared with heaven, and mere man compared with God. For example, [edited out] deals with the origin and sustaining of stars from energy.<br /><br />Maddad is correct that the science of [editied out] times was totally unreliable - often laughable.<br /><br />That is what makes the accuracy of [edited out] (and many other subjects) so amazing to me!<br /><br />Yes, we should consider all potential models until one is actually proven to be the correct model.<br /><br />The balloon model is the popular one. However, a stretching flat cloth or sheet is also sometimes referred to by astronomers though they seem to be unaware that this is the illustration used at [edited out]<br />The stretching cloth model need not be flat, btw. In fact, astronomers are usually using the balloon model as a way of conceiving the shape of our universe, i.e. it is conceptual.<br /><br />In that model, the center of the balloon is ignored since it is not real, just an illustration.<br /><br />However, the illustration in [edited out] is observed in reality. <br /><br />A stretching fine cloth does literally have threads and filaments which are being stretched out. And the bonds are sometimes loosened as indicated in [edited out] - or they hold fast.<br /><br />We really do observe threads and filaments in our universe. Astronomers are not referring to [edited out] when using the terms threads and filaments - they see these totally independently of the [edited out] - in many cases they don't even realize the Bible used this illustration.<br /><br />So, getting back to the question of a center for our universe -<br /><br />Would there be a center to a stretching fine gauze?<br /><br />Astronomers usually consider our universe has a finite mass, as any cloth or gauze would h

 

[newtonian]

Killium - Is that editing sufficient for you? If not, please explain.<br /><br />The reasons why I believe our universe may have a center at least in space-time if not in space include the source you wish me not to mention. So be it.

 

[ajforno]

Being my first post, I will introduce myself first. I am an engineer writing from Chile.<br /><br />After reading many posts on this Center of the Universe forum, It occurred to me a particular vision or theory:<br /><br />The universe has a center, is finite, and the Balloon Analogy applies, but with two important considerations;<br /><br />1.- The universe is so huge that we are located somewhere inside the outer expanding mantle of the balloon; not on its surface, but inside a mantle with thickness, a thickness that may be up to 45 billion light years across.<br /><br />2.- We can not see beyond 15 billion light years away becasue light eventually fades traveling in the vacuum of space. (Light could not travel for ever, since even tiny speckles of dust present in space will take its share slowing light, and eventually fading it completely after 15 billions of years of traveling)<br /><br />3.- In this vision, the diameter of the balloon may be in the order of the trillions of light years across, thus making the center of the universe an unimaginable big void space.<br /><br />This dimensional leap on the size of universe could explain may be the observed acceleration in expansion.<br /><br />May be I am way off here, but I'd appreciate any comments anyway.<br /> <br /><br />

 

[jeelbear]

Hi all. I'm new here and confused. My brother says it's because I'm a drummer. I've been wondering about the Center of the Universe for some time now and have heard all sorts of stuff. Since I'm no scientist, here are my questions:<br /><br />1. Where is everything expanding from?<br /><br />2. If we're expanding from everything and everything is expanding from us, doesn't that mean we're not moving at all? I mean, try putting four balls in a groove and TRY to make them move away from each other... at least two of the balls will have to move toward another ball.<br /><br />3. If space exploded and not matter, wouldn't all matter still be in the same place?<br /><br />4. Isn't the center of a balloon the empty space that's smack dab in the middle? It's still a point in space, right?<br /><br />5. What are all the galactic clusters moving away from?<br /><br />My brain hurts.

 

[alpha_taur1]

"Where is everything expanding from?"<br /><br />Durant, Oklahoma. <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />These have got to be unknowables. We are at the centre of our observable universe. We can see as far as the observable horizon. <br /><br />The observable universe, during inflation, increased its radius by 3 x 10-9 light-seconds during a time span of 10-34 seconds. To do this, the observable universe would have to expand at a rate far, far greater than the speed of light. There is a reason for this apparent incongruity:<br /><br />Objects moving through space can't move faster than light with respect to each other. However, when space itself expands, as happened in our Big Bang universe, there's no restriction on its speed.

 

[igorsboss]

Expanding on that last post...<br /><br />Suppose two people asserted that they had found the center of the Universe, and these two centers were different. The problem is that there is no way for us to decide who is correct.<br /><br />Therefore, we say that neither one is correct, and that no center exists.<br /><br />There in fact might be a center, but we would simply never know it.

 

[i_think]

I agree with nacnud, that the balloon analogy is not the most suitable. The surface of a balloon is two-dimensional and has no center. Space has at least three dimensions. A better analogy would be the raison bread that is three-dimensional. The raisons are moving further apart from each other, and for this reason each raison may think it is at the center of the loaf, but raison bread is of finite mass and indeed has only one true center. It is very difficult for the raisons to observe the entire loaf from within the raison bread and determine where the one true center is, but a baker observing the entire loaf from outside will certainly see and know that there is a center. Does it matter? Only if the baker decides to test the center with a toothpick to see if it is done.