Does the Big Bang theory put us at the center of the Universe?

[murgatroyd]

Well I could have expressed distance instead in parsecs, kilometers or miles. But expressing distance in terms of the time it would take light to get across was okay.

Are you certain that you have understood Einstein's Theories of Relativity, Atlan?

 

[Atlan0001]

Well I could have expressed distance instead in parsecs, kilometers or miles. But expressing distance in terms of the time it would take light to get across was okay.

Are you certain that you have understood Einstein's Theories of Relativity, Atlan?

Einstein's Theories of Relativity require superman's x-ray vision and I once dealt in that with the dead or alive cat 300,000 kilometers away from superman with a piano less than a second away from falling on and killing the cat. Superman sees the cat alive and thinking so fast he believes he can save the cat if he teleports instantaneously to the scene and prevents the piano from falling on the cat. He does his instantaneous transfer to the scene bit, only to find he was too late to save the cat despite his instantaneous transfer to the scene. The piano had already fallen on the cat when he observed it just about to.

 

[Atlan0001]

No response to the above, eh? How about this involving space metric. Chaose Theory's vertical levels of zoom universes, as opposed to horizontal Flatland. The vertical (alternating) "fractal" levels into the infinite in one direction and into the infinitesimal in the other direction, yet all of the infinity of fractal levels in the vertical infinities of levels reducing to just one non-fractal fractal (sic) level of all, the Flatland level of the 'set' of all the vertical infinities of fractal levels.

The story of Gulliver's Travels is a nice mythical description. Gulliver is six feet tall and carrying a three-foot-long yardstick with him and visits the Land of the Giants. He runs into a six-foot-tall Giant carrying a three-foot-long yardstick. "This can't possibly be," he tells the Giant, "You can't possibly be six-feet-tall, and that yardstick can't possibly be three-feet-long," as he shows the Giant his toothpick long, three-foot-long yardstick. Then he goes to Lilliput and finds a six-foot-tall Lilliputian with a three-foot-long yardstick telling him the same thing he told the Giant about impossibilities.

The zoom universe of Chaos Theory changes the story completely. Gulliver travels to the zoom level of the Land of the Giants, Gulliver is a Giant among other giants and his and the other Giants' yardsticks are exactly the same length. He travels to Lilliput on a different level and he and the six-foot-tall Lilliputian are the same height and their yardsticks the same length side by side. There is a fractal difference in non-local vertical universes, and there is no fractal difference in the local level universe, relative to that level of immediate locality alone. It's called "wave function", if I've identified it correctly, in quantum mechanics. A particle in the direction of infinite (distance) can be as large as a star, a galaxy, a universe, and in the direction of infinitesimal (equally distant with infinite) a star, a galaxy, a universe, can be as small as a particle.

Thus, Captain Kirk and his starship Enterprise can span the space of whole star systems, whole light time history zones, in cluster all at once from his spacetime "soliton" warp-spacetime-bubble as he travels the universe. To the observer on Earth, though, if the observer could even possibly observe what was going on (which in fact he won't up and out into the macrocosm), the principal of uncertainty would cover the observation with a vengeance (as it does down and in, into the microcosm). To mean the starship Enterprise being observed to be a swarm of many Enterprises positioned everywhere, swarming everywhere, all at once in a macrocosmic quantum box.

 

[ASTROSTONER]

No, there no boundary. Where is the boundary on the Earth's surface? No matter where you go you on the Earth, it ia always the same, a circular horizon.
Same thing happens in the Universe except in three dimensions versus two.

Ok i see two options.

1 the universe size is infinite and the big bang theory of its size, age and anything based off these numbers is nonsense.

2. the universe is finite but curved in a manner as to provide an explanation for your example.
which i thought was already tested but found to be flat.

I am missing something!?!

 

[ASTROSTONER]

Doesn't expansion prevent space curvature?

The further away something is the less it can curve because expansion is in the radial direction and increases over distance. So curvature approaches 0 at infinity.

 

[Helio]

Ok i see two options.

1 the universe size is infinite and the big bang theory of its size, age and anything based off these numbers is nonsense.

2. the universe is finite but curved in a manner as to provide an explanation for your example.
which i thought was already tested but found to be flat.

I am missing something!?!

Your earlier view of a finite universe because it began at a point is my view as well. IOW, how can there be a universe that is both infinite and a point?

But to have a center, one must be able to draw lines to it. Under GR (General Relativity), you can't do this. Spacetime is affected by mass/energy, which curves space.

If you shined a laser in one direction, given enough time, it would "bend" completely around so that it would be seen if you turned around. [This wouldn't actually happen because the universe is too big and it's still expanding where your light would never have enough time to reach you, plus you are moving with the Sun and planets and galaxy, so the light would miss you even you had the time to wait, and other reasons.]

The balloon analogy helps me with a few of these issues. Use a marker to put dots on a slightly inflated balloon. Expand the balloon and the dots all move away from one another. The farther the dot is away from the one you select, the faster they are moving away from your dot. This is how we see the expansion of space.

Further, one cannot find an edge on the balloon, which is what Bill was saying. Of course, we are restricting ourselves to two dimensions since a balloon does have a center, unlike the Universe.

The flat universe view can be understood by asking what happens to two parallel rays of light? If these rays spread outward, stay parallel, or converge then you have an open, flat, closed universe, respectively.

But this is more than a convention. A flat universe means that there is, perhaps, an unimaginable amount of balance to the universe. This means all those constants like gravity, electromagnetic forces, etc., caused our universe to not collapse or expand too fast, thus allowing, for instance, stars to form.

 

[Atlan0001]

For a universe to expand to infinity it must be infinite in the first place.

One of the things that made the great mathematician Kurt Godel go nuts, among other things, was because try as he might he could not reduce a point, even a boundaryless string of points, from infinite to finite.

 

[Atlan0001]

I'm the only one on the site that carries "soliton packets", and their self-similar, Chaos Theory's zoom universes, around in the pocket of my mind's eye ready to pull out and use at practically any time wanted or needed.

 

[Atlan0001]

The concept of "infinity" is a mathematical abstraction, and has no provable influence on any form of "reality". By definition, any knowledge "we think" that we have, is limited to the specific abstractions of an individual's "observable universe" (small 'u').

Cat

Sigh, Cat you really know how to describe a small and limited, finite, mind. Michelle de Crevecoeur, nee: Hector St. John, an American farmer and famous essayist from 1772+, published in London 1782 (where he went to escape the Revolution), wrote that virtually every immigrant stepping foot in the New World was having the frontier expand, stretch, their Old-World minds almost limitlessly to fit the New World.

You describe shrinking minds going in the other direction, deforming, in a shrinking world, a world folding into itself, a closing system. A physic, a mass human world physic, known to history, known equally to the great historians and the barbarian horde invaders of civilizations falling from within over all the ages of world history. A "provable influence on reality." A proved "influence" over thousands of years of recorded history, over the world.

 

[Catastrophe]

Maybe you should be thinking "No absolute i.e., common edge, just the edge of your observable universe at your 'current' coordinates? This would simply be the furthest 'point' from which you could receive light (= em radiation).

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

Maybe you should be thinking "No absolute i.e., common edge, just the edge of your observable universe at your 'current' coordinates? This would simply be the furthest 'point' from which you could receive light (= em radiation).

Cat

Again, I wish I could give someone two or three likes in thumbs up because Cat deserves them here from me . . . for his rendition of my rendition! No apology, Cat, simply admiration of your thinking here. Very good!

 

[DarkClearSkies]

The concept of the size, boundaries, and centre of the universe is a subject of ongoing scientific research and debate within the field of cosmology. Current understanding suggests that the universe is considered to be both finite and unbounded. This means that the observable universe, which is the part we can see and study, has a finite size determined by the distance to the farthest galaxies we can detect. However, beyond the observable universe, the exact extent of the universe is not known, and there is no established edge or boundary.

The expansion of the universe and the effects of dark energy play a significant role in shaping our understanding of its boundaries. Distant galaxies are moving away from us, and the rate of their recession increases with their distance. This expansion can exceed the speed of light, which means that the light from galaxies beyond a certain distance will never reach us, and we cannot physically travel to those regions using conventional means.

In terms of the centre of the universe, the prevailing view in cosmology is that there is no preferred or privileged centre. According to the cosmological principle, which is based on observations of the large-scale structure of the universe, the universe appears to be homogeneous and isotropic on average. This means that from the perspective of any observer in the universe, it would seem as though they are at the center, and the expansion of space occurs uniformly in all directions.

It's important to note that our understanding of the universe is continually evolving as new observations, data, and theoretical models emerge. Cosmologists are constantly refining their understanding and developing new theories to explain the complex nature of our universe. So, while our current knowledge suggests a finite yet unbounded universe with no preferred centre, ongoing research may bring new insights and perspectives in the future.

 

[Catastrophe]

Progress in cosmology generally will be limited, IMHO, until its participants realise that "The map is not the territory", and cease indulging in useless word games.

Please note that this a general comment, and is certainly not 'aimed' critically at anyone, whether they participate in this forum, or not.

Please refer, for example, to my posts in this thread:

My post #14:
"The concept of "infinity" is a mathematical abstraction, and has no provable influence on any form of "reality". By definition, any knowledge "we think" that we have, is limited to the specific abstractions of an individual's "observable universe" (small 'u').

My post #35:
"Maybe you should be thinking "No absolute i.e., common edge, just the edge of your observable universe at your 'current' coordinates? This would simply be the furthest 'point' from which you could receive light (= em radiation)."

I have been expressing these thoughts here for years, and they are general comments, and, in no way whatsoever, intended as any form of personal criticism. They relate to my opinions on the application of Korzybski's work to cosmology, which, IMHO, is greatly in need of them. (i.e., cosmology would benefit from applying General Semantics).

Cat

 

[DarkClearSkies]

And for that we have fascinating alternative explanations

 

[Atlan0001]

Well! Well! Well!

The Radical Theory That Says That Life Creates The Universe - Grunge

The universe led to life as we know it - sound about right? According to some researchers, it's not. Here's one radical theory that proposes something else.

www.grunge.com

Well! Well! Well!

Hawking's "Life Zone" of the universe.

Others', including me upon occasion, talking some "life force" of the universe. I don't agree with the above article altogether, but I agree to an alienistic-like always self-reinforcing, self-renewing, eternity in a moment, life force to it that is either infinity or backed by infinity . . . as I attempt to describe, picture, model (my 'Atlanoverse'), time after time.

In an infinite universe, including my Atlanoverse model, there is nothing, no world, no quark, no point that is not at the dead center of it ever and always in apparent straight line to the non-local distant Horizon and -- it being a collapsed cosmological constant -- forever quantum entangled with it (that Horizon (Theory) of Everything . . . or Hawking's "Grand Central Station" of a Cosmic All, which Einstein visited in his mind's eye taking a different view of where he went and what to: But the same place never-the-less . . . that the ancients would tell us all they beat us to long ago).

 

[Adoni Yannop]

Well! Well! Well!

The Radical Theory That Says That Life Creates The Universe - Grunge

The universe led to life as we know it - sound about right? According to some researchers, it's not. Here's one radical theory that proposes something else.

www.grunge.com

Well! Well! Well!

Hawking's "Life Zone" of the universe.

Others', including me upon occasion, talking some "life force" of the universe. I don't agree with the above article altogether, but I agree to an alienistic-like always self-reinforcing, self-renewing, eternity in a moment, life force to it that is either infinity or backed by infinity . . . as I attempt to describe, picture, model (my 'Atlanoverse'), time after time.

In an infinite universe, including my Atlanoverse model, there is nothing, no world, no quark, no point that is not at the dead center of it ever and always in apparent straight line to the non-local distant Horizon and -- it being a collapsed cosmological constant -- forever quantum entangled with it (that Horizon (Theory) of Everything . . . or Hawking's "Grand Central Station" of a Cosmic All, which Einstein visited in his mind's eye taking a different view of where he went and what to: But the same place never-the-less . . . that the ancients would tell us all they beat us to long ago).

Atlan0001 Says): "Others', including me upon occasion, talking some "life force" of the universe??"
I believe that the Universe is alive and contains "Some Life Force" in the sense that the Universe on its own evolved Neutron Permeable Indestructible Mass-Energy Vessels from tinier particles that I call God Particle 1s (GP1s) defined as the tiniest Particle Of Mass In The Uiverse , just as, protein chains evolved to single cell plants and single cell animals in our oceans about 4 billion years, ago!!
My Main Suggestion here is that once the Universe Evolved Indestructible Neutron Mass-Energy Vessel Sacs that decay to hydrogen allowing stars to form, the stars thus formed made more than enough additional embryonic neutrons in their cores to compensate for the destruction of matter in matter-antimatter interactions!!
Anyway): The "Living Galaxies" through their stars leave behind both embryonic neutron seeds that warm up to neutrons in compact objects that decay to pristine new hydrogen along with the fodder matter of spent stars that perpetuates galaxies forever spending half their time crunching heating up to overdensity great attractors until the galactic overdensities can't heat up anymore which is when the overdensities begin their tranformation to voids that cool until the voids can't cool anymore perpetuating the universe's cosmic web forever and ever!!
Grunge Says): "The modern, very existentially traumatic story of life and the universe goes something like this: Through a series of happy accidents we go from cosmic inflation and the Big Bang some 13.8 billion years ago to the universe's first molecules, stars, galaxies, proteins, cells, etc. Fast forward and you're recovering from a late-night Taco Bell run on a Tuesday morning. Humans exist at the current endpoint of evolution as individual, sentient entities dwelling in a matter-and-energy reality of discretely defined objects that bear out against scrutiny. Things can be measured, understood, and definitely continue existing without us. If we all die, the cosmos marches on oblivious. So on and so on".

Read More: https://www.grunge.com/1316060/radical-theory-life-creates-universe-robert-lanza/

 

[Adoni Yannop]

Doesn't the backward extrapolation calculations assume we are the center of the Universe?
If the universe is 13.7 Byo wouldn't A galaxy 13 Billion light years away would be able to see the edge of the Universe?
I dont think this is true. Surely we are not the center of the universe.

Yes!! But we are given that every observer in the universe believes that he is at the center of the universe and that their local galctic group is not separating!!
From which I conclude that no galatic group is separating due to all the observations of the universe by all of the observers of the universe!!

Anyway on a different note checkout my calculations for the relative ages of Supermassive Black Holes And Their Galaxies):
I suggest that we can tell the age difference between two galaxies by the size of their SMBHs!!
For, instance, when I was researching the age difference between Milky Way's SMBH And M87's SMBH, I was given that a 3.5 billion solar mass SMBH accrets 1 solar mass every 10 years and that a 6.5 billion solar mass SMBH would accrete one solar mass every 5 years!!
From the given accretion rates above, I concluded that SMBHs double in mass every 25 billion years!! Which Means That M87 Took 25 billion years to grow from 3.5 billion
solar masses to 6.5 billion solar masses!!
Now): We are given that Milky Way's Sagittarius a SMBH has 4.1 million solar masses to Andromeda's SMBH given at about 140 million solar masses!!
Milky Way's SMBH will have to double 6 times over 150 Billion Years (4.1X32)= 131.2 to reach the mass of Andromeda's SMBH!!
And Andromeda's SMBH will have to double in mass 6 times, also, over 150 billion years to reach the mass of M87's SMBH which means that M87's SMBH is more than 300 billion years older than Milky Way's SMBH by my calculations and given accretion rates for SMBHs !!