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

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.

#### Gibsense

Helio Post #31.

My emphasis.

As I have been posting over a long period, the balloon analogy has some good aspects.
Helio, are you fully allowing for the fact that we are looking at the surface (two dimensions, as you correctly state) and, in this case, the balloon surface does not have a centre, although the three dimensional "balloon" does? I cannot quite see whether or not your quote is clear on this. If we are taking the Universe as the surface, what then does the three dimensional sphere represent? I have suggrsted that it involves a higher dimendional view of the same Universe than is currently available to our sensory mechanisms, but that still makes it not understandable to us. See also my recent comments on "multiverse".

Cat

I tend to miss out on links in the logical chain.
The analogy drops a dimension. If we put the dimension back then we have a hypersphere.
A Hypersphere has a 3-dimensional surface (check with Wikipedia or similar math site
Although we are (i suggest) part of a Hypersphere the part that is our universe is only the surface. The Center then is not in our universe.
In addition, our universe is expanding and suggests that if you diagrammatically express this you would (at its simplest), draw a circle and a radius. Label the radius "time" and the circumference "The universe now". 'Now' is important, it is no longer part of the universe.
So yes, each dimension set is embedded in a more numerous dimension set.
Re multiverse, where should I look - must have overlooked , sorry

#### Atlan0001

With certain types of radius radiating out from 0-point-center(s) (singular / plural (plural singular . . . quantum singularity)) the surface(s) of the sphere equals infinity. 0-point-center of the sphere happens to also be a point (of countless points) on the surface. A sphere of countless spheres . . . countless 0-point-centers. A lot, a whole lot, of bubbling bubbles in broadening, deepening, layers and divisions -- to infinities already, concurrently, existent -- of (discreet quanta) bubble wraps.
--------------------

"Onions have layers!" -- Shrek.

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.
Have you guys ever wondered if Edwin Hubble was correct in his argument that His Discovery/The Hubble Flow Redshift/The Cosmological Redshift was not in fact Doppler Redshift??

Hubble for the entirety of his life argued): "If you are believing that my Redshift discovery is Doppler Redshift, then, you are reading too much into my Redshift discovery!!"

Hubble argued that every observer in the universe saw the same Redshift in far away galaxies but that the Redshift being only directly related to the distance that that light traveled (Nondoppler Redshift) meant that space was not expanding between galaxies, as well as, that the galaxies were not moving apart!!

But modern physicists gaslight and confuse you by stating that while the galaxies are given as physically standing still that the space between the galaxies expands and supposedly moves the galaxies standing still apart!!

Silly Modern Physicists): How can a galaxy both physically move apart and physically stand still at the same time??

Do you understand that the silly modern physicists are gaslighting both themselves and you about the impossible absurd expanding accelerating universe??

Talk More Soon!! Have A Wonderful Day!!

#### Gibsense

I tend to miss out on links in the logical chain.
The analogy drops a dimension. If we put the dimension back then we have a hypersphere.
A Hypersphere has a 3-dimensional surface (check with Wikipedia or similar math site
Although we are (i suggest) part of a Hypersphere the part that is our universe is only the surface. The Center then is not in our universe.
In addition, our universe is expanding and suggests that if you diagrammatically express this you would (at its simplest), draw a circle and a radius. Label the radius "time" and the circumference "The universe now". 'Now' is important, it is no longer part of the universe.
So yes, each dimension set is embedded in a more numerous dimension set.
Re multiverse, where should I look - must have overlooked , sorry

#### Gibsense

he universe now". 'Now' is important, it is no longer part of the universe. BIG time error. I meant the opposite. The 'Now' (circle on the diagram) is the universe.

Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
21
Views
6K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
7K