The center of the Universe

[FlatEarth]

My first post, so be kind :lol: A few years ago I had the good fortune to take a graduate course in GR and review recent findings relevant to the discussion. To limit the discussion to theories verified so far, general relativity, and make a few reasonable assumptions: the universe looks the same in all directions and the composition is the same everywhere, then GR gives three choices to shape of the universe: open, closed and flat. To make a long story short recent measurements by COBI and other spacecraft have pretty much nailed down the shape of the universe as completely and amazingly right on the money FLAT. That means the universe is and always was infinite in size. Don't be confused by the big bang and universe the size of an atom point of view. The big bang was a singularity and thus can't be characterized but right after the very hot early universe was already infinite in size. Then it got even bigger! How can infinity get bigger? Simple, every point moves away from every other point in time. Also don't be confused by the size of the universe being 46 billion light years across, that's just the observable part, the part within our light cone stretched out by inflation. The rest of infinity is still there, remember assumption number one and two (isotropy and homogeny). As for the center, well, its everywhere, or nowhere; every point can consider itself the center of its observable universe but there is no true center as in what is the center of a geometric sphere.

Hello globus_hystericus. Welcome to the SDC forums.
I don't think cosmologists are ready to say the universe is or isn't finite. We may never know for sure. The Planck space telescope is imaging the sky to better understand it, but the work is just beginning.
Was I kind?

 

[Questioning]

It has been a few years since I've visited this site. Please forgive me if I'm a bit ignorant of how best to reply. Any helpful suggestions are welcome.

In regards to the universe being 46 billion light years in diameter, I have only to say "Halleluiah!" Someone seems to realize what I have always figured must be. Specifically, that the universe had to be larger than it was older! I had always thought that since scientists were saying the universe was anywheres from 13-15 billion-years-old that the uiverse had to be anywhere from 26-30 billion-light-years in diameter.

First, scientists were saying that the universe was 15 billion-light-years across and that they had discovered an object that was 90% of the way towards the edge of the universe. They would then go on to say that this object was 13.5 billion-light-years from us. Thus, they seemed to be saying that we were near the edge of the universe and it had expanded away from us for 15 billion years at the speed of light.

I had also surmised that an explosion, whether it was from a nuclear bomb , an exploding asteroid (as apparently happed over Russia in the early 20th century), an exploding star, or a Big Bang from a singularity, would all act pretty much the same in some respects. For instance, the bombs dropped on Hirshoma & Nagasaki did not explode in one direction. The destruction caused by the bombs went both to the north, to the south, to the east and to the west of where the bombs were actually dropped. And, while we don't know exactly where the asteroid exploded over Russia, I think it is safe to say that the exploision did not travel in one direction. Ergo, the same, I believe could be said of stars exploding and of the BB. If the uinverse did come into existence from a BB approximately 15 billion years
ago then it must have spread in all directions -- it would not have been a one-direcional explosion.

Thus, if we were 13.5 billion-light years from an object that was 90% of the way towards the edge of the universe and the unverse had expanded in all direction from the BB then either 1) we observers on the planet Earth were near the edge of the universe and only had to look around to see the edge or 2) the universe had to be much larger than 15 billion-light-years across even though it was only 15 billion years old!

 

[Galacticexplorer]

Aim the Hubble Telescope in any direction you can only see as far as you can in any direction .So that would indicate Earth as the center of the known universe . What is farther than we can see ? No one knows .

 

[Giulio]

Have you considered that our universe might be embedded in a higher dimension? Or that it might be a manifold space which is finite but has no boundaries (i.e. the universe is multiply-connected and if it were possible to travel far enough one might find oneself back where one started)?

Yes I have, but the question remains. No matter how many dimensions you invoke nor what type of configuration you can imagine, there will always be "what's beyond that"? Where does the universe finally hit the proverbial brick wall? My point is that any theory that limits the universe to a certain 1) size, 2) a number of dimensions, 3) shape, etc,.. is missing the larger picture. There will always be more. Empty space in another dimension is till empty space. If we are living in a manifold than what is the manifold in? A higher dimension? And what is beyond that .... ad infintum. Which leads me back to an infinite universe with no center.

 

[Galacticexplorer]

Giuilo I believe the center of the universe would be wherever you are if you cannot deterimine the edge in any direction . It seems to me infinity in any direction would place your location in the center

 

[dilligaff01]

I am no expert. I'm simply a layman with an interest in space who likes to read alot so I apologize now for explaining this poorly but I have a question regarding the big bang. Einstein had a theory about an object that approached the speed of light. Something to do with it's mass approaching a singularity as I recall. I'm mangling this up but I apologized for that already.

My question is, if I have this right, could the big bang have been caused by a singularity "slowing down" below the speed of light? Could the entire universe be in motion? Seems to me that we would not be able to tell without some type of reference points and if you're on a bus with no windows on a perfectly straight, smooth road you wouldn't have any idea if you were moving or in which direction, right?

Like I said, I am a layman and I did apologize so please be gentle

 

[Giulio]

Assuming the Big Bang originated from a singularity (a single point), then a finite spot exists from which the known universe inflated. I'm perplexed that no one has a rough estimate of where this point is located relative to Earth now. Why can't we look at other galaxies and calculate vectors (direction of motion plus magnitude of velocity/acceleration) for each one using doppler shifts. If we follow the direction of this vectors back in time, shouldn't we converge at the center of the universe?

Well everything (that is not gravitationally locked) "seems" to be moving away from us, implying that we are the center. But if you were in a galaxy in the virgo cluster than everything "seems" to be moving away from you. And if you were in a different galaxy in a different part of the universe then it "seems" like everything is moving away from you again. Point is that no matter where you are in the universe, everything else is moving away from you. It always "appears" that you are at the center. So you see, there is no way to plot a correct path to the center. It is merely perspective.

The big bang was not a bang!! It was a really fast expansion of space-time in all directions AND from every point. In other words, everything expanding away from everything else. No central expansion point. The flaw to this theory as I have speculated in an earlier post is that it does not explain the nature of what was outside the cosmic egg. Neither does any other theory. They all have the limitation of not explaining the whole. WE LACK THE FACTS and maybe even the brain power for an all inclusive theory. Everything is multidimensional or manifold or branes and all other forms of explaining finite spaces. But what's outside any of that? There is no brick wall we can say ok, nothing else exists beyond that. "Nothing" is still just more empty space. Infinity must be accounted for in any theory. The facts we lack are way beyond our grasp in that unobservable part of the universe that everyone's been talking about. Or not been talking about. That's where the answers are. Until we see what's beyond this expanding space-time, we are doomed to incomplete theories.

Giuilo I believe the center of the universe would be wherever you are if you cannot deterimine the edge in any direction . It seems to me infinity in any direction would place your location in the center

Although infinity is a common word used by alot of people, it still seems to me that they do not truley grasp it's meaning. In a way i guess you can claim you are right, but on the other hand I can also claim you are not. Since there is no median location to infinity( like there is no median number) then there is no center. In order to have a "center" there must be a set value. By definition, infinity lacks any set value.

 

[drstein]

Becouse the universe have no end, the center of the universe is no were, and the fact that it turns into itself the way a snake eating his tail, the center of the universe, is everywere, and nowere.
Though, if a sertain scenario in the universe, like hte big bang, and you think that is the center of the universe, thumbs up for you, but for me, the center of the universe is with me! It goes with me, and it ends were i am!

 

[Jerromy]

My question is, if I have this right, could the big bang have been caused by a singularity "slowing down" below the speed of light? Could the entire universe be in motion? Seems to me that we would not be able to tell without some type of reference points and if you're on a bus with no windows on a perfectly straight, smooth road you wouldn't have any idea if you were moving or in which direction, right?

The term singularity is used to define the inconceivable state of matter within the event horizon of a black hole. What happens to matter beyond the "bubble" of gravity from which light cannot escape is anyone's guess. For all we know it could be spinning so fast that the "ball" of matter could have an outermost layer approaching the velocity of light which in Einstein's theory would make the mass of the matter many times greater than it's rest mass. I've have personally never heard it described as matter travelling at the speed of light would become a singularity but theoretically the mass would increase exponentially and could possibly cause the matter collapse into a supposed singularity.

The only problem I have with the singularity concept is much like the center of the universe question. It is easy to say there is a center of an atom no matter how many atoms are around it, much like our universe could be surrounded by infinite universes far enough away to be unseen and to us the center is merely a reference as to the center of what we CAN see. A similar issue becomes apparent with a singularity, how can a speck be defined as having a center when it is defined to be a non-dimensional existence? If it is possible to condense mass into an area so small as to have no length, width or height then it's existence IS the center and nothing else.

We are on a "bus with no windows" called Earth flying through space around a star which is flying through space around a galaxy which is flying through space... how could anyone doubt that "space" has no reference of stationary? Even if there is a center of our universe it wouldn't have to be a stationary spot in space. And as far as the rotational characteristic of "the universe" it would make perfect sense to me that the rotation would be more than a simple polar axis of revolution (like a galaxy spiral around a black hole), but rather a seemingly random rotation of all three spacial dimensions (as electrons orbit their host atoms). Anyone who has been overly intoxicated in a dark room will tell you the universe will make you more dizzy the more you want it to sit still.

 

[Jerromy]

The center of the universe is with me! It goes with me, and it ends were I am!

Using myself as the reference of the center of the universe with it revolving around me I feel an eerie coincidence of the rotation matching the rotation of every atom in my body. Another eerie coincidence I sense is that every photon bombarding the cones in my eyes seem to be spiralling at that same rate of rotation relative to direction of travel. :roll:

Space obviously cannot be expanding since my ego can NOT get any bigger.

Someone, please, stop the ride... I want to get on! :lol:

 

[kristenwinslet]

The Universe: The Creation of Everything Resulting from Nothing (The Center of the Universe)

The Universe is believed to have been formed by a powerful explosion, "The Big Bang" which even today has not been fully understood. It is theorized that the Universe was created from a reaction of Matter & Anti-Matter and that these two pieces of ‘evidence’ are at the heart of the subject, the center of the universe you might say.

Matter is understood to be made up of 73.0% Dark Energy, 23.0% Dark Matter, 3.6% Non-Luminous Matter and 0.6% Luminous Matter. (This has been concluded by scientific theory). Quite an Imbalance.

Anti-Matter is the extension of the concept of the antiparticle to Matter, where Anti-Matter is composed of antiparticles in the same way that normal Matter is composed of particles. (This also has been concluded as being scientific theory).

Mixing Matter and Anti-Matter would lead to the annihilation of both in the same way that mixing antiparticles and particles does, thus giving rise to high-energy photons (gamma rays) or other particle–antiparticle pairs or a reaction or energy. (This has been concluded by scientific theory).

From this, we can theoretically determine that BEFORE THE BEGINNING, (before "The Big Bang") there was in fact Everything in the form of Nothing. This is a very difficult theory to grasp, but can be proven based on the following equation:

Matter + Anti-Matter = Annihilation (Everything = Nothing)

String theory is a theory of gravity, an extension of General Relativity, and the classical interpretation of the strings and branes is that they are quantum mechanical vibrating extended charged black holes. The overarching physical insight behind string theory is the holographic principle, which states that the description of the oscillations of the surface of a black hole must also describe the SPACE-TIME around it.

Holography demands that a low-dimensional theory describing the fluctuations of THE HORIZON will end up describing Everything that can fall through, (the shell around everything) which can be anything at all. So a theory of a black hole horizon is a theory of Everything. Since string theory is widely believed to be a consistent theory of quantum gravity, many hope that it correctly describes our universe, making it a theory of Everything

So now we have Nothing, (Anti-Matter in Equilibrium before "The Big Bang" and Everything which can be explained through String Theory and Matter as to Everything) and how they are the keeper of the balance in a Black Hole through the space-time continuum, IN THE BEGINNING.

It is believed that an imbalance caused by the oscillations in the surface of a singular ‘Black Hole’ near the ‘Center of the Universe’ which at that moment was considered as being ‘Nothing’ and ‘Everything’ due to the balance in Matter and Anti-Matter, (think of a sphere with matter at the center and anti-matter surrounding the matter like yoke in the egg) and that of string theory, that the constant of space-time AT THE HORIZON became out of flux causing a reaction to occur, (perhaps a result from a reaction of strings and branes into energy which evolved to a large enough degree to become the catalyst to the reaction which some might refer to as being - The God Concept; "The Creation" of time as we know it). Because time can be measured as linear, it is thus considered as being that of Matter. You can measure time, (beginning and an end or Alpha & Omega) therefore it exists and thus is Matter. Linear time became too much, (matter) in the equation, and thus fell through from the horizon, (the shell around everything and nothing) and into the center of black hole where all of matter was located thus causing "The Big Bang".

It is at that very moment when linear time became the greater variant in the space-time falling through to the center or Everything and Nothing, that Matter became the larger variant in the Matter & Anti-Matter causing an imbalance and thus caused an implosion towards the center, thus there was a reaction between Matter & Anti-Matter. The process by which this asymmetry between particles and antiparticles developed is called baryogenesis or "The Creation" known in religious terms as ‘Genesis’. A Rip through the space-time continuum, (RIP Theory or expanding universe spreading faster and faster as the center's gravety becomes nothing or having no effect thus speeding up the expansion of the Universe). So the center of the universe is where there is absolutely nothing and is at the center of it all.


As a footnote: There is considerable speculation as to why the observable universe is apparently almost entirely Matter, whether there exist other places that are almost entirely Anti-Matter instead, and what might be possible if Anti-Matter could be harnessed, but at this time the apparent asymmetry of Matter and Anti-Matter in the visible universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.

 

[Fallingstar1971]

Wow. so many comments and it even made front page on SDC

Thanks for your input people

Now, I believe that the outside "edge" of the Universe lies in a direction we were not designed to look (5th dimension)

In that "light", the inside edge would be unobservable from our dimension as well.

However, considering that space is warped, the Universe COULD be twisted in such a way that we could see the center even though our back is to it. (like looking in one direction but seeing all directions, like light being bent around a black hole and you are looking at the back of your own head)

Also, by definition, if our Universe contains "everything" then it contains ALL the light, with none existing outside. Just like a black hole.

The CMB very well could be the event horizon viewed from the inside. No matter how much the Universe expands, it will still be the "Universe" and light will never escape. No matter how fast you go, you will never break away from spacetime without using a black hole to punch a hole into the fabric (What is a hole inside of a hole?)

The light barrier could be considered as natures jail. If you could travel many times the speed of light, you could possibly escape a black hole.

If you could hold that speed long enough, you could at least in theory, leave our Universe (assuming you have enough speed to catch up to and pass the CMB)

Thinking about it this way the faster you accelerate (1x, 2x, 100x C). If you are traveling at C, the Universe stops expanding (at least from your speedy vantage point) If you go even faster, (100x C) than to you, the Universe would be shrinking instead of expanding. You would be so "outrunning" expansion that you could "catch the edge" so to speak. All space would then appear to get smaller and smaller and smaller

And if your outrunning space, then your also outrunning time. Traveling farther and farther back the faster you go. So that by the time you made your 15 billion ly trip, you will have traveled at least 15 billion years into the past. The moment you arrive you will be outside the visible Universe.

What would you see?

How about the same thing you see now, except instead of everything being redshifted, its now blue shifted with all points of space contracting twords you.

Before you think (hes lost it) bear with me one sec. Your inside a Universal black hole. Just beyond the CMB (event horizon) is the barrier. Just like if you were standing on the horizon of any black hole, all light would be bent AROUND said black hole.

So on the event horizon of the Universe, it very well COULD appear that all points are expanding twords you, no matter what direction you looked, because light cant get outside. It can only bend back to you. You would not be able to hold this position for long, because space itself would APPEAR to catch up and pass you, rooting you back into the Universe.....OR you could say that no matter how far out you went, you would appear to be pulled right back in.

And since we were not "designed" to look in the direction of the actual physical edge, then even if you were standing on it the Universe would look the same. You cant "see" in that direction. It does not lie in the height, length, width Universe. Its a higher dimension. In this light, since you cant "look" in that direction, you also cant MOVE in that direction. (We can only move in the height, length, width Universe) If we did move in that direction, then we would be warped back into the Universe anyway.

Like a square holodeck projecting a circular room. Even though the walls are "present" you would be gradually turned away from the wall by the curvature of the projection, hense never finding the "edge" (holodeck walls)

The Universe (if its finite) has an edge as well, but the curvature of spacetime keeps gradually turning us away from said edge and back into the Universe. Its such a gradual turn that we cant even tell that we are turning. To us, we never stopped moving straight. But to an outside observer, we are tracking in a huge circle, and yes, in this light if you cannot exceed light speed, then eventually your remains (dust or whatever) could eventually find its way back to its starting point, even though your course SAYS you have been moving in a straight line the entire time.

If there is truly a "multi-verse" then we are in serious trouble. Our intruding expanding Universe could be seen as a threat, slowly engulfing and "annexing" local space and making it a part of itself, mutating it like a giant cosmic cancer. An explosion "in progress", uncontainable and threatening to engulf all there is. Forcing all multi-verses into one giant Universe. Like "strange" matter, converting everything it touches into "strange" matter. Instead, we have a "strange" Universe. converting everything it touches into itself.

Star

 

[rbhale]

My ex-wife thinks she's IT...............

 

[mabus]

I had also surmised that an explosion, whether it was from a nuclear bomb , an exploding asteroid (as apparently happed over Russia in the early 20th century), an exploding star, or a Big Bang from a singularity, would all act pretty much the same in some respects. For instance, the bombs dropped on Hirshoma & Nagasaki did not explode in one direction. The destruction caused by the bombs went both to the north, to the south, to the east and to the west of where the bombs were actually dropped. And, while we don't know exactly where the asteroid exploded over Russia, I think it is safe to say that the exploision did not travel in one direction. Ergo, the same, I believe could be said of stars exploding and of the BB. If the uinverse did come into existence from a BB approximately 15 billion years ago then it must have spread in all directions -- it would not have been a one-direcional explosion.

Numerous people have been making the explosion analogy, and while it is a popular misconception, it is most certainly a false one. The Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion of space-time itself.

]Before the BB, there was no space, time, or matter as we know it. So with the properties of the universe I believe to be correct, logic indicates a finite universe with a center. I always point out that this is my belief and not fact, but all other ideas on this subject are beliefs and not facts as well.

Second, the Big Bang theory says everything came from a singularity: matter, energy, space, and time. Before the Big Bang our universe did not exist. Time did not exist either, so there is no "before the Big Bang" according to the theory.
You may want to check out this site for more info: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Two points here, if your belief is not based on fact (where you write; I always point out that this is my belief, and not fact) why hold the belief? Shouldn't science be based on facts and not unevidenced beliefs?

The Big Bang theory is often described as saying that everything about and within the universe came from the primordial egg from which the Big Bang occured, but this is often misinterpreted as you have above as meaning that nothing existed before this point.

It's important to remember that the Big Bang was not an object, but rather is a scientific theoretical model of an event. It describes "what happened" during a period in time in our universe's life. At the moment that the universe was contained inside a singularity, nothing about the universe can be said. No physical evidence survives from that era, and all our present mathematical tools completely fail whenever they are used in an attempt to describe the state or conditions of the universe at that point in time.

People often misinterpret that to mean that "nothing existed" at that time, or that everything about the universe was "born" after that time. This isn't quite the case, rather, we simply can't say anything about the universe before it began to expand (before the Big Bang). All we can say for certain, is that once the universe began expanding (once it was no longer a singularity), it had time and space, We cannot say anything about the conditions before the expansion begun.

 

[elroy_jetson]

Since we humans are the only *known* observers of the universe, and we reside here on Earth, then for all practical purposes, Earth is the center of the universe. Besides, it's pretty tough to pinpoint the actual geographic (uni-graphic?) center of infinity.

 

[FlatEarth]

Before the BB, there was no space, time, or matter as we know it. So with the properties of the universe I believe to be correct, logic indicates a finite universe with a center. I always point out that this is my belief and not fact, but all other ideas on this subject are beliefs and not facts as well.

Second, the Big Bang theory says everything came from a singularity: matter, energy, space, and time. Before the Big Bang our universe did not exist. Time did not exist either, so there is no "before the Big Bang" according to the theory.
You may want to check out this site for more info: http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

Two points here, if your belief is not based on fact (where you write; I always point out that this is my belief, and not fact) why hold the belief? Shouldn't science be based on facts and not unevidenced beliefs?

My belief on this subject is based on fact, but my conclusion is not fact, only a belief logically based on it. We do not have enough evidence to say if the universe is finite or infinite, what shape it is, or if it has a center. Science is based on fact, but since we are lacking enough information, all we can use is logic to answer the question.

The Big Bang theory is often described as saying that everything about and within the universe came from the primordial egg from which the Big Bang occured, but this is often misinterpreted as you have above as meaning that nothing existed before this point.

Where did I misinterpret the BB theory? Note I said "...there was no space, time, or matter as we know it."

I have good reason to use the Big Bang theory to support my views. It does not try to explain what happened before the BB, or if there is a meta-universe, or alternate dimensions, etc. It is the only theory of the start of our universe that is supported by observable and measurable evidence, and is widely accepted in the scientific community. All other concepts are just that: concepts, without evidence to support them. So, based on an accepted theory, I arrive at my conclusions about the shape of our universe with its geometric center.

 

[SpeedFreek]

Therein lies the problem.

If science cannot describe space, time or matter before the Big Bang, then you are actually speculating when you state there was no space, time or matter as we know it. Maybe space and time and matter were just like we know them during the previous collapse of our universe, and the only problem we have is that there is a singularity in between!

So, are your conclusions really logical?

 

[mabus]

Exactly

 

[FlatEarth]

Therein lies the problem.

If science cannot describe space, time or matter before the Big Bang, then you are actually speculating when you state there was no space, time or matter as we know it. Maybe space and time and matter were just like we know them during the previous collapse of our universe, and the only problem we have is that there is a singularity in between!

So, are your conclusions really logical?

Let me point out that the BB says these things. I am using this accepted theory to base my conclusions that are obviously logical. :roll: Other conclusions are possible and just as logical, but they would not have my support and would therefore fail. :lol:

There are many possible scenarios to the evolution of the universe, but only one accepted theory based on evidence.

 

[hvargas]

Somehow people are into the beliefts that " WE ARE IT ". The BBT, Steady State Theory and etc., are all design to demonstrate NOTHING. Sure there's a lot of evidence pointing to something for whatever notions a scientist may ponder. SPACE HAS NO CENTER PERIOD. Our Galaxy its just one in a sea of endless galaxies trying to count all of them is a tasks that will never have an end. Galaxies terminate and at the same time new ones are borned and that has been happening much longer than anyone can imagine. One thing that we can discovered is our own immediate Space and whatever is within our reaches along with our own technological advances. So what is the Center of the Universe from our perspectives? That answer will be found in our place along with our neighboring galaxies, that is to say, among all of the galaxies that are near and far from our galaxy in a given radius where is our Galaxy the Milky Way. How much to the Center are we or how far off the center? It's a challenge for the mind and science to discovered how existence came about and so many go about trying to demonstrate one theory or another to show just how it all started but at the same time leaving gaps. Nothing is not a scientific method or part of the scientific method. Everything is influence by something or is connected to something. We can find how our Galaxy came about by studying other galaxies whithin our reaches but we will not find how SPACE came about or at least for the moment I had not read anyone with a good argument about the NATURE OF SPACE. I mean SPACE ALONE.

 

[mabus]

Let me point out that the BB says these things. I am using this accepted theory to base my conclusions that are obviously logical. :roll: Other conclusions are possible and just as logical, but they would not have my support and would therefore fail. :lol:

There are many possible scenarios to the evolution of the universe, but only one accepted theory based on evidence.

The Big Bang model tells us what happened to the universe and everything inside it, from the moment >AFTER< the universe began to expand. It says >NOTHING< about the moment before expansion began. Furthermore, no data whatsoever survives from the moment before expansion began.

How can you reach a logical conclusion with zero evidence and no supporting arguments?

To be a logical conclusion, you would need evidence that space and time did not exist before the big bang. Without it, I'm afraid that rather than a logical conclusion, it is simply nothing more than a wild guess.

 

[ZenGalacticore]

As Wayne mentioned, the Universe has no center, nor does it have an edge. A being 12 billion light years away from us would see the Milky Way as a primeval proto-galaxy, not yet in its present spiral grandeur. The fact that there is no edge or center and that it all looks the same no matter your position or viewpoint, is a razzle-dazzle mind-blowing- neuron-zapping tripped out fact.

And that fact leads me to seriously consider higher physical dimensions of space and time. The center is the 'starting point', but the point of origin IS the expanding Universe, so there is no center. I would love God-if there is one- for that alone!! :lol:

 

[FlatEarth]

Somehow people are into the beliefts that " WE ARE IT ". The BBT, Steady State Theory and etc., are all design to demonstrate NOTHING. Sure there's a lot of evidence pointing to something for whatever notions a scientist may ponder. SPACE HAS NO CENTER PERIOD.

But why do you say it has no center?

Our Galaxy its just one in a sea of endless galaxies trying to count all of them is a tasks that will never have an end. Galaxies terminate and at the same time new ones are borned and that has been happening much longer than anyone can imagine.

That would be 13.7 billion years.

One thing that we can discovered is our own immediate Space and whatever is within our reaches along with our own technological advances. So what is the Center of the Universe from our perspectives?

One interesting result of knowing the location of the center is perhaps we could view the matter that eventually formed our galaxy and us!

That answer will be found in our place along with our neighboring galaxies, that is to say, among all of the galaxies that are near and far from our galaxy in a given radius where is our Galaxy the Milky Way. How much to the Center are we or how far off the center?

We would seem to be in the center of all galaxies we can detect.

It's a challenge for the mind and science to discovered how existence came about and so many go about trying to demonstrate one theory or another to show just how it all started but at the same time leaving gaps. Nothing is not a scientific method or part of the scientific method. Everything is influence by something or is connected to something. We can find how our Galaxy came about by studying other galaxies whithin our reaches but we will not find how SPACE came about or at least for the moment I had not read anyone with a good argument about the NATURE OF SPACE. I mean SPACE ALONE.

The Big Bang theory says space came from the Big Bang. The theory of relativity says space and time are actually part of a single physical entity called the Space Time Continuum, and it explains the nature of gravity. The accepted belief is that space-time only exists with matter, but I don't believe that. I think space-time expands independently from matter, but there are no accepted theories that support this thought. Anyway, that is off topic.

 

[FlatEarth]

The Big Bang model tells us what happened to the universe and everything inside it, from the moment >AFTER< the universe began to expand. It says >NOTHING< about the moment before expansion began. Furthermore, no data whatsoever survives from the moment before expansion began.

How can you reach a logical conclusion with zero evidence and no supporting arguments?

To be a logical conclusion, you would need evidence that space and time did not exist before the big bang. Without it, I'm afraid that rather than a logical conclusion, it is simply nothing more than a wild guess.

You have chosen to ignore what I have been saying. Perhaps you don't buy into the BB theory, and that is your right, but it says space and time did not exist before the event. The rest is logical, and, yes, there are several possible outcomes. I picked one.

 

[job1207]

Re: The center of the Universe

Postby MeteorWayne » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:38 pm
No, everywhere was the center and the edge at the same time. No point in the Universe is either, but every point is both, at the same time. When the Universe started out much smaller than an atom, everywhere is both.
"Gee Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"
"The same thing we do every night, Pinky... try to take over the world!"

User avatar
MeteorWayne
local group

Posts: 14955
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 1999 1:00 am

Well that certainly makes everything clear. ( lethal doses of sarcasm present danger )