The center of the Universe

[SpeedFreek]

FlatEarth, you are labouring under a very common misconception here. The BB theory (and believe me, I have studied this for years) can say nothing about space and time on the other side of the singularity. Our ability to describe space and time and to predict what was happening breaks down at the singularity.

Space and time can only be considered back to the Big Bang, and no further. That's all it means.

So, to all intents and purposes, space and time in the universe began at the Big Bang.

This does not mean that the universe came from nothing, however. It simply means we can say nothing about where the universe came from, using Big Bang theory.

 

[ssnozenoszka]

Hello all,

I'm happy to find out I'm not the only one who wonders about the centre of the universe. I still strongly feel though that before we start accepting that there is no centre of the universe, we need more proof to show that more simple explanations of what's out there definately are incorrect.

I've read articles that state that the universe is much bigger than 100 billion lightyears accross (because every point in space has been expanding all these 13.7 billion years). Let's see this as a big sphere. Our observable universe would sit within that big sphere as a much smaller sphere somewhere. If that were the case then there would not have to be such a big difference between the distribution and behaviour of galaxies / clusters of galaxies on either side of our observable universe. It would be a much more subtle affair.

I think within the (hypothetical) larger sphere of the universe, not all matter would move away from all other matter at the same speed. Using a simpletons logic one would think that galaxies that are closer to the edge, are pulled back a bit towards the centre because of gravity. Of course space itself will expand everywhere.

I don't know if there has ever been accurate research that looked at the speeds at which galaxies on either end of our observable universe are moving away from us. Point is that it has to be quite accurate in order for us to even be able to say that there really is no difference. I'm not sure if we're quite there yet. And so long as we can't really accurately measure distance and speed we can't yet conclude that the universe is the same in all directions. What if the difference in speed is only 2%, or less? I think noone can tell me with a straight face our measurements accross the universe are that accurate.

So I think we're jumping to an infinite universe with no centre too soon, just because our measurements aren't accurate enough yet. Sometimes I fear that trends in science overshadow a simple, rigorous and logical path through increasingly abstract models of reality. We like to swim around in complex mathematical theories and partly that definately is a good thing. But not when there are simpler explanations that should be examined first, even if they are not so scientifically fashionable.

Thats my 2 cents.

S

 

[John_with_a_B]

Three people here have mentioned the CMBR. I have a question more relating to that which may seem somewhat off topic.

My understanding is that a short while after the Big Bang, the universe was very rich in high energy photons and that the CMBR is the remaining evidence of this. From this it seems to follow that the wavelength of this energy has slowly increased over time, ie. the energy of the photons has lessened.

If, gradually over the life of the universe, the CMBR has moved to longer and longer wavelengths, does that not mean it has passed through all the possible wavelengths from where it started to where it is now, and in the future will continue to change moving to ever longer wavelengths over time? I think this would be true, but ask that anyone correct me if that is not so. Assuming that is so, what happens to matter in the universe when the frequency of the CMBR coincides with the energy level of various atoms' energy states. Would matter not absorb it at certain specific frequencies, and become more excited? I am thinking this would happen along the lines of the microwave oven causing food to heat up due to the frequency produced matching the necessary energy level that excites water molecules, causing them to vibrate more quickly and thus become hotter. So, as the CMBR frequency changes, is it possible that at times it matches various frequencies that matter would absorb it? Has this ever been detected or studied?

Again, I apologize in advance to the moderator if this is too far off topic, but I have often wondered about this whenever to topic is related to the Big Bang, and the expansion of the universe.

 

[FlatEarth]

FlatEarth, you are labouring under a very common misconception here. The BB theory (and believe me, I have studied this for years) can say nothing about space and time on the other side of the singularity. Our ability to describe space and time and to predict what was happening breaks down at the singularity.

Space and time can only be considered back to the Big Bang, and no further. That's all it means.

So, to all intents and purposes, space and time in the universe began at the Big Bang.

This does not mean that the universe came from nothing, however. It simply means we can say nothing about where the universe came from, using Big Bang theory.

The misconception is that the BB theory allows for the existence of space and time before the event. It does not. Such ideas are not part of the BB theory, and are completely theoretical in nature. My position is based on the one accepted theory based on observations. That's it.

You are losing sight of the original question here. Can we find the center of the universe? To do that, I use the BB theory to establish ground rules, and I made my conclusions. This has nothing to do with what caused the BB or if the universe came from nothing.

 

[FlatEarth]

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.

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

One word of advice. Don't mess with MW. He has a mean streak. :lol:

 

[mabus]

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.

Ok, let's go over this slowly. The Big Bang model is a mathematical model of the universe which mathematically calculates what happened to the universe in it's earliest calculable state.

I mean it isn't just a bunch of guys on their lunch break spitballing what they guestimate may have happened. There's mathematical equations which calculate physical interactions. When we say the BB theory says something happened, we're saying that the mathematic calculations work out to something explicit. The BB theory is a mathematical model, Do we agree on this?

We currently do not have a mathematical set of tools to describe the universe while it was a singularity, therefore, the only thing we can calculate is how the universe was and how it behaved once it stopped being a singularity.

Now, follow the logic here....

How can the Big Bang mathematical model calculate anything about the state or condition of the universe, at a point where we have no mathematical tools?

You're clearly in error here. The Big Bang model does not say anything at all about the universe as a singularity, just as no mathematical exists to say anything concrete about the inner workings of a singularity inside a black hole. Singularities are mathematical no man's lands where all our mathematical tools break down. It's very important that you understand this.

Now, once we agree that we can at present >KNOW NOTHING< about the inner conditions or workings inside a singularity, I'd really love to know how you can >LOGICALLY< say anything about it.

The misconception is that the BB theory allows for the existence of space and time before the event. It does not. Such ideas are not part of the BB theory, and are completely theoretical in nature. My position is based on the one accepted theory based on observations. That's it.

That's the thing....

The BB Theory neither allows for, nor rejects anything about the inner workings of a singularity. We do not have any mathematical tools to describe the conditions inside a singularity, and until we do, we can say nothing about them other than that they exist mathematically.

You are correct... any ideas about the inner workings of a singularity are not part of the BB theory, we do not have any mathematical tools to describe a singularity, therefore we cannot include singularities into the BB theory. We can say nothing about singularities until we develop those mathematical tools.

The problem is you >ARE< trying to extend the BB theory into singularities. You claim to know (without explaining how) what the precise conditions inside a singularity were (you claim it had no space and time for example). How could you know this? What mathematical calculations have you performed that show this to be true? The simple fact is there are no mathematical equations which show this, and therefore the statement is not a logical one, and unsupportable.

 

[MeteorWayne]

MOD HAT ON***

Look folks, the subject of this discussion is about the center of the Universe. NOT what happened before the Big Bang

Please stick to the topic.

I will probably need to seperate the off topic posts into a new thread with a title something like "What came before the Big Bang"

Meteor Wayne.

 

[FlatEarth]

Ok, let's go over this slowly. The Big Bang model is a mathematical model of the universe which mathematically calculates what happened to the universe in it's earliest calculable state.

I mean it isn't just a bunch of guys on their lunch break spitballing what they guestimate may have happened. There's mathematical equations which calculate physical interactions. When we say the BB theory says something happened, we're saying that the mathematic calculations work out to something explicit. The BB theory is a mathematical model, Do we agree on this?

More precisely, the BB theory is based on General Relativity, and the conclusion that the universe originated from a single point is that it is now observed to be expanding. Reverse the process and it must have originated from a single point. Math is used to predict what happened in the first moments, and how the universe evolved from there. Inflation was a modification to the theory to explain faster than light expansion in the early universe. Some of the scientists may have used spitballs while developing these ideas.

We currently do not have a mathematical set of tools to describe the universe while it was a singularity, therefore, the only thing we can calculate is how the universe was and how it behaved once it stopped being a singularity.

Agreed

Now, follow the logic here....

How can the Big Bang mathematical model calculate anything about the state or condition of the universe, at a point where we have no mathematical tools?

I assume you question how the theory can say space and time was generated in the BB, rather than pre-existed. I believe it's similar to a black hole where space-time is wrapped on itself, except it's on a much grander scale and all of space time is wrapped into the pre BB universe. That is just a guess on my part, but the theory states space and time did not exist prior to the BB.

You're clearly in error here. The Big Bang model does not say anything at all about the universe as a singularity, just as no mathematical exists to say anything concrete about the inner workings of a singularity inside a black hole. Singularities are mathematical no man's lands where all our mathematical tools break down. It's very important that you understand this.

Now, once we agree that we can at present >KNOW NOTHING< about the inner conditions or workings inside a singularity, I'd really love to know how you can >LOGICALLY< say anything about it.

The BB says nothing about the universe before the event, but does say that space and time, along with matter and energy as we know it did not exist. This is not a conclusion I made. The BB theory says it.

The misconception is that the BB theory allows for the existence of space and time before the event. It does not. Such ideas are not part of the BB theory, and are completely theoretical in nature. My position is based on the one accepted theory based on observations. That's it.

That's the thing....

The BB Theory neither allows for, nor rejects anything about the inner workings of a singularity. We do not have any mathematical tools to describe the conditions inside a singularity, and until we do, we can say nothing about them other than that they exist mathematically.

You are correct... any ideas about the inner workings of a singularity are not part of the BB theory, we do not have any mathematical tools to describe a singularity, therefore we cannot include singularities into the BB theory. We can say nothing about singularities until we develop those mathematical tools.

The problem is you >ARE< trying to extend the BB theory into singularities. You claim to know (without explaining how) what the precise conditions inside a singularity were (you claim it had no space and time for example). How could you know this? What mathematical calculations have you performed that show this to be true? The simple fact is there are no mathematical equations which show this, and therefore the statement is not a logical one, and unsupportable.

You really should research the Big Bang theory a bit more so you will understand that it is not my conclusion that space and time did not exist before the event. Once you understand that, then you will see that I am using this theory to base my conclusions on whether or not the universe has a center. You can argue with my reasoning on that issue, because that is the point of this forum. If you wish to challenge parts of the BB theory, you are welcomed to do it, but I see no point in it.

 

[FlatEarth]

MOD HAT ON***

Look folks, the subject of this discussion is about the center of the Universe. NOT what happened before the Big Bang

Please stick to the topic.

I will probably need to seperate the off topic posts into a new thread with a title something like "What came before the Big Bang"

Meteor Wayne.

The issue is relevant because if there is a pre-existing universe, then conclusions about a center will be different. I agree that the focus has shifted off-topic.

 

[mabus]

Ok, let's go over this slowly. The Big Bang model is a mathematical model of the universe which mathematically calculates what happened to the universe in it's earliest calculable state.

I mean it isn't just a bunch of guys on their lunch break spitballing what they guestimate may have happened. There's mathematical equations which calculate physical interactions. When we say the BB theory says something happened, we're saying that the mathematic calculations work out to something explicit. The BB theory is a mathematical model, Do we agree on this?

More precisely, the BB theory is based on General Relativity, and the conclusion that the universe originated from a single point is that it is now observed to be expanding. Reverse the process and it must have originated from a single point. Math is used to predict what happened in the first moments, and how the universe evolved from there. Inflation was a modification to the theory to explain faster than light expansion in the early universe. Some of the scientists may have used spitballs while developing these ideas.

We really need to get this very clear and straight. Do you agree that the WAY the theory describes it is entirely mathematical? Yes or no?

Do you agree that no Relativistic equations exist to describe a singularity? Yes or no?

If the BB model is entirely mathematical, and if no mathematical description of a singularity exists, what makes you think the BB model describes a singularity?

Do you see the logical inconsistency between the two statements? I mean, Obviously the BB model cannot say there was no space or time inside a singularity, if the model is entirely mathematical, and no relativity equations exist to describe singularities. So clearly something is wrong with the claim you are making. Do you see what I mean here?

 

[Socs]

This discussion is hurting my brain and it's got nothing to do with the science.

Mabus, I don't what your background in this is and it's quite possible you know eons more than I do on the subject but it's pretty clear you're misunderstanding what FlatEarth is trying to say.

When people say "space & time did not exist before the BB" what that means is the manifestations we call "space" & "time" did not exist AS WE KNOW THEM at the point of the BB. The BB explains how space & time became what we now see around us. The universe didn't explode into space & time as I'm sure you're well aware... rather space & time were created as a consequence of the singularity ceasing to be a singularity. Obviously we don't know what came before it, what caused it to "erupt", or what "space" & "time" may have been at that singularity. So please stop the incessant arguing and trying to rip down someone who's just using an ESTABLISHED SCIENTIFIC THEORY to come to his own conclusions and personal opinions about the topic at hand: The Center of the Universe. Once again, in case you missed it: The Big Bang Theory says absolutely nothing about the singularity itself. It only attempts to explain what happened after the singularity stopped being a singularity. This is true whether the theory is mathematical in nature or if it's not.

If you have a theory for what happens at that singularity then please share. If you have reasons to believe the BB theory is wrong, again please share. Our points should be made with opinions of our own, not simply trying to find holes in other people's arguments, especially when the holes you've found have absolutely nothing to do with the theory itself and little to do with the discussion at hand.

Apologies to the mods if I've overstepped my bounds and sorry if I've come off as a bit holier-than-thou, I've just found it extremely frustrating to try to find a decent forum to read/discuss my favourite passion without the threads being derailed by irrellevant arguments.

 

[FlatEarth]

Thanks for the support Socs. I was beginning to think I lacked the ability to communicate.

Here's a short 3 1/2 min National Geographic video on the beginning of the universe. It's rated G.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVsHjnY-o9s

 

[mabus]

Flatearth,

Simple yes or no questions here, I really do want to clear this up. I don't want to put anyone down, belittle anyone's ideas or anything remotely negative. I just want to know if you agree with these two statements or not. To clear this matter up.

a) Do you agree the BB model is entirely mathematical?
b) Do you agree there are no relativistic mathematical tools to describe the conditions within a singularity?

I've asked this three times now, and have yet to have it answered, and it would completely clear up the confusion for me (if I am indeed confused about your position).

I will hold off any other comments until you reply to this.

 

[SpeedFreek]

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.

Let's backtrack a little and see if we can keep on topic. We are examining the reason you believe there is a centre to the universe.

The mainstream view is that Big-Bang theory cannot talk about "before the BB", so if you want to keep within the strict confines of BB theory then you cannot even consider whether there was space or time before the BB or not. This is what I have been trying to say. It makes just as much sense to say there was as to say there wasn't.. BB says nothing either way.

From Ned Wright's cosmology FAQ

The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

So, your basis for believing that the universe is finite and has a centre is not based in the logic of Big Bang theory. There is just as much chance that the universe is infinite as there is that it is finite.

How can the Universe be infinite if it was all concentrated into a point at the Big Bang?

The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important.

This is what I have been saying all along, and this is why the Big Bang does not imply a finite universe. See the link above for a full explanation.

Where was the center of the Big Bang?

"The Big Bang has no center... ...there is no center because all positions in the Universe are equivalent. The Universe is homogeneous, which is part of the cosmological principle."

Where is the centre of the universe?

"There is no centre of the universe!"

What is the shape of Space?

"Our universe could be both finite but boundless".

The simplest model in cosmology for a flat finite universe is the 3-Torus, which has no centre or edge.

If you look even deeper you find that none of the possible shapes for the universe has a centre, as this would violate the cosmological principle, which is the bedrock upon which BB theory was formulated. In that last link you will also find further confirmation that, within BB theory, the universe might be infinite.

Whether it is finite or infinite, the universe has no centre according to the logic of Big-Bang theory.

 

[FlatEarth]

a) Do you agree the BB model is entirely mathematical?
b) Do you agree there are no relativistic mathematical tools to describe the conditions within a singularity?

a) No. It is not entirely mathematical. It is based on General Relativity and there are many observations that confirm it is correct. Also, the observed expansion of the universe is physical evidence, and our instruments have measured background radiation predicted to be there. The physical proof goes well beyond what I have mentioned. Certainly all of it is described mathematically, it's just that much of it is proven both ways. The very beginning is only proven mathematically, but perhaps the LHC will provide further supporting evidence.
b)Yes, I agree we are not there yet.

I realize you want to challenge the Big Bang theory by saying it cannot say time and space only existed after the event, but it does.

The mainstream view is that Big-Bang theory cannot talk about "before the BB", so if you want to keep within the strict confines of BB theory then you cannot even consider whether there was space or time before the BB or not. This is what I have been trying to say. It makes just as much sense to say there was as to say there wasn't.. BB says nothing either way.

The BB theory says there was no time or space prior to the event. It is a clear proclamation of the theory.

The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."

So, your basis for believing that the universe is finite and has a centre is not based in the logic of Big Bang theory. There is just as much chance that the universe is infinite as there is that it is finite.

When Wright says "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." he apparently would agree with my position. Let's speak of the universe we know of, for even though there may be others, they are just in our collective imagination at this time. My logic is indeed based on the BB theory, and not on a fanciful, unsupported multiple universe theory.

The Universe was not concentrated into a point at the time of the Big Bang. But the observable Universe was concentrated into a point. The distinction between the whole Universe and the part of it that we can see is important.

This is what I have been saying all along, and this is why the Big Bang does not imply a finite universe. See the link above for a full explanation.

We know the universe is bigger than we can see, and the unseen portion is still part of the universe that came to be 13.7 billion years ago. He seems to have some unorthodox views.

"The Big Bang has no center... ...there is no center because all positions in the Universe are equivalent. The Universe is homogeneous, which is part of the cosmological principle."

I can find a center to the expansion illustration. :lol: It's not hard to imagine. Freeze frame our universe only a fraction of a second old. It was quite small and definitely finite. This doesn't violate the cosmological principle! There is no exploding center, just a homogeneous expansion with finite dimensions as described by the BB theory. Because it is finite we can conclude it has a center. Hurray for logic! :ugeek:

 

[ssnozenoszka]

Hello all,

I wrote a post yesterday but it got swallowed in the threoretical discussion that followed.

I have 2 simple questions:

1 -> What observational evidence is there really that there is no center of the universe and that the universe is infinite (with the emphasis on observational)?

2 -> How accurate are these observations really and also the assumptions we've made based on them?

Here's an article about it I found on Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder

It appears that the further away we go in terms of distance, the less accurate our measurements become. I think the 15-20% uncertainty in these far away measurements that is being claimed by scientists is an ambitious number. I think it is quite higher.

Anyway that means that we can't really say that the behaviour of galaxies on either side of our observational universe is the same. Because our measurements allow for at least 20% uncertainty (and probably a lot more). And because we can't say that their behaviour is the same we also cannot say that the universe is infinite in my opinion. I am sure that once we get more specific measurements (say with less than 1% uncertainty) we will start to see differences in speed of movement of far away objects on different sides of our observable universe.

I'd really like to start at the beginning in stead of starting discussions about if there was something before the big bang.
Please humor me I would appreciate it!



Kind regards,

S

 

[DaveF5000]

There are many people who believe Toowoomba, Australia is at the center of the universe.

 

[nimbus]

FlatEarth - It doesnt matter what the size of the universe is. If it's unbounded, there's no center.

 

[origin]

Hello all,

I wrote a post yesterday but it got swallowed in the threoretical discussion that followed.

I have 2 simple questions:

1 -> What observational evidence is there really that there is no center of the universe and that the universe is infinite (with the emphasis on observational)?

2 -> How accurate are these observations really and also the assumptions we've made based on them?

S

All the the galaxies are moving away from each other (except if they are gravitaionaly bound) which means they are not moving away from a point or center. There is no observation evidence that the universe is infinite, that I know of.

The observations are relatively accurate and the assumptions are sound. They have stood the test of peer review and time. No doubt the fine points will be changed as more knowledge is gained, but it would seem that the 'big picture' of the expanding universe with no center will continue to hold sway.

 

[mabus]

a) Do you agree the BB model is entirely mathematical?
b) Do you agree there are no relativistic mathematical tools to describe the conditions within a singularity?

a) No. It is not entirely mathematical. It is based on General Relativity and there are many observations that confirm it is correct. Also, the observed expansion of the universe is physical evidence, and our instruments have measured background radiation predicted to be there. The physical proof goes well beyond what I have mentioned. Certainly all of it is described mathematically, it's just that much of it is proven both ways. The very beginning is only proven mathematically, but perhaps the LHC will provide further supporting evidence.
b)Yes, I agree we are not there yet.

I realize you want to challenge the Big Bang theory by saying it cannot say time and space only existed after the event, but it does.

I do not challenge the Big Bang theory, this is a strawman. We both agree that the Big Bang theory is correct. We also agree that there are no present mathematical tools which help us describe the state or conditions within a singularity within a relativistic framework.

Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to believe that the description of the Big Bang, and the physical interaction of matter in the universe described by relativity, is a non-mathematical theory.

That seems to be the source of the disagreement between us. You are treating the Big Bang model as, some guys sitting around a water cooler simply spitballing what they "think" might have happened, rather than mathematicians literally taking out their calculators and calculating the raw physical effects of interacting forces (which is what is actually the case).

This, you feel, gives you license to simply spitball what happened inside a singularity, without the need of a mathematical model, and is what is causing you to go astray here. Until or unless you come to terms with the fact that these models are entirely mathematical in nature I suspect we shall never come to any sort of agreement with regards to your hypothesis.

The mainstream view is that Big-Bang theory cannot talk about "before the BB", so if you want to keep within the strict confines of BB theory then you cannot even consider whether there was space or time before the BB or not. This is what I have been trying to say. It makes just as much sense to say there was as to say there wasn't.. BB says nothing either way.

The BB theory says there was no time or space prior to the event. It is a clear proclamation of the theory.

No sir, the BB theory is entirely silent about anything which occurs prior to the expansion. Because the BB model is entirely mathematical, and because we have no mathematical tools for including physical interactions within a singularity the BB theory quite literally "breaks down" at the point of a singularity. The term "breaks down" is in fact often used to describe the problem for this very reason (and having read as much on the subject as you seem to have, you have surely come across the comment yourself.)

Just for reference. Here is what Wikipedia says on the subject.

Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity

In other words, General Relativity (and all theories which come from it, including the Big Bang model), "break down", fail to describe the conditions within a singularity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

 

[NDoveTime]

News just in: President Obama has weighed in and declared that the center of the universe is, in fact, his own frontal lobe.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Folks, lets' please try and remember, this is the Physics forum, designed for serious science.


Moderator Meteor Wayne

 

[Woggles]

I think the center of the Universe starts at my neighbor’s house. He clearly believes everything revolves around him lol!

 

[drwayne]

Good point Better-Wayne.

In particular, it is important to realize that jokes or statements that have
political figures or issues in them, no matter how much they fit under the category of "it's
just a joke!" have serious potential to devolve a discussion.

Wayne

 

[SpeedFreek]

I realize you want to challenge the Big Bang theory by saying it cannot say time and space only existed after the event, but it does.

No, it says nothing about whether time and space existed before the event, so it does not preclude it. We are not challenging BB theory at all but you are challenging BB theory when you say the universe must be finite and have a centre.

The BB theory says there was no time or space prior to the event. It is a clear proclamation of the theory.

This is your misconception about BB theory. It is a popular, but misguided view, based in popular literature but not based in the science of the BB itself.

When Wright says "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." he apparently would agree with my position. Let's speak of the universe we know of, for even though there may be others, they are just in our collective imagination at this time. My logic is indeed based on the BB theory, and not on a fanciful, unsupported multiple universe theory.

I keep explaining how I am not, and never was, talking about multiple universe theories. Your logic is flawed.

We know the universe is bigger than we can see, and the unseen portion is still part of the universe that came to be 13.7 billion years ago. He seems to have some unorthodox views.

No, Ned Wrights views are entirely mainstream, just like mine and Mabus's, but not like yours. You need to learn the theory properly, as you have some deep rooted misconceptions about it.

Because it is finite we can conclude it has a center. Hurray for logic! :ugeek:

The surface of the Earth is finite. Where is the centre of the surface of the Earth?

To sum up, the universe has no centre in any of the possible topologies that conform to BB theory. The universe might be finite or infinite. If it is infinite then it has no centre as it has no edge. If it is finite, it has no edge either, but "wraps around" on itself or is unbounded (as a finite universe with an edge, where there are no more galaxies, is in violation of the cosmological principle). In either case any centre you care to assign the universe is completely arbitrary.

Consider this: I have shown you lots of scientific sources that agree with me. If you think you are thinking logically about BB theory when you say the universe is finite and therefore has a centre, then why not try to find a scientific source that agrees with you?