The center of the Universe

Page 5 - 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Compaq38

Guest
The universe is endless. Thus its a single universe "infinity" or 1. It has no sides nor is it circular. When you take the number (1) its total only means a singular measurement. Which may be of any size.
 
G

gem1138

Guest
The conventional explanation is usually attributed to Albert Einstein, deservedly or not and it goes like this:

We humans can only visualize and perceive 3 dimensions of space but that doesn’t mean that there are more. The best that we can do is to visualize by analogy.
So, imagine the universe as being flat, 2 dimensional so that we have a 3rd dimension left over. Then imagine that flat universe as being not really flat but spherical.
As the sphere expands, all objects move away from each other but from the point of view of a poor 2 dimensional creature, there is no center of the expansion or the universe and no edge either.
While the universe as we see it is 3 dimensional, it exists in a plane of space-time that is spherical as seen in 4 dimensions.
Matter has mass and causes space time to be curved in this 4th dimension and this is the relativistic explanation of gravity. The total mass of the universe curves space-time into the heretofore mentioned 4 dimensional sphere.
This means that the matter of the universe is finite while in a sense, space is not. This also means that if you could travel in a straight line fast enough and long enough in any direction, you would eventually come back to your starting point.
There is thus no center of the universe from a 3 dimensional point of view.

The very word universe evolves as we discover and learn. The Milky Way was, not long ago, considered to be our universe. When other galaxies were discovered, they were briefly said to be “other universes. Earlier the universe was our solar system and before that our world was Europe or Asia depending on who you were.

In the multi-verse concept there are other universes on 4 dimensional spherical planes outside and/or inside the plane of our own universe. If tomorrow, we were to discover one of those planes, it would briefly be called a parallel universe. History indicates that the word universe would quickly be redefined to incorporate that plane and the universe. Once again, our universe would suddenly have gotten larger.
Universe really means: All that we know exists.
 
M

mabus

Guest
Perhaps the best analogy I've ever heard is of the expanding balloon. It is of course not perfect, but no analogies ever are.

Imagine that on the skin of a balloon reside creatures only capable of perceiving 2 dimensions. Lengths and width but not height. They could travel along the surface of the balloon endlessly in any direction and never hit a wall or fall off any edge. In a very real sense, they perceive their universe to be infinite, but unbounded. That is to say, they can travel freely in a straight line in any direction without ever hitting a wall, but the size of their universe is finite.

We can experience this very thing here on earth. You can walk along the earth in a straight line in any direction and, any cliffs or oceans or mountains aside, you could travel in a seemingly straight line endlessly. You would never reach the "center" of the earth from that perspective.

Because we are limited in the way we can perceive the universe, while there may technically be a center of the universe that we are unaware of, it is beyond our ability to perceive. In a very real and actual sense, the universe has no observable center.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
mabus":ls66guf6 said:
In a very real sense, they perceive their universe to be infinite, but bounded. That is to say, they can travel freely in a straight line in any direction without ever hitting a wall, but the size of their universe is finite.
In that first sentence I think you meant to say finite, but unbounded. :)
 
F

FlatEarth

Guest
mabus":wp68hbqg said:
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.
You have a propensity to twist the meaning of my statements to fit your views. The BB theory and General Relativity are both mathematically proven, but unlike string theory for example, they are also for the most part proven with physical and observational evidence.

The rest of your comment above does not warrant a reply. I do have a question, however. Why the preoccupation with spitballs?

mabus":wp68hbqg said:
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.)
As the Wiki article says, general relativity breaks down before the BB. That means there is no space or time until the BB, and so based on this key point this universe of ours grew out of a tiny point into something much larger as time progressed. Therefore it is finite based on the BB theory, and I because it is finite I believe it has a center.

Please excuse me for I must now join my colleagues in a spitball fight. :lol:
 
F

FlatEarth

Guest
SpeedFreek":llxkyf4j said:
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 concept of before the BB is theoretical. Yes, it does not preclude a pre-universe, but it doesn’t preclude a Looney Tunes universe either. Does that mean there was a Looney Tunes universe that preceded ours? I taught I saw a putty cat! :lol: The BB theory does not say the universe is infinite or if it has a center. That is up to us to decide.

SpeedFreek":llxkyf4j said:
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.
The truth is the idea that space and time existed before the BB is a misguided view, and it has been popularized by scientists and laymen who have trouble with the idea that our universe could be finite in both size and in age. There simply is no evidence to support it.

SpeedFreek":llxkyf4j said:
I keep explaining how I am not, and never was, talking about multiple universe theories. Your logic is flawed.
Please reread the Wright quote. He is making reference to a model of numerous universe “bubbles” of which ours is but one. That is a multiple universe concept because –err- there is more than one universe being proposed. Perhaps you were tired.

SpeedFreek":llxkyf4j said:
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.
So you believe only the visible universe was generated from the BB? Interesting. Misguided, but interesting. I’d like to see evidence that supports this idea, because I’ve never come across anything that would suggest such a thing. This is akin to multiple universe theories that are completely theoretical.

SpeedFreek":llxkyf4j said:
The surface of the Earth is finite. Where is the centre of the surface of the Earth?
Here you are trying to equate the 2D surface of a ball to a 3D space/object. Space is 3D. You really should get a good night’s rest.

SpeedFreek":llxkyf4j said:
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?
One predicted shape easily can be assigned a center. A sphere. An unbounded sphere would be difficult or impossible to measure, however a center would be present there. Certainly the universe did not spring forth from a center, and that is the notion theorists are trying to dispel when describing the BB. An inflating universe can have a geometric center as well as a center of mass. They just may be impossible to find because of the unbounded nature of space and the impossible distances involved. Remember that the nature of an unbounded sphere is to present the illusion that you are always in the center.
My position is not popular, but it is what I believe to be true.
 
M

mabus

Guest
Speedfreak, Thanks for the correction. You're right of course, that is exactly what I meant. I have edited the post to correct the typo

FlatEarth":3j62hebg said:
You have a propensity to twist the meaning of my statements to fit your views. The BB theory and General Relativity are both mathematically proven, but unlike string theory for example, they are also for the most part proven with physical and observational evidence.
But that's the thing. You are claiming to know things about a singularity that cannot be mathematically proven. Certainly our universe requires space and time, but I am not aware of anything in the BB model which mandates any conditions on a singularity. How could it when our mathematics break down at that point making our mathematical tools useless in describing the conditions within one?

mabus":3j62hebg said:
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.)
As the Wiki article says, general relativity breaks down before the BB. That means there is no space or time until the BB, and so based on this key point this universe of ours grew out of a tiny point into something much larger as time progressed. Therefore it is finite based on the BB theory, and I because it is finite I believe it has a center.

Err ... no...

The mathematical model we use to describe the universe breaks down. You are misinterpreting that to mean space and time do not exist before then, for reasons I can't begin to fathom. I just don't understand how you make that giant leap there.

Assume we have a camera in orbit over a planet and that it can only capture images as small as 1 mile over the planet. That is to say, each pixel we can image using this instrument represents an area 1 mile across. That does not mean nothing smaller exists on the planet, smaller than 1 mile across. It simply means that this is the limit at which our instrument can detect information from the surface. If we had a more sensitive or powerful instrument we could probably image smaller objects.

In a very similar way, the mathematics we use to explain the world around us is limited in it's capacity to explain the universe or objects within the universe (like singularites at the center of black holes) when they are too small in size. We call anything smaller than our ability to calculate mathematically a singularity. The fact that we can't mathematically calculate it's conditions does not in any way mean or even imply it has no conditions.

FlatEarth":3j62hebg said:
The BB theory does not say the universe is infinite or if it has a center. That is up to us to decide.
Decisions play no part in this. It's strictly a mathematical question, and I am completely unaware of any mathematical model which assigns the universe a center, nor am I aware of any physical observations to support such a claim.
 
F

FlatEarth

Guest
ssnozenoszka":1ayn0wkg said:
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!
Hello ssnozenoszka,

There do seem to be errors in the measurements of distant galaxies, but it's unlikely we will discover variation in the expansion rate of the universe. The expansion of the universe is uniform (and accelerating), and it did not "explode" from a single point making one portion of the universe recede at a faster rate than another.
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
FlatEarth":37leflq6 said:
SpeedFreek":37leflq6 said:
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.
The truth is the idea that space and time existed before the BB is a misguided view, and it has been popularized by scientists and laymen who have trouble with the idea that our universe could be finite in both size and in age. There simply is no evidence to support it.
I agree that the idea that space and time existed before the BB is misguided, of course. It is just as misguided as the idea that space and time did not exist before the BB. This is what I have been trying to get across.. both views are misguided.

The BB says nothing about "before the BB", so you cannot say that space and time did not exist.

You can say they existed after the BB, but you can say nothing about before the BB in any context. Therefore... your logic (which is using the idea that space and time did not exist before the BB) is flawed, and so are your conclusions about the centre of the universe.

FlatEarth":37leflq6 said:
SpeedFreek":37leflq6 said:
I keep explaining how I am not, and never was, talking about multiple universe theories. Your logic is flawed.
Please reread the Wright quote. He is making reference to a model of numerous universe “bubbles” of which ours is but one. That is a multiple universe concept because –err- there is more than one universe being proposed. Perhaps you were tired.
I was talking about his quote about an infinite universe, which is part of Big Bang theory:
Ned Wright":37leflq6 said:
"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. In the figure below, two views of the Universe are shown... (see link for full description)"
Nothing to do with multiple-universes here.

FlatEarth":37leflq6 said:
SpeedFreek":37leflq6 said:
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.
So you believe only the visible universe was generated from the BB? Interesting. Misguided, but interesting. I’d like to see evidence that supports this idea, because I’ve never come across anything that would suggest such a thing. This is akin to multiple universe theories that are completely theoretical.
No, I do not believe that only the visible universe was generated from the BB, as anyone who has been reading what I have been saying can plainly see. Why on Earth would you think that?

FlatEarth":37leflq6 said:
SpeedFreek":37leflq6 said:
The surface of the Earth is finite. Where is the centre of the surface of the Earth?
Here you are trying to equate the 2D surface of a ball to a 3D space/object. Space is 3D. You really should get a good night’s rest.
I take it you don't understand the theory that underpins the Big Bang theory then. It is known as General Relativity and it uses more than 3 dimensions (see below). I read it in bed, sometimes. ;)


FlatEarth":37leflq6 said:
One predicted shape easily can be assigned a center. A sphere. An unbounded sphere would be difficult or impossible to measure, however a center would be present there.
Incorrect. An unbounded sphere has no edge and no centre. In terms of the shape of the universe, in cosmology the term unbounded means there is no boundary where the contents of the universe stop. There is no place where you find an "edge", with no galaxies beyond. The solution to the field equations of General Relativity that is used in the Big Bang model is the FLRW metric which considers the universe to be a four dimensional manifold (i.e. in simple terms, your 3 dimensions of space are curved in a 4th dimension. When we talk of the shape of the universe, we are talking of the shape of the 4D curvature - is the shape open or closed? Is it a 3-Torus or a 3-Sphere?).

Are you sure you are ready to apply your logic to the Big Bang theory?

FlatEarth":37leflq6 said:
Certainly the universe did not spring forth from a center, and that is the notion theorists are trying to dispel when describing the BB. An inflating universe can have a geometric center as well as a center of mass. They just may be impossible to find because of the unbounded nature of space and the impossible distances involved. Remember that the nature of an unbounded sphere is to present the illusion that you are always in the center.
My position is not popular, but it is what I believe to be true.
There is a very good reason why your position is not popular! ;)

But I don't understand something after reading your last quote.

How do you think an unbounded sphere "presents the illusion" that you are always in the centre? If you really understand why, you really should understand why the universe has no centre.
 
N

nimbus

Guest
FlatEarth":3nxpr2ys said:
The BB theory and General Relativity are both mathematically proven
Science doesn't prove anything. It only allows you to say that some observation's consistent or inconsistent with a given explanation.

, but unlike string theory for example, they are also for the most part proven with physical and observational evidence.
Which is it, are they proven or not? It's either one or the other.

An unbounded universe has no center. The surface of the earth has no center. Both topologies are the same, as far as this analogy is concerned.

BB theory says that its rules break down at and beyond the singularity. The same way macro physics' laws don't work at the quantum level; that doesn't mean there's no physics going on at the quantum level, nor that macro physics are invalid at the macro level either. A less good analogy but those are the dynamics.
 
H

hvargas

Guest
I've discovered a Race thats above all Spacies or at least they thought they were until they've seen others much higher. By higher I mean in terms of their place in existence as to age and power. These existences do not have the answers as to how " SPACE " came about yet there are these lesser spacies called humans that want to claimed to know something that they had not uncover in all their lenght of time which is so old that humans were not around. The BBT does not applied to them as to the age which the BBT gives cause they are many more billions of years older, of course you will want evidence but there are none for the moment to demonstrate just how wrong human science is as far as existance is concerned. Someboby wants to go from #1 while leaving the #0 out of the picture and the number system begins with the #0. Einstein had a problem or perhaps a number of problems with his theories which in the first place were not entirely his but were attributed to him. Anyone reading this will know that this is how any theory goes about trying to explained some phenomenon such as " what is the center of the universe ? " or any other theory. One is in the liberty to chose whatever fits into ones mind and apploud whoever feeds into our own ways of thinking but it will not conclude to the true and the facts, this is why there are so many books and authors writting on the same subjects. Many challenging the findings which are being claimed as conclusive evidence, so you can place the center anywhere you like.
 
F

FlatEarth

Guest
nimbus":9jzn53bt said:
Science doesn't prove anything. It only allows you to say that some observation's consistent or inconsistent with a given explanation.
Maybe I chose my wording poorly. Please forgive me. I can do better.

nimbus":9jzn53bt said:
Which is it, are they proven or not? It's either one or the other.
String theory is totally mathematical, while general relativity is confirmed partially with observations and measurements. So it is both, not one or the other. Sorry.

nimbus":9jzn53bt said:
An unbounded universe has no center. The surface of the earth has no center. Both topologies are the same, as far as this analogy is concerned.
You are correct, and with further consideration I have decided to alter my position and say the universe is bounded. Now I'm concerned about the edge, but don't worry, I'll get over it.

nimbus":9jzn53bt said:
BB theory says that its rules break down at and beyond the singularity. The same way macro physics' laws don't work at the quantum level; that doesn't mean there's no physics going on at the quantum level, nor that macro physics are invalid at the macro level either. A less good analogy but those are the dynamics.
It does say that space and time do not exist. That's all I care about in this discussion because I want to eliminate the possibility of other universes for the sake of clarity so that a center can be established.

Check out this article: http://creationwiki.org/Big_bang
 
F

FlatEarth

Guest
SpeedFreek":2f4zwry5 said:
The BB says nothing about "before the BB", so you cannot say that space and time did not exist.
It doesn't need to because it clearly states that our universe, along with space and time, started with the BB. The rest amounts to science fiction.

SpeedFreek":2f4zwry5 said:
No, I do not believe that only the visible universe was generated from the BB, as anyone who has been reading what I have been saying can plainly see. Why on Earth would you think that?
I even returned to the link and came to the same conclusions I did earlier. The illustrations do not describe the BB theory at all. The universe by definition is everything. The illustration shows only a portion of the universe coming from the BB. So if you believe this, then you actually believe in a perversion of the BB theory.

SpeedFreek":2f4zwry5 said:
Incorrect. An unbounded sphere has no edge and no centre. In terms of the shape of the universe, in cosmology the term unbounded means there is no boundary where the contents of the universe stop. There is no place where you find an "edge", with no galaxies beyond. The solution to the field equations of General Relativity that is used in the Big Bang model is the FLRW metric which considers the universe to be a four dimensional manifold (i.e. in simple terms, your 3 dimensions of space are curved in a 4th dimension. When we talk of the shape of the universe, we are talking of the shape of the 4D curvature - is the shape open or closed? Is it a 3-Torus or a 3-Sphere?)
I picture an unbounded sphere from the outside, so it makes sense to me to say it can have a center because it is finite in mass. However, I know this is impossible to defend, so I decided to change my position and say it is bound.

Here is the supporting material for my position. See “An Unbounded Universe” about 1/3 down. http://creationwiki.org/Big_bang
 
B

Bill_Wright

Guest
Meteor Wayne wrote: Actually, the Big Band theory is about whether the brass over reeds is more tasteful than the reeds over brass theorum proposed by Glenn Miller.

Reeds beats brass any day.
 
K

kbmtexas

Guest
The center of the Universe? Give me a break! The Universe did not rise from 1 Big Bang. A study was done in the 90's that plotted all the known galaxies into a three deminsional grid. All of the galaxies plotted were grouped into families around a voided area, like spots on the surface of a balloon. There are many different families of galaxies with different sized voided areas, illustrating their age. To me, this shows that many "Big Bang" episodes have occurred leading me to postulate that at some point, Super Massive Black Holes reach a critical mass and explode, giving birth to a new family of galaxies!

I think that this shows a very simplistic and beautiful thing.

At the very extreme, a singularity (black hole), the 4 primal forces of nature are married together. Gravity, Electromagnitism, the Strong force and the Weak force are as one, and the primal building blocks of matter are stripped down to their most fundamental forms, subatomic particles like quarks and those we have not discovered yet. This soup must have a limit before critical mass is reached and a "Big Bang" occurs. Not sometimes, BUT ALWAYS!!

The other end of the extreme is a peaceful, well balanced solar system within a mature galaxy where planets form and given the right conditions one has the right ingredients and range from the star where life begins. Given enough time between impacts disrupting evolutionary procesees, inteligent life will evolve. Not sometimes, BUT ALWAYS!! I believe there are millions if not billions of civilazations out there!! Not all in the Milky Way, but in the billions upon billions of galaxies!!

The center of the Universe is an imaginary place that does not exist. There are galaxies that we will never know about because the light will never get here! Our relative seperation velocity is too high. Still there are others that are moving toward us we will never see because the relative velocity is greater than the speed of light, but the distances are so massive it does not matter! And others are just soooo far away that their light would be absorbed by black holes and dark matter before it gets here.

Sufice it to say that the Universe does not have a true begining, it has always been and will always be! It is one infinite recycling center!!!

Cool, huh??
 
S

ssnozenoszka

Guest
Hey Origin,

Thanks for your reply:

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.
The galaxies are moving away from eachother because space itself is expanding in every single point of the universe. Your conclusion that this means that they are not moving away from a center is incorrect. You can't conclude that just yet. The expansion of space moves everything away from everything else. I was just speculating there may be other more subtle differences in speed that are not caused by the expansion of space.

Take a look at for instance a supernova explosion. Most all the matter ejected from it will (apart from gravity) be moving further apart. If you would look at a small patch of ejected matter and compensate for the speed it is travelling so that you can make a movie out of it, you would see an area of particles that are all slowly moving further apart. They are moving apart because of 2 reasons:

1 - expansion of space itself
2 - outward momentum from supernova

In this case the outward momentum from the supernova is the main driving force that causes the particles to become further apart. But there is definately a center to the explosion.

In case of the universe itself the expansion of space would be the dominant force that drives everything apart. So dominant that it almost completely overshines other forces that are at play that tell us more about the structure of, and possibly our position in the universe. What we have now are observations that are at least 20% inaccurate. So in my opinion that means that if there is a 10% difference in the speed of galaxies on either side of our observable universe, we wouldnt see it. How can you call that relatively accurate? I don't see it.

Truly reliable observational data isnt there yet to make a conclusion one way or the other.

S
 
S

ssnozenoszka

Guest
Hello ssnozenoszka,

There do seem to be errors in the measurements of distant galaxies, but it's unlikely we will discover variation in the expansion rate of the universe. The expansion of the universe is uniform (and accelerating), and it did not "explode" from a single point making one portion of the universe recede at a faster rate than another.
I understand the universe didn't explode. All I am saying is that if the universe is finite, not all areas of it will behave in the same way. There are other forces that determine relative movement other than the expansion of the universe alone, such as for instance gravity. These are being overshadowed by the expansion of the universe, but that doesnt mean they are not there or can not be measured eventually.

S
 
O

origin

Guest
Take a look at for instance a supernova explosion. Most all the matter ejected from it will (apart from gravity) be moving further apart. If you would look at a small patch of ejected matter and compensate for the speed it is travelling so that you can make a movie out of it, you would see an area of particles that are all slowly moving further apart. They are moving apart because of 2 reasons:

1 - expansion of space itself
2 - outward momentum from supernova
So I guess that there are 2 possible conclusions; there is no center to the universe or we are the center of the universe. I think it is pretty clear that it is the former not the latter. There is much more evidence that the universe has no center point but this analysis is the most straight forward, I believe. Visit this site and take a look at the graphic on expansion it is quite good.
 
S

SippyCup

Guest
It depends on your concept of the "center of the universe." If by center, you mean the interior "shell" of the universe when it first began to emit light, then I think that it's possible you're correct. However, if that is the case, then that original shell, which you're considering as the center, is now the outermost boundary of the visible universe. In that sense, it is not the center anymore.

On the other hand, if you are referring to the intuitive meaning of "center" as in the geometric center or the center of mass, then no--distance and time do not infer direction. Therefore, if you are looking away from the center, you are looking away from the center. :)
 
M

mabus

Guest
Ok, I think I am beggining to understand the problem here.

FlatEarth":1rg0c88w said:
I picture an unbounded sphere from the outside, so it makes sense to me to say it can have a center because it is finite in mass. However, I know this is impossible to defend, so I decided to change my position and say it is bound.

Here is the supporting material for my position. See “An Unbounded Universe” about 1/3 down. http://creationwiki.org/Big_bang
I would respectfully point out that almost everything stated on this website is factually untrue, and written by people who severely misunderstand science. The site you are linking to is a "Creation science" website dedicated to the promotion of the belief in Creationism, the belief that God created the universe, that Evolution is a myth, and that Science is generally a worse source than the bible in interpreting natural phenomenon.

The website you are referencing explicitly rejects the Big Bang theory (something you've been accusing US of doing). In it's conclusions it says the following

The big bang is based on two purely philosophical assumptions, the Copernican Principle and an unbounded universe. If these assumptions are wrong as the evidence indicates, so is every conclusion about the universe based on the big bang.
Furthermore, the Carmeli-Hartnett cosmological relativity solution solves two problems (dark matter and dark energy) that continue to embarrass proponents of the Big Bang model, while also solving a problem that has been one of the greatest challenges to creationists.
It goes on to claim that the Earth is the center of the universe (I'm not kidding) and even reference articles in support of this at the bottom of the page.

The site's article on the "Earth" says the following

The Sun, Earth, Moon and all the other planets move in a delicate, harmonious, and complex pattern, much like that of a clock. Furthermore the planetary clock is designed around the same golden ratio as the human body. All of these facts are observable and point to design not blind chance as evolutionary cosmology would lead you to believe.
An interesting inference can be deduced in the form of a question. Did these planets come to be arranged in such harmonious motion by chance and natural law, or by design?
Neither the origin of the planets, origin of the sun, or origin of the moon through the nebula hypothesis have lived up to the standard of science when philosophic naturalism is so prevalent. Furthermore as we discover more facts about their harmonious motion, many aspects of it appear to defy the known facts of astrophysics. Therefore, naturalistic explanations for the moment are not science but mere speculation or presuppositions used to interpret the observable science we all have. Many however are not even reasonable presuppositions to hold as a scientist because they are experimentally impossible.
Here then, the site you are referencing says that not only the Big Bang model, but Evolution, Astrophysics, Relativity and Newton's theory of Gravity are all in error (not to mention the fields of Geology Biology and so on...)

It goes on to say
On the other hand, the history of Genesis states that the sun, moon, and other stars (including the planets) were put into place to allow time of hours, days, years and seasons. While this fact cannot be observed or tested it is consistent with the design inference of Intelligent Design. This view is no more a presupposition than that of what evolution posits. That is to say, if someone or something did put the planets into orbit rather than the blind chance of evolution choosing the correct path to form such objects, we would expect exactly what we see now, namely planets in a harmonic, delicate balance.
Therefore, while there is no hard scientific "proof" of either views presuppositions some inferences are more reasonable than others:
Naturalists infer that the Earth and solar system originated by strictly naturalistic means even though evidence or explanation for such is severely lacking. For example the laws and constants that govern physics are so percise that intelligent design not only becomes scientifically valid but logically deduced.
Supernaturalists infer that the Earth and solar system were designed, due to their beautiful, harmonic, and aesthetic motion based on the golden ratio and ancient histories which affirm the creation of the Earth by God.
In their article on Cosmic Chronology they go on to describe the difference between Creation scientists (them) and "naturalistic scientists" (what most people would refer to as scientists, people like Hawking, and Newton, and Einstein). http://creationwiki.org/Cosmic_chronology

They describe the two the following way;
Creation scientists study astronomical processes and attempt to explain stellar phenomena from the presupposition that celestial bodies were created by God. Most creationists also draw from religious texts (such as the Bible) for insight. The Bible dates the universe as having the same age as that of the Earth or just over 6000 years. There is indeed much evidence to support the contention that our solar system, galaxies and even the entirety of the universe is very young.
In contrast, secular scientists date the universe as being approximately 13.7 billion years using standard cosmologies.[1] The universe is believed to have begun with a cosmic inflation known as the Big Bang, which is then followed by the formation of stars and then galaxies and planets. Based on this chronology the Earth is believed to have formed after our Sun and is dated to be near 4.6 billion years old.
However, because the creation of our universe was a supernatural act, we might never understand factors such as the delivery of light from great distances, which seem to indicate a very old universe. Physicists say that light from far off galaxies must have traveled through space for billions of years to reach us, and events such as supernovas occurred before life ever existed on Earth.
Then it goes on to describe Evolution, saying

Certainly life itself required creation, because life does not arise from non-life. And on the very day that life was formed, the first organisms had the appearance of adult age; otherwise they would not have been able to reproduce. Although we might wish to explain how the first organisms could come to be out of nothing,
They then go on to quote verses in the bible to prove their point is the correct one. I could go on but I think the point is very clear.

Either you support the claims made on this site, which state that pretty much every scientific discipline is in error, and god just "did it". Or you simply googled for the first thing that supported your claim about the universe having a center (and Earth being that center) without checking on the veracity of the site.

Either way I seriously hope you come to your senses here. There is NO legitimate scientific site, which claims the universe has a center, nor any authoratative scientific site claiming the universe is bounded. If you think any exist please cite them because I am unaware of any.

Please though, no Creationist web sites. :roll:
 
F

FlatEarth

Guest
mabus, at least nimbus had the sense not to expend a lot of energy on a response. :lol:
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
FlatEarth":2dwf51ba said:
SpeedFreek":2dwf51ba said:
The BB says nothing about "before the BB", so you cannot say that space and time did not exist.
It doesn't need to because it clearly states that our universe, along with space and time, started with the BB. The rest amounts to science fiction.
So stop talking about the state of space and time "before" the Big Bang, then.

FlatEarth":2dwf51ba said:
I even returned to the link and came to the same conclusions I did earlier. The illustrations do not describe the BB theory at all. The universe by definition is everything. The illustration shows only a portion of the universe coming from the BB. So if you believe this, then you actually believe in a perversion of the BB theory.
You are incorrect. It has been known that the whole universe might be infinite within BB theory for decades. Only the observable universe is known to be finite, by definition. You obviously don't understand the theory properly if you think those illustrations are wrong.

FlatEarth":2dwf51ba said:
I picture an unbounded sphere from the outside, so it makes sense to me to say it can have a center because it is finite in mass. However, I know this is impossible to defend, so I decided to change my position and say it is bound.
:lol: How can you picture a model with intrinsic curvature, from the outside? Can you picture 4 dimensional spaces then?

I see that you are now changing your position, in fact you have completely reversed it. Now you say the universe is bounded. I am guessing this is because you didn't actually know what unbounded meant until we explained it to you.

FlatEarth":2dwf51ba said:
Here is the supporting material for my position. See “An Unbounded Universe” about 1/3 down. http://creationwiki.org/Big_bang
That link has no place in the physics forum, it is full of errors, misconceptions and biased interpretations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts