The center of the Universe

[Fallingstar1971]

Wow, I cant believe that this topic is still going........

The center of the Universe..........

Since we all experience reality differently due to our perceptions, I will throw out there that each individual is the center of his/her percieved Universe(s)

But seriously, what about the forces?

Im going to start a new topic about the forces, or anti-forces at work here

Star

 

[dbob2]

I don't think you can find the center (exact point in three/D+time space) where the big bang sigularity went off, because of inflation after the original expolsive expansion. Trying to isolate a directional vector back down to the center would be impossible now, I would guess. Plus the fact that groups of galaxies are and have been pulling on each other for billions of years. I suppose if you could find a few early proto-galaxies less than half a billion years after the big bang and somehow track back on their movement relitive to each other (after seperating out other misc. movement vectors ????) hard to do. If you could though, would you be able to see the place of the point of the sigularity where it sits in the fabric of gravity/space (minus time) before it went off? If we only had a cosmic ray telescope big enough....

 

[Oraculix]

The centre of the universe was located exactly in the middle of the infinite empty space (x) when time (t) started from zero. x/t = v = c was infinite back then so c2 even more infinite. E=mc2 , agree ? So c2 = E/m was infinite too. The only way for E/m to be even more infinite than c is when E (energy) is infinite and m (the point of singularity) is almost zero. With that amount of enery, tiny m just had to explode back then (big bang). So there it is, the universe created by two “nothings”: empty space (x) and time (t). As soon as i have proven this hypothesis, i will be back to collect the Nobel prize

 

[FlatEarth]

The centre of the universe was located exactly in the middle of the infinite empty space (x) when time (t) started from zero. x/t = v = c was infinite back then so c2 even more infinite. E=mc2 , agree ? So c2 = E/m was infinite too. The only way for E/m to be even more infinite than c is when E (energy) is infinite and m (the point of singularity) is almost zero. With that amount of enery, tiny m just had to explode back then (big bang). So there it is, the universe created by two “nothings”: empty space (x) and time (t). As soon as i have proven this hypothesis, i will be back to collect the Nobel prize

According to the Big Bang Theory, there was no spacetime before the BB, so your premise is incorrect. However, I still believe it is possible that the universe does indeed have a geographic center, except that it would be impossible to determine, and would have no significance whatsoever. It would not be akin to the center of a galaxy, where (usually) supermassive black holes reside. The Nobel Prize is mine.

 

[ramparts]

FlatEarth, in theory you could talk about something like a center of the universe (which, as you say, can't be determined and is meaningless), but you have to be careful with how it's defined - since you can't talk about simultaneous points, and the universe is constantly expanding, the restrictions on finding such a point aren't just observational but theoretical, at least until you define cosmic time in some way (large-scale homogeneity and isotropy gives us a pretty good candidate for that, but there's nothing inherently "right" about it).

 

[Oraculix]

The centre of the universe was located exactly in the middle of the infinite empty space (x) when time (t) started from zero. x/t = v = c was infinite back then so c2 even more infinite. E=mc2 , agree ? So c2 = E/m was infinite too. The only way for E/m to be even more infinite than c is when E (energy) is infinite and m (the point of singularity) is almost zero. With that amount of enery, tiny m just had to explode back then (big bang). So there it is, the universe created by two “nothings”: empty space (x) and time (t). As soon as i have proven this hypothesis, i will be back to collect the Nobel prize

According to the Big Bang Theory, there was no spacetime before the BB, so your premise is incorrect. However, I still believe it is possible that the universe does indeed have a geographic center, except that it would be impossible to determine, and would have no significance whatsoever. It would not be akin to the center of a galaxy, where (usually) supermassive black holes reside. The Nobel Prize is mine.

:roll: Agree, there was no spacetime before the BB because time had to start from zero to increase x/t, c2 and E/m to infinity as a condition to bang. So guess my premise and prize of course :mrgreen: still holds.

Greetz,
Oraculix aka the true 8th Wonder of the Universe

Btw, although the hypothesis of the flat earth has long been generally dismissed, there are still occasional modern advocates of the hypothesis. So Mr Flat...seems you still have a chance to win the Nobel prize, in another category than mine of course :lol:

 

[FlatEarth]

FlatEarth, in theory you could talk about something like a center of the universe (which, as you say, can't be determined and is meaningless), but you have to be careful with how it's defined - since you can't talk about simultaneous points, and the universe is constantly expanding, the restrictions on finding such a point aren't just observational but theoretical, at least until you define cosmic time in some way (large-scale homogeneity and isotropy gives us a pretty good candidate for that, but there's nothing inherently "right" about it).

Yes, I agree that it would be a tricky (and impossible) thing to determine, but it (a center) may exist depending on how the universe is shaped by spacetime.

 

[ramparts]

Right, the main problem just being that there is no absolute way to talk about the boundaries of the universe's matter distribution (which you'd need to determine its center) at an instant.

 

[marcel_leonard]

If the farther out you look, the farther back in time you see, then could it not be said that no matter what direction you look you are looking in the direction of the center of the Universe?

I would say no. My opinion is that there is a geometric center to the universe, but it's because I believe the universe has certain properties. There are other concepts of the universe that may be more popular with cosmologists, but they seem fanciful and unsubstantiated to me. I like a simple universe.

I think the universe expanded in all directions at the Big Bang, but probably not equally in all directions. Even so, I believe it's similar to a bubble in shape. I also believe the universe is finite in size even though it continues to expand at an accelerating rate. The Big Bang theory implies that it is finite because it says the universe started from a single point 13.7 billion years ago and grew from there. Because its age is finite and the rate of expansion is less than infinite, its size must also be finite. This doesn't mean the edge of the universe can be reached, because there could be a property of space-time that redirects matter and energy away from the extreme boundaries of the universe. To actually measure the universe, one would need to know where space-time is curving back.

With these properties, I think a center exists, and it occupies a certain point in the universe, perhaps moving depending on the overall shape and evolution of the universe.

It has been observed by astrophysicist that as you look at the disc shaped wheel of the Milky Way that outer rim of stars system orbiting the Center of the Galaxy are moving at faster rate then the rotation of CG: Is this because the light emissions given off by stars themselves only make up for less than 1% of the visible galaxy and the other 99% of galactic material is not visible? Is this where we coin the phrases Dark Matter/Energy???

 

[origin]

It has been observed by astrophysicist that as you look at the disc shaped wheel of the Milky Way that outer rim of stars system orbiting the Center of the Galaxy are moving at faster rate then the rotation of CG: Is this because the light emissions given off by stars themselves only make up for less than 1% of the visible galaxy and the other 99% of galactic material is not visible? Is this where we coin the phrases Dark Matter/Energy???

For someone who supposedly worked in a physics dept. you come up with some of the most puzzling misconceptions! The rotation of the milky way can tell us nothing about dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Piratejoe]

I thought the Idea of Dark Matter came from when scientists cannot explain why the galaxies stay together with our current model of gravity and concluded that their must be some more matter out thier they just cant find and thats why the galaxies dont fly apart.

Personally I think Dark Matter is a bunch of baloney and what we are seeing is evidence of parrallel universes. If theirs a infinate amount of Parrallel universes all side by side I believe gravity affects not only that universe but also can effect a other parrallel universes. Think of our Universe in the middle of a massive onion, we are simply one layer in their and all of those other layers matter effects all the other layers. I believe scientists are looking for matter or rather "Dark Matter" were not exist because it's not thier for them to find but it still exists but just not in OUR universe, but what do I know Im not a scientist.

 

[marcel_leonard]

It has been observed by astrophysicist that as you look at the disc shaped wheel of the Milky Way that outer rim of stars system orbiting the Center of the Galaxy are moving at faster rate then the rotation of CG: Is this because the light emissions given off by stars themselves only make up for less than 1% of the visible galaxy and the other 99% of galactic material is not visible? Is this where we coin the phrases Dark Matter/Energy???

For someone who supposedly worked in a physics dept. you come up with some of the most puzzling misconceptions! The rotation of the milky way can tell us nothing about dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with each other.

I suggest you stop fronting like you're some physics PhD, stop trolling around SDC, and take basic physics/astronomy class at your local community college!!!

 

[origin]

It has been observed by astrophysicist that as you look at the disc shaped wheel of the Milky Way that outer rim of stars system orbiting the Center of the Galaxy are moving at faster rate then the rotation of CG: Is this because the light emissions given off by stars themselves only make up for less than 1% of the visible galaxy and the other 99% of galactic material is not visible? Is this where we coin the phrases Dark Matter/Energy???

For someone who supposedly worked in a physics dept. you come up with some of the most puzzling misconceptions! The rotation of the milky way can tell us nothing about dark energy. Dark matter and dark energy have nothing to do with each other.

I suggest you stop fronting like you're some physics PhD, stop trolling around SDC, and take basic physics/astronomy class at your local community college!!!

I do not have a PhD in phsics. I am an engineer and I have only taken the physics courses required to get an engineering degree. However, my education not with standing, you come up with things that clearly show you do not know what you are talking about or at the very least demonstrate that you are confused...

 

[origin]

It has been observed by astrophysicist that as you look at the disc shaped wheel of the Milky Way that outer rim of stars system orbiting the Center of the Galaxy are moving at faster rate then the rotation of CG: Is this because the light emissions given off by stars themselves only make up for less than 1% of the visible galaxy and the other 99% of galactic material is not visible? Is this where we coin the phrases Dark Matter/Energy???

Perhaps you could present some evidence that the rotation of the milky way is somehow related to dark energy?

 

[marcel_leonard]

I do not have a PhD in phsics. I am an engineer and I have only taken the physics courses required to get an engineering degree. However, my education not with standing, you come up with things that clearly show you do not know what you are talking about or at the very least demonstrate that you are confused...

I have a civil engineering degree and I've completed all my calc/def eq/physics /statics/dynamics/mechanics requirements: So whenever want to prove that Dark Matter/Energy is nothing more than sophisticated way for scientist to say "Question Mark"(???), or their way of simply saying they don't have no clues as to why the center of the galaxy is rotating slow than the outer rim; so they assume there is more matter there that they can't account for causing this gravitational discrepancy........then be my guest...

"Your as brilliant as a bottle of stale Guinness!!!"

The Drunken Shaolin Monkey

 

[FlatEarth]

It has been observed by astrophysicist that as you look at the disc shaped wheel of the Milky Way that outer rim of stars system orbiting the Center of the Galaxy are moving at faster rate then the rotation of CG: Is this because the light emissions given off by stars themselves only make up for less than 1% of the visible galaxy and the other 99% of galactic material is not visible? Is this where we coin the phrases Dark Matter/Energy???

Hi marcel_leonard. Your comment is mostly correct, except that the motions of galaxies are attributed to unseen/unknown matter, or dark matter. Dark matter can either be normal matter that is invisible to our telescopes because it doesn't emit light, as you said, or it can be exotic matter that has yet to be confirmed but is predicted to be more abundant than regular matter. Dark energy is a placeholder for whatever it is that is causing the galaxies to move apart.

 

[marcel_leonard]

It has been observed by astrophysicist that as you look at the disc shaped wheel of the Milky Way that outer rim of stars system orbiting the Center of the Galaxy are moving at faster rate then the rotation of CG: Is this because the light emissions given off by stars themselves only make up for less than 1% of the visible galaxy and the other 99% of galactic material is not visible? Is this where we coin the phrases Dark Matter/Energy???

Hi marcel_leonard. Your comment is mostly correct, except that the motions of galaxies are attributed to unseen/unknown matter, or dark matter. Dark matter can either be normal matter that is invisible to our telescopes because it doesn't emit light, as you said, or it can be exotic matter that has yet to be confirmed but is predicted to be more abundant than regular matter. Dark energy is a placeholder for whatever it is that is causing the galaxies to move apart.

Thank you sir are a scholar and a gentlemen........unlike some members here on SDC who trying to ridicule people only to show the world that they lack the simply God given ability to read an astrophysics book!

 

[origin]

Thank you sir are a scholar and a gentlemen........some members here on SDC who trying to ridicule people only to show the world that they lack the simply God given ability to read an astrophysics book!

I assume that your lack of a response to this question:

Perhaps you could present some evidence that the rotation of the milky way is somehow related to dark energy?

means that you utilized your "God given ability to read an astrophysics book" and realized you were wrong.

 

[ramparts]

Right, so all this talk of degrees aside :lol: Marcel, origin's point was correct. Dark matter and dark energy aren't related; or at least, if they are, there is literally zero evidence of it right now (there aren't even any well-established theoretical models linking the two, and there are theoretical models for everything these days!). What you were talking about with galactic rotation curves was the first major evidence for dark matter, although lots of other evidence currently exists. Dark energy, on the other hand, is the proposed "stuff" or force driving the expansion of the universe to accelerate, as we've observed, even though by all rights the expansion should be slowing down due to the gravitation of the matter in it.

 

[marcel_leonard]

Thank you sir are a scholar and a gentlemen........unlike some members here on SDC who trying to ridicule people only to show the world that they lack the simply God given ability to read an astrophysics book!

I assume that your lack of a response to this question:

Perhaps you could present some evidence that the rotation of the milky way is somehow related to dark energy?

means that you utilized your "God given ability to read an astrophysics book" and realized you were wrong.

Thats funny I was just going to recommend you do that very same thing....Although you claimed to an engineering (i.e.civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, ...ect) Question mark however as to what discipline? From my Sherlock Holmes powers of deduction of judging by how you're constantly asking me for statement proofs and the fact you claimed to be an engineer w/out specifying a discipline tells me volumes about your true profession.........which is not anywhere near the field of science or engineering for that matter :lol:

 

[origin]

Thank you sir are a scholar and a gentlemen........unlike some members here on SDC who trying to ridicule people only to show the world that they lack the simply God given ability to read an astrophysics book!

I assume that your lack of a response to this question:

Perhaps you could present some evidence that the rotation of the milky way is somehow related to dark energy?

means that you utilized your "God given ability to read an astrophysics book" and realized you were wrong.

Thats funny I was just going to recommend you do that very same thing....Although you claimed to an engineering (i.e.civil, mechanical, electrical, chemical, ...ect) Question mark however as to what discipline? From my Sherlock Holmes powers of deduction of judging by how you're constantly asking me for statement proofs and the fact you claimed to be an engineer w/out specifying a discipline tells me volumes about your true profession.........which is not anywhere near the field of science or engineering for that matter :lol:

:roll: Well this really silly.

No need for me to add anything really your post speak for themselves.

By the way this is wrong too:

or their way of simply saying they don't have no clues as to why the center of the galaxy is rotating slow[er] than the outer rim;

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hmmm, more troll like behaviour...that ain't good.

marcel, it was you who suggested that dark energy had something to do with galactic rotation rates.

As has been patiently pointed out to you, that is dark matter. Dark energy is something completely different, being used to account for the accelerating expansion of the space BETWEEN galaxies, not the rotation rate OF galaxies.

To wit:

"It has been observed by astrophysicist that as you look at the disc shaped wheel of the Milky Way that outer rim of stars system orbiting the Center of the Galaxy are moving at faster rate then the rotation of CG: Is this because the light emissions given off by stars themselves only make up for less than 1% of the visible galaxy and the other 99% of galactic material is not visible? Is this where we coin the phrases Dark Matter/Energy???"

You would think that someone with a civil engineering degree, or at least a high school education would understand the difference between dark matter and dark energy.

 

[Piratejoe]

Physics on this grand scale or on the tiny scale always makes my poor little head hurt but.....

I thought the Idea of their being a "Center" of the universe or were the Big Bang started is just one school of thought. If im not mistaken theirs also a Theory that theirs 13 Dimension and in the last 13th Dimension its a giant Membrane and our Universe is just one of a infinate bubbles drifting around in this dimension and when two of those bubbles touch each other a New Universe is made, the thing is they dont touch in just one spot but in several spots and so the big bang would actually be in several spots and this could actually be measured in cold and hot spots when we look into the universes pasts heat spread.

Now I am NOT a physists but just some poor slob trying to grasp things far larger then me, but Ive never been a fan of the Big Bang theory or Dark matter/Energy. I actually prefere history but one thing I do know is scientists thru-out history have proven stubbern and jealous of what they percieve as the thruth. It is my belief that all this Dark matter and Energy talk is just a admission that those that believe in certain aspets of science are in fact wrong.

What is that saying in science that says the more complicated a theory is the more odd are it's wrong. But I have faith we are approaching the asnwer soon and will do away with all this Dark talk and move on as we have many times in history.

 

[marcel_leonard]

You would think that someone with a civil engineering degree, or at least a high school education would understand the difference between dark matter and dark energy.

Just out of curiosity since you seem to be so exceptional; could you enlighten me and explain me and all the academic/theoretic physicist out that don't have a clue.......exactly what is Dark Matter, oh and while you're at it please tell us what is exactly is Dark Energy???

 

[MeteorWayne]

No I can't and in fact, nobody else can. That's the whole point of the "dark" part of each term.

That doesn't change the fact that they represent two completely different phenomena which a civil...oh never mind. :roll: