Where is the center of the universe?

Wherever we start can be fairly regarded as an hypothesis. Whether an hypothesis becomes the core of effective physical understanding, or the basic dogma of another religion, depends upon what we do with it.

If we can derive it mathematically from a bit of observational evidence, and test it empirically, then it's usually science. If it predicts something we'd otherwise not have known, then it is almost certainly science.

But if we insist that an hypothesis came inscribed on golden tablets, since removed to heaven, and cannot possibly test it, then it's religion.

If we wake up some morning suddenly knowing the secrets pf the universe, and wrap a bunch of coherent polysyllabic words around our notions but never bother to test any assumptions or trouble ourselves with predictions, we've got another philosophy.

IMO BB theory is in the neverland of what I'd call, physical theology. While derived by scientists, it lacks some properties which we normally associate with sound science. Moreover, the Big Bang's mysterious precursor shares more characteristics with the God of Christianity than with any known physical phenomenon. (Mysterious or non-existent origin, containing/creating all matter and energy, yet doing so without credible cause or purpose.)

Something's not right with BB theory.

As to how the laws of nature came about, that would be the real question in my mind.

But if we insist that an hypothesis came inscribed on golden tablets, since removed to heaven, and cannot possibly test it, then it's religion.

Interesting in my view the turning point in man's evolution may be the sun god - the corona. Four footed creatures, when the skies turned dark, probably thought it was time for a nap. But some bipeds looked up and saw the corona and the only way they could interpret it was as a sun god. This earth-moon-sun geometry may be essential for the evolution of man. If the geometry was off by maybe 3% the bipeds may have never bothered to lookup and begin to wonder. And so now we build telescopes and still wonder. Point being science may owe it all to some form of mystery.

Unlikely. Solar eclipses are so rare for any spot on the surface and the Sun itself is so important to everyday life that it is much more likely that a Sun God was made just out of a need to try to explain what the Sun was. In any case science is 100% about finding out the "mystery" of the universe and explaining it using the scientific method.

Hmm. Reading thru the wikipedia page on antimatter the most straightforward disproof of them travelling backward in time is that scientist create billions of them these days and we can see them. I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to be able to see something moving backward in time (a trait attached to tachyons).

Most physical laws allow time reversibility

Could be but note rarity is an essential part of the mystery. It separates the believers from the unbelievers. Nobody is really surprised when the sun comes up in the morning.

Greylorn Re:

I have had similar misgivings, perhaps because the BB theory isnt even complete yet? Also there is always going to be one more level of cause and effect. e.g. what caused the Branes that caused the BB? etc. Saying that however, it is still good to learn as much as possible about each of these steps regardless.

Do they? Although any physical reaction can be modelled backward as well as it can be forward, I'm not sure saying 'allowed' is accurate. The laws of physics are mathematical descriptions, not facilitators. The question isn't can we model two planets uncolliding (sure we can), it is: can two planets uncollide?

Yes, per Feynman, although the probability of such an event is pretty remote.

"Do they?" was rhetorical sarcasm over your use of the word "allow".

I would say he has used the word correctly, and agree with his statement.

If the universe does not have a center then it cannot be finite.

I am just putting what my thoughts are
since all finite matter has a center and the universe is finite, that it must have a defined center even if you are on a lake and look around and cant see the shore as a frame of referance, the lake still has a center. Our inablity to find the center does not mean that the center does not exist. If the universe does not have a center then it cannot be finite.

This is not at all true.

You are standing on the surface of the Earth - a 2-dimensional plane with a finite area. Where is the centre of the Earth's surface?

would it be that there is no center or that every point is the center? Or is there a difference between those two?