Where is the center of the universe?

rglong

This is presuming that the universe is finite. If it were infinite, then there would be no center.

Tanelorn

If the Universe is not truely infinite would this suggest that there is something else besides the Universe?
I dont mean the observable universe here, I mean the whole Universe which is a continuum of our own observable Universe.
By something else I mean more Universes separate to our own or perhaps something in which our Universe is contained in some way.

DaveC426913

The centre point of a surface is a special, privileged point that no other point on the surface has. There is no point on the surface of a sphere that is privileged, therefore, no point is the centre.

Do you grant that the surface of the Earth is finite in extent, yet has no centre?

What makes you say that?

Some 3D shapes have centres. That does not mean all do.

Then none are unique. Thus, they cannot be centre.

That is correct. The moment you artificially divide it up, providing artificial boundaries, you make artificially privileged points. You would no longer have a surface of a sphere.

If you go nuts with your scissors and cut the Earth's flattened shape into confetti, then your shape will have straight edges and acute vertexes. Does that say anything at all about the original shape of the Earth's surface before you mangled it? Does it mean "the surface of the Earth has straight edges and vertices"?

DaveC426913

It does not suggest it, no.

Nor does it in-and-of-itself rule out there being something else - but not being infinite does not suggest there is anything else.

Tanelorn

Well it is hard to imagine that everything that is or ever can be is finite. There again it is difficult to imagine infinite as well.
It is also hard to imagine that there is any final level of reality or structure, since everything we know of in our everyday life is contained inside or is a part of something else; sub atomic particles, atoms, molecules, planets, solar systems, galaxies, clusters etc.

DaveC426913

We don't have to imagine it. Imagination is flawed by definition, since it depends on things we've experienced before.

The mathematics shows us. It is the only accurate model.

salvestrom

What a bizarre thing to say. I'm pretty sure I've never experienced a thousand mauruading snargle-bangs from Ceti-Prime Zeta demanding my left shoe and some yo-yos. (I may have experienced Douglas Adams at some point).

And an infinite universe is not the only model, you say this yourself. It's also possible that the universe is finite and unbounded. It's also possible there is an outside to what we currently consider the universe, regardless of whether the model requires it.

The moment you consider anything you cannot currently see, you are imagining.

Chronos

There is nothing imaginary about the math. Get used to it.

salvestrom

Imaginary numbers? Virtual particles? Besides, imagination and imaginary are not the same thing.

Chronos

Blue moon and bleu cheese? Blue and bleu are not the same thing. Your point escapes me.

salvestrom

Nobody said anything about math being imaginary, only you brought it up.

Tanelorn

I strongly believe it is not just about the math! The Universe is Physical and not just a computer running a bunch of equations.


Consider x = y * z, it is meaningless and tells us nothing.

However when we add the Physics we get Ohm's law. The Physics allows us to understand what is really going on and the equation allows us to calculate specific numbers.



Back to the earlier discussion; nothing beyond the Observable Universe can be proven to exist.
So we have to extrapolate from the conditions inside our own Universe and assume that homogeneity and isotropy apply beyond it.
For any kind of presumed reality beyond that, we have to list all possible possbilties, or just give up and say we cant do this.
I very much doubt that the rest of reality is blue cheese, but it ok to write it down in a brainstorming session, we can add the odds later.

DaveC426913

I didn't say you can't imagine things, I simply said it depends on things you're already experienced. This is why when you said "...it is hard to imagine that everything that is or ever can be is finite. There again it is difficult to imagine infinite as well..." I pointed out that our imaginations are flawed. Perhaps a better word would have been 'limited'.

You're having difficulty, because it is totally outside your realm of experience. The universe is not obliged to make sense to you.

Tanelorn

The human mind is pretty good at brainstorming and perhaps one of these extra-universe solutions is close to correct, which is why I like to read them all. I have a variation of the colliding branes involving two particles in an infinite space which eventually collide and BB. The problem is this is a localised explosion type BB, whereas we need the BB to occur everywhere in space simultaneously and I believe this requires extra dimensions like the branes hypothesis - unless I am misunderstanding the idea.

salvestrom

Well, for one, I'm not the poster who you are quoting in brackets. :P

I'm not having difficulty. I favour one over the other at present because neither makes a tremendous difference to the model and I prefer finite and unbound. I also never said the universe was oblidged to do anything for me.

I think the statement of imagination being flawed is erroneous. Limited is even worse. I apply the word imagination the moment we consider anything that isn't present, particularly the future.

Is imagination rooted in past experience? Not entirely. Is it able to produce something "unreal". Definitely. But so can mathematics. Dragons versus 11-dimensions. Ooh. 11-dimensional space dragons. I have to go write that down. /hug

SHISHKABOB

can you imagine something that is entirely unrelated to something that you have once experienced? It's like trying to imagine another color.

ynot1

No. You must have experienced the ingredients going into images before you can form an image. The re-configuration of these ingredients is where creativity comes into play.