What is the center of the universe?

In summary: Phinds, don't be put off by naive questions - we all have suffered that disorder. Cosmology is complicated. I like them, they are the easiest to...In summary, Phinds does not believe that asking questions that are seemingly naive is a sign of a lack of intelligence.
  • #36
Wanted said:
You can't have things moving away from you in a direction in which things are not occupied. If you happened to be there. Sure you'd have things moving away from you in one direction... but not every. Edge simply means you are ahead of anything else in the direction you are traveling and will cease to see anything new in the direction you're traveling because you have already passed everything or were already ahead to begin with.

Again, there is no edge. You can travel as far as you like but you will never find an edge. You will only keep finding matter in all directions.

Wanted said:
There has to be an expanding edge because the universe is constantly expanding in unoccupied space. There is no absolute center because center has many definitions and fulfilling these definitions requires indeterminable data or doesn't have a center.

The universe is not expanding into unoccupied space. The distance between all unbound objects is simply growing larger over time.

Wanted said:
The first link explains why the TBB is not a point, which is not a claim I am making.
The second links explains a list of things only a few of which I can find directly relevant (would help if you were specific). The relevant section I found was http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html which states there is no center based on the predication that center is defined as a point in which everything moves away from which I agree it does not have.

What you claimed, and what you claim that you've claimed, do not match. Your explanations require that the universe expanded outwards from a single point, whether you realize they do or not.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #37
Drakkith said:
Again, there is no edge. You can travel as far as you like but you will never find an edge. You will only keep finding matter in all directions.

In order for this to be true the amount of matter in the universe would have to be infinite. Something for which there is no verifiable/observable evidence to suggest.

The observable universe is 46.6 billion light years across with a finite amount of matter.
Drakkith said:
The universe is not expanding into unoccupied space. The distance between all unbound objects is simply growing larger over time.

Based on the previous predication for which there is no verifiable/observable evidence.
Drakkith said:
What you claimed, and what you claim that you've claimed, do not match. Your explanations require that the universe expanded outwards from a single point, whether you realize they do or not.

Only if based on the predication of universe with infinite mass which for which there is no verifiable/observable evidence.

Imho, and many others, finite matter is more rational than infinite matter. In which case the previous claims would not be invalidated by the assumptions in the context of infinite matter.
 
  • #38
Wanted said:
In order for this to be true the amount of matter in the universe would have to be infinite. Something for which there is no verifiable/observable evidence to suggest.

That is another incorrect statement. It is entirely possible for the universe to be unbounded yet finite, which would still mean that there is no edge and no center despite there being a finite amount of matter. In any case, I know of no accepted cosmological models where the universe is infinite and unbounded yet doesn't have an infinite amount of matter.

Wanted said:
Imho, and many others, finite matter is more rational than infinite matter. In which case the previous claims would not be invalidated by the assumptions in the context of infinite matter.

You opinion on the rationality of infinite vs finite is irrelevant. The models that are most accepted by cosmologists are those where the matter in the universe is homogeneous at the largest scale. Models in which matter is not homogeneous (as required by any model with an 'edge') are, generally, not looked upon favorably, as they lack both evidence and rigorous theories to support them.
 
  • #39
Thread locked for moderation.
 

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
4
Replies
106
Views
10K
Replies
54
Views
3K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
33
Views
3K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Back
Top