Center of the Univers

  • #1
The Grimmus
200
0
I have heard very little about what is suposedly there. I heard one perosn say a black hole...ok actulay that is all i heard.

But what is there and what causes all of the galxy clusters to revolve around it
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Solar systems have suns around them.

The stars (no matter if they have planets or not) make up a galaxy.

At the center of every galaxy discovered so far, is a black hole.

A galaxy is rotating.

The step up from a galaxy is far just the universe itself.

I have never ever heard any scientific experimentation or theory that talks about what is at the center.

Based on the big bang I was say nothing is at the center.

The universe is not rotating at all = it's just expanding - so there's nothing there.

that's all the input I have! I have yet to read any scientific data about the center of the U.

But as far as I know - it's way to far away to detect even anything that would give an answer
 
  • #3
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,967
19
The universe is hypothesized to be boundaryless; thus "center of the universe" is a nonsensical term.

IOW there is no center to the universe.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by Hurkyl
The universe is hypothesized to be boundaryless; thus "center of the universe" is a nonsensical term.

IOW there is no center to the universe.


Nah - the universe has already been proven to be of finite size.

Any other theory is old-world.
 
  • #5
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,770
790
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Nah - the universe has already been proven to be of finite size.

Any other theory is old-world.

I'm curious. Why do you think it has been "proven" to be of finite size?
 
  • #6
Originally posted by marcus
I'm curious. Why do you think it has been "proven" to be of finite size?

Good question.

The big bang has been proven. As the big bang expanded, it continueed to expand the size of the universe - as far as the matter and light of the big bang stretched, that was the size of the universe at that moment.

So right this second, the universe is exactly the radius in light years, the years of which is the exact age of the universe, since the big bang.

Simple as that.

In other words, you cannot have the big bang and have an infinite universe. Because the universe is defined by how far light has traveled since the big bang.

The big bang created space - space did not exist before it.
 
  • #7
physicskid
75
0
I thought that the universe's center is unacessible because it does not have a dimension, like Earth with an unbreakable crust. We only live on the surface of it.
 
  • #8
Good subject>

Is the Universe finite? Probably.
Does it have a center. Well, probably not quite: The curvature of space-time prevents us from defining a center.
A center is based upon 'anthropic' views. It probably does not have an independant physical location.
We have discovered "laws" of Physics which are probably a reflection of the true state of matter-energy. But the universe could care less.

Basically, all we have is Logic/Scientific Method, an artificial system of iteration/measurement and, possibly, insight/intuition.
These are probably puny weapons in a quest for understanding.

Mankind has aquired bodies of knowledge which, to us, are quite impressive. But how does this knowledge compare to that obtainable? Probably miniscule.

We are very, very far from a Theory of Everything. But perhaps the search, the game itself, is the point.

Thanks, Rudi
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
The univberse doesn't have a centre, though it is thought be closed(i.e. be of finite size) it is also thought to be boundless (i.e. without boundaries) like Hurkyl said. The best analogy is the surface of a sphere as it is finite in size but lacks any boundaries.
 
  • #10
drag
Science Advisor
1,100
1
Greetings !

TG,
The Universe does not have a center. Like jcsd said, think
of all the Universe being located on the surface of
a sphere. The sphere expans and points on the sphere
get further apart from each other, but there's no location
in the Universe that is central.

CS,
The Universe may be infinite. The Universe does
not expand at c but rather faster which is why it does
not have a radius in LYs equal to its age. As for the BB,
it is scientificly proven to a certain extent, but not
all the way, of course.

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #11
marcus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
24,770
790
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Good question.

The big bang has been proven. As the big bang expanded, it continueed to expand the size of the universe - as far as the matter and light of the big bang stretched, that was the size of the universe at that moment.

So right this second, the universe is exactly the radius in light years, the years of which is the exact age of the universe, since the big bang.

Simple as that.

In other words, you cannot have the big bang and have an infinite universe. Because the universe is defined by how far light has traveled since the big bang.

The big bang created space - space did not exist before it.

The accepted picture of the big bang, at least to the best of my knowledge, is that it is infinite in spatial extent.

At least this is what is assumed in every recent article I've seen.

So talking about the big bang would seem to confirm that the universe is infinite.

A good recent (May 2003) overview of cosmology is in

Lineweaver "Inflation and the Cosmic Microwave Background"

arxiv: astro-ph/0305179

a good spacetime diagram suggesting the infinite extent of space is Lineweaver's figure 5, in which figure 1 (showing our finite horizon) is a small insert.

Lineweaver was one of those in charge of COBE which mapped the CMB and has a firsthand knowledge of the new dataset on which cosmology is based, IMO it's well worth checking out what he has to say about the universe---its infinite extent is only one of several interesting features
 
  • #12
Originally posted by marcus
The accepted picture of the big bang, at least to the best of my knowledge, is that it is infinite in spatial extent.


The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space) as is the nonsense notion of a "singularity". Neither of those terms have any causally definable meaning wrt physical reality.
 
  • #13
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
ermmm, yes the conventional model of the universe is finite and unbounded, but curved space has been observed at our own sun and the large scale curvature of the universe has supporting physical evidence in the shape of the reshift magnitude test (i.e. the lensing of the furthest redshifted sources which increases their apparent magnitude).

That said, I believe no sugnificant curvature was found by COBE.
 
  • #14
Eh
746
1
It's a common misconception that the big bang implies the universe is finite. In actual, the theory says nothing about the overall size of the universe, only that it began to expand from a much denser, hotter state.
 
  • #15
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by subtillioN
The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space) as is the nonsense notion of a "singularity". Neither of those terms have any causally definable meaning wrt physical reality.

Why is the notion of curved spaces nonsense while flat Euclidean space is acceptable?

Awaiting your well reasoned and logical response.
 
  • #16
Originally posted by Eh
Why is the notion of curved spaces nonsense while flat Euclidean space is acceptable?

Awaiting your well reasoned and logical response.

Space is a metrical abstraction. In reality the Universe is neither flat not curved.
 
  • #17
Eh
746
1
So the universe has no structure or size at all? If it does, what is the geometry of it?
 
  • #18
Originally posted by jcsd
ermmm, yes the conventional model of the universe is finite and unbounded, but curved space has been observed at our own sun

The "spatial curvature" found was much more complex than the model of relativity could explain. And the notion of curvature is simply a method of quantifying the increased density of the field surrounding the sun.
 
  • #19
Originally posted by Eh
So the universe has no structure or size at all? If it does, what is the geometry of it?

I did not say the Universe has no structure. I said that our mappings of its structure are not the same thing as its actual structure.
 
  • #20
Eh
746
1
Ok, so what is the actual geometric structure of the universe if not Euclidean or curved?
 
  • #21
The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not
 
  • #22
Originally posted by Eh
Ok, so what is the actual geometric structure of the universe if not Euclidean or curved?

It doesn't have a geometric structure. Geometry is a method of measurement (metry).
 
  • #23
Eh
746
1
You can't have size without geometric structure, by definition since volume is also a geometric term. So taking away the geometry is the same as claiming the universe has no size.
 
  • #24
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not

String theory is a desperate kludge of a dying theory. Dimensions are a metrical abstraction as well. No one has ever seen a dimension.

There was no big bang so there is no center of the universe either.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Originally posted by Eh
You can't have size without geometric structure, by definition since volume is also a geometric term. So taking away the geometry is the same as claiming the universe has no size.

No the point is not to confuse our metrical tools with reality. There is no causal explanation of how space could be finite but unbounded and there is no evidence to support the notion.
 
  • #26
Eh
746
1
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
The universe has absolutely been found to have curbature.

The WMAP findings deal with the overall curvature on average. In that sense, space is flat.

Meaning that one of the ten dimensions proven to exist by string theory is on a very large scale.

This is the evidence of the surface sphere state of our universe.

There is absolutely no evidence to support either string theory or any extra dimensions. None, zero, ziltch, nadda etc.

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.

Every path taken by matter or waves from the BB created space. Thus there is a line of space from earth to the exact center of the BB is there not?

Tell you why not

Where is the center of the surface of a balloon?
 
  • #27
Originally posted by Eh
The WMAP findings deal with the overall curvature on average. In that sense, space is flat.



There is absolutely no evidence to support either string theory or any extra dimensions. None, zero, ziltch, nadda etc.



Where is the center of the surface of a balloon?

Yes in that metrical sense "space" is flat. The Universe is no balloon!!!

I think we are agreeing with each other on many accounts. :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
Originally posted by CrystalStudios

SO I see that the big bang would have thrown everything outwards, but i disagree that their is no center.


Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded". The problem is that The Big Bungle is not a logical theory. So to believe in it is to compromise your logic center in your brain. I say "GIVE IT UP!" There are better models that don't require such a debilitating compromise!

see www.electric-cosmos.org[/url] and [url]www.anpheon.org[/URL]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
Originally posted by subtillioN
Your logical mind says that in any finite explosion there must be a point definable as a "center" yet this is forbidden by the abstract non-sensical notion of the universe as "finite but unbounded". The problem is that The Big Bungle is not a logical theory. So to believe in it is to compromise your logic center in your brain. I say "GIVE IT UP!" There are better models that don't require such a debilitating compromise!


Haha this guy thinks the BB is a myth. Everyone laugh at him.


I suppose you think logic proves the unicorns and elves made the universe?> gagaa man oh man, you make ME look good!
 
  • #30
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Haha this guy thinks the BB is a myth. Everyone laugh at him.


I suppose you think logic proves the unicorns and elves made the universe?> gagaa man oh man, you make ME look good!

Heckling? Lol look what you have resorted to!!!

You suppose wrong and a desperate appeal to the mob mentality that you subscribe to is the weakest form of argument.

Check the link below and make your arguments against it... if you can open your blinders that far.


http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
non- big bang cosmology (or more strictly steady state theories) in general have theses problems:

1) cannot explain the CBR and it's istropy and uniformity

2) cannot explain the redshifting of distant sources

3) cannot explain the redshift magnitude test and the predicted curvature of the universe.

subtillion, I recommend you find out more about cosmology and the problems facing non-big bang cosmologys.
 
  • #32
Originally posted by jcsd
non- big bang cosmology (or more strictly steady state theories) in general have theses problems:

1) cannot explain the CBR and it's istropy and uniformity

2) cannot explain the redshifting of distant sources

3) cannot explain the redshift magnitude test and the predicted curvature of the universe.

subtillion, I recommend you find out more about cosmology and the problems facing non-big bang cosmologys.

Thanks but I recommend the inverse for you, because your assumptions are absolutely not true. I have researched both sides and it appears that the same cannot be said for you.


see www.electric-cosmos.org

and see also http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

and http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html [Broken]

and... http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
jcsd
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,101
12
When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by jcsd
When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.

Exactly my man.

Other theories often seem to show some small part of the BB isn't right. But it could be human error in perception of one little idea.

However the BB has been proven from hundreds of independant angles and theories, as well as experimentation - and so it can't be a result in error because it has so many strengths to it.

Right on my man!
 
  • #35
Originally posted by jcsd
When you go to university to do an astrophysics related course like I did, you study the other models too so I am perfectly aware of the various other models. The problem is that they all have some fatal flaw in that predictions they make fail or that they fail to predict some observations.

That is absolute bull****. I have gone to a university and they do NOT deal with the alternatives. When they do mention them they mis represent them drastically.

If you can deal with the alternatives then prove it and debate the links I posted.
 

Suggested for: Center of the Univers

  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
46
Views
36K
Replies
106
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
26
Views
7K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
59
Views
14K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
6K
Top