What Lies at the Center of the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter The Grimmus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Center
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the concept of whether the universe has a center, with participants debating the implications of the Big Bang theory. Some argue that the universe is finite but unbounded, suggesting that while it has a size, it lacks a definitive center, akin to the surface of a sphere. Others assert that the universe's expansion and the nature of space imply there is no central point, challenging the idea of a black hole at the universe's center. The conversation also touches on the complexities of cosmic curvature and the limitations of current scientific understanding. Ultimately, the consensus leans towards the notion that the universe does not have a center in a traditional sense.
  • #271


Originally posted by russ_watters
Many people are uncomforable with the implications of the math and as such reject the idea that the math represents physical reality. But as a scientist you can't reject something because its implications aren't what you would LIKE the universe to look like. subtillioN, you're falling into that trap. Like it or not, QM is al about wave functions and probability.


Well if I didn't know a model in which EVERY aspect of quantum mechanics is causally understandable then I might take your comments seriously, perhaps... well probably not.

Since you don't know Sorce Theory, and thus you don't have any alternative theory to compare QM with then how do you know that it isn't you who has fallen for the trap of the premature solidification of an incomplete theory?

The standard model is a complete mess when seen in comparison to Sorce Theory. but don't take my word for it.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #272
Sigh, this thread reminds me of alt.sci.physics.
 
  • #273
Just what is a Sorce anyways? It sounds like it should be called source. And incidently the only information (perhaps fittingly) that seems to come up overwhelmingly for it relates to the relationships between the gospels and/or hindu and/or mystic scripts.


Anyways, how can it fit every aspect of QM when you claim that QM is wrong anyways because it is based off of mathematics? Something that incorperates every aspect of something you claim to be wrong has to be wrong too. The reason for that is because QM does not follow our common sense at all in most every aspect, but rather, it follows our math very well. So well in fact, we can conduct numerous experiments with it, and even construct hardware, such as lasers, or scanning tunneling electron microscopes among other things.
 
  • #274
Originally posted by Eh
Sigh, this thread reminds me of alt.sci.physics.


just ignore the possibilities... there are too many of them...
 
  • #275
Yes, there are countless ether theories and general ideas from folks who never learned either quantum theory or GR, but are still sure that their new theory solves the problems of both.

Oh well, that's what one can expect from newgroups, though not necessarily physicsforums.
 
  • #276
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Just what is a Sorce anyways?

Sorce is a word for a pressure in a continuous compressible substance.

It sounds like it should be called source.
Think of it as single force.

And incidently the only information (perhaps fittingly) that seems to come up overwhelmingly for it relates to the relationships between the gospels and/or hindu and/or mystic scripts.

hmmm interesting...no relation...

Anyways, how can it fit every aspect of QM when you claim that QM is wrong anyways because it is based off of mathematics?

The mathematics is fairly correct so far but the interpretations are completely wrong. The mathematics says that quantum reality is a zero-energy superfluid and Sorce Theory takes this fluid to be real instead of mathematical.

Sorce Theory takes the mathematics at face value as a representation of physical reality not as a replacement for it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #277
Originally posted by meteor
Me!. I believe that the Universe is finite and has a center
I like this idea becuse I can provide an explanation for the appearance of the universe: a quantum fluctuation (or something akin).
The idea of an infinite universe appearing from nothing has no explanation-therefore I don't like the idea
I've noticed that here many people is scared of the idea of a boundary.Why?
I can't give any prove of that a finite universe is correct. It's only my hunch. I can be totally wrong

I for one am not SCARED of the idea of a boundary. It is just an unnecessary complication. It is "extra baggage".
I do not need a boudary to space in order for things to make sense.

To get away from my own personal views, as far as I can tell the mainstream picture of cosmology (what the experts say they tentatively take as working assumptions) also involves no boundary to space. The consensus assumption seems not to be spatial flatness---essentially regular Euclidean space---on large scale.


I don't think "appearing out of nothing" is a good picture. It does not fit what cosmologists are talking about.
the last paper I looked at had an extension to before the time-zero singularity. Space was infinite in extent before time-zero and at time-zero and after.
It was (actually several papers) concerned with using a quantum analysis to remove the singularity that occurs at time-zero in the 1916 GR model.
Quantum mechanics does not in any way depend on having space be finite!
So it seems that people can deal with time-zero, or at least are working on it and getting preliminary results
and there is no "nothing" before that moment
what is before is infinite but different and some kind of
radical change happens but the evolution of it is governed by equations and does not involve
divergences (divergent curvature was why the 1916 GR model broke at time zero). Here the parameters stay under control. It is not
conclusive but it is promising.

I did not see any mention of a "quantum fluctuation" in these recent papers. Am not sure how that would work to create space.
But anyway in the most recent stuff I've read (Bojowald, Ashtekar, Lewandowski and others) there is no "nothing" before the timezero transition and the U did not appear out of nothing
and there was no original "quantum fluctuation" in the model.

All this stuff is unknown----a total terra incog----so ultimately we may prefer to believe the Hindu model that it came out of a lotus that grew from Shiva's navel as he slept upon the 7 headed cobra that was in turn floating on the (infinite) ocean. Seriously. It aint so bad as a model either.
 
  • #278
Originally posted by Eh
Yes, there are countless ether theories and general ideas from folks who never learned either quantum theory or GR, but are still sure that their new theory solves the problems of both.



Well I have seen my share of those simple models but there is simply no comparison with Sorce Theory which is extremely detailed qualitatively and quantitatively in around ten or so books some of which are thousands of pages each.
 
  • #279
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #280
Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Ok, how about this... http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html. Can the Sorce model explain this ?

I have never heard of this before. Can you give me a bit more information with perhaps some images of the cosmic "stretch-marks"?

BTW it sounds like the "Fingers of God" phenomenon discussed earlier in this thread (or was it another one?) which shows the Velocity-to-distance mapping to be incorrect. I would bet that it is another artifact of the faulty doppler interpretation of red-shift.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
scroll down to near the bottom of the page...

"The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.)

Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate.

How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become. "
 
  • #281
Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Ok, how about this... http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html. Can the Sorce model explain this ?

BTW the article shows many historical inaccuracies, such as:

"The remarkable expansion of the universe was discovered in 1929 by CalTech astronomer Edwin Hubble, who showed that distant galaxies are systematically moving away from us and from each other."

Hubble simply found that there was a relationship between distance and red-shift. He did not believe that this meant that the galaxies were actually moving away from us. That assumption is pure speculation and interpretation which the "Fingers of God" and the "Cosmic Stretch marks" show is inaccurate.
 
  • #282
and there is no "nothing" before that moment
what is before is infinite but different and some kind of
radical change happens but the evolution of it is governed by equations and does not involve
divergences (divergent curvature was why the 1916 GR model broke at time zero). Here the parameters stay under control. It is not
conclusive but it is promising.

OK, this sounds interesting. So, essentially you're saying that before Big-Bang existed something that we can call "pre-space", that I must suppose that was not expanding. Then suddenly, at time zero, Big Bang and expansion. What kind of mechanism can afford this, some phase transition? I don't know.
 
  • #283
Originally posted by subtillioN
I have never heard of this before. Can you give me a bit more information with perhaps some images of the cosmic "stretch-marks"?

BTW it sounds like the "Fingers of God" phenomenon discussed earlier in this thread (or was it another one?) which shows the Velocity-to-distance mapping to be incorrect. I would bet that it is another artifact of the faulty doppler interpretation of red-shift.
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that Earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations :smile:
 
  • #284
Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that Earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations :smile:

Just a quick note before reading this article, energy of all forms is quantized at many levels. I see no particular reason why the mechanism of redshift wouldn't be quantized as well.

I will give this a thorough reading soon and come back with my feedback. It sounds fascinating, thanks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #285
Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that Earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations :smile:

The images suggest to me that it could very easily be a consequence of the inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the red-shift.

See this link I already provided as a possible mechanism for the red-shift:
http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/hydrogen/index.html

Meanwhile, back to reading the article.
 
  • #286
Originally posted by Hydr0matic
It's not like the "Fingers of God" no.. Here is another paper which includes graphic elements.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Although this is not a reliable source, and the author interprets the quantization as evidence that Earth is the center of the universe, it will perhaps enlighten you a bit more about the quantization. Sorry I couldn't find anything else. Please disregard the author's interpretations :smile:

Ok here is my very simple answer.

Look closely with a critical eye. The data graphs do not match the illustrations of the concentric shells nor do they match the simulations. This leads me to assume that it is a simple inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the inhomogeneity (bunching) of the red-shifts.

"The heart of the big bang is atheism"

Is that the kind of thing you were warning me about?

[[[ seems inverted to me! ]]]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #287
Originally posted by subtillioN
Ok here is my very simple answer.

Look closely with a critical eye. The data graphs do not match the illustrations of the concentric shells nor do they match the simulations. This leads me to assume that it is a simple inhomogeneity of the intersteller medium which causes the inhomogeneity (bunching) of the red-shifts.
So you're saying that it's the very specific distribution of the H2 that's causing the quantization ? Just so I'm clear on what your saying...

Originally posted by subtillioN
"The heart of the big bang is atheism"

Is that the kind of thing you were warning me about?

[[[ seems inverted to me! ]]]
Among other things :wink: ..

Let's revisit the Hubble Law... You say that the "velocity to distance mapping is proven to give incorrect results", and yet you agree there's actually a redshift-distance relation (which you explain with intergalactic H2? Have I understood you correct?). But not only is intergalactic gas responsible for redshifts, there's also an inherent redshift signifying an objects age, correct ? Not to mention the doppler effect.

So how, in Sorce theory, does one know if an object is far away, young or fast moving, judging by it's redshift ?
 
  • #288
Originally posted by Hydr0matic
So you're saying that it's the very specific distribution of the H2 that's causing the quantization ? Just so I'm clear on what your saying...


Yes that is correct.

Let's revisit the Hubble Law... You say that the "velocity to distance mapping is proven to give incorrect results", and yet you agree there's actually a redshift-distance relation (which you explain with intergalactic H2? Have I understood you correct?).

Yes the red-shift to distance relationship is real but it is not a linear absolute projection. It is far from an exact relation.

But not only is intergalactic gas responsible for redshifts, there's also an inherent redshift signifying an objects age, correct?

There is some corelation with age it seems.

Not to mention the doppler effect.

Right, there is also a doppler effect from objects in motion.

So how, in Sorce theory, does one know if an object is far away, young or fast moving, judging by it's redshift ?

Sorce Theory is no different in respect to this phenomenon. It uses all the known techniques for determining distance. They simply must be used in conjunction with full awareness of the limitations of each.

Sorce Theory is a Unification Theory. It explains the nature of quantum scale phenomena and all the forces and unifies and explains these recurring matter/energy patterns appearing on many scales in the Universe.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #289
Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes that is correct.
Ok. Wouldn't the H2 distribution have to be pretty non-random to give that kind of redshift distribution ? What do you suppose could have caused this non-random distribution ?
 
  • #290
Originally posted by Hydr0matic
Ok. Wouldn't the H2 distribution have to be pretty non-random to give that kind of redshift distribution ? What do you suppose could have caused this non-random distribution ?

It is well known that the H2 distribution is quite anisotropic. There have been observations of vast hydrogen clouds surrounding galaxies and existing in intergalactic space.
 
  • #291
Originally posted by Arc_Central
...there is one thing that ticks me off...that character by the name of Chroot. I've seen maybe a dozen of his post so far, and have yet to see anything off substance.
Hey, I go on vacation for a couple of days, and miss some good ol' chroot bashing! Well, I just have to retort.

First, you admit having only seen [maybe] a dozen of my posts. I've posted, thus far, 460 times. I've posted a dozen times in this thread alone, in response to this entertaining wacko subtillioN. You've seen [maybe] 2.5% of my posts on this site.

For your own edification, I suggest you learn to use the 'search' feature here on physicsforums before making a fool of yourself. Since your substance-o-meter seems to be broken, here are some of my recent posts that I personally feel are bursting at the seams with 'substance.'

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=44233#post44233
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=42236#post42236
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=41293#post41293
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40527#post40527
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=40490#post40490
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=39929#post39929

and so on, and so on. Mmmmmmm, substance.
Whip it out! Put up or shut up! Enough of this perverted display.
Consider it whipped out.
I can only say either bring it up to the plate and show us a swinging #@%&
Wow, you're really fond of the penis references, aren't you? You might be interested to know that, in addition to my physical prowess, my cock is, in fact, also bigger than yours.

- Warren
 
  • #292
Consider this cut off.
 

Similar threads

I Why Do Galaxies Spin and What Drives Their Motion?
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
8K
Stargazing Dark matter and its effect on the orbit of stars
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
B I Need Help on Understanding Some Basic Astrophysics / Sand Clock Universe
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
B What keeps most galactic stars from falling into the centeral black hole?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
A Gravity as space-time curvature?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
B Nuclear Fusion in the Singularity
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
What is the center of a globular clusters made of?
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
9K
I How is Adaptive Optics Revolutionizing Our Understanding of the Galactic Center?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Early Universe massive Black Holes question
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
I Is there a radial gradient of redshifts within individual galaxies?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K