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.
  • #31
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.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #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

and... http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
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.
 
  • #36
Unfortunately a lot of references in those sites are well over 15 years old. The progress made in the development of the big bang theory has been rather well documented. I would suggest getting some more reliable sources as well.

Indeed, the BB theory has passed countless tests as has been stated.
 
  • #37
Originally posted by subtillioN
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.

Well can you explain to me the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.
 
  • #38
cop out
 
  • #39
Greetings !

These are purely speculative ideas that have no known means of experimental verification.
This is what the scientist that wrote that Physics Essays
article in ST's link says about what is theorized to have
happened in the BB. I wonder, when he says "experimental
verification" what precisely does he mean ? Has he ever
seen a virtual pair of particles, or directly interacted
with them or touched them ? Did he ever set his feet on
Mars ? Did he taste the Sun to check it's flavour and
make sure it's "real" ? :wink:

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #40
Originally posted by jcsd
Well can you explain to be the uniformity and istropy of the CPR? Cos, that's one thing I've never seen an alternative theory explain.

Yes the MBR is due to the Planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #41
Originally posted by subtillioN
Yes the MBR is due to the Planck radiation from the ubiquitous interstellar molecular medium.

see http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/COSMIC/Cosmic.html

I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #42
I get the feeling sub is just a troll...
 
  • #43
Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.


1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.
 
  • #44
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".

This is the point where you cease working with the analogy of an explosion and you seek what the math actually says.

The big bang theory says that there was a time when the universe had an extremely small volume (but no boundary) and extremely high temperature. From that time onward the universe has been expanding.



With an ordinary explosion, you can point at a region of the universe and say "Yah, all of the material was there, inside a bomb, then it exploded". (Of course, you still can't find a point that is the exact center of the explosion, but you can say something fuzzy like the bomb was the center of the explosion)

With the big bang, there is no "outside" to the universe from where you can say "Yah, it was all inside that little region at first"; the energy was spread through the entire universe.

But if you really like to cling to analogies, then this will do. After your bomb explodes, can you tell me which atom of the bomb was at the center of the explosion?


The oxymoronic mantra is "finite but unbounded". This nonsense notion is stolen directly from abstract mathematics (curved space)

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)
 
  • #45
Originally posted by jcsd
I have to say that explantion is laughable, why don't we observe more CPR in the region of the sun or stellar sources then?

The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.
 
  • #46
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Analyzed. It makes several faulty connections.


1) The average density of the inteseller hydrogen is quite low, meaning that it should not interact. True some was formed in the past, but not nearly enough. Remember, the hydrogen atoms would have to get close enough to each other through mutual gravitation, which needless to say is extremely feeble.


There are measurements of vast H clouds in interstellar space. It is not as tenuous as you believe. The mere presence of the Hydrogen in interaction with the ambient radiation from stars and other astrophysical objects is enough to account for the MBR.

2) As I stated, the references are old, so it is of no surprise it does not deal at all with the modern Big Ban (also called Inflationary big bang). In this version of it the problems of anisotropy are no longer present.

Inflation is a kludge to fix the huge problem of isotropy of the MBR and a valid argument is a valid argument regardless of its age.

3 The claim that the universe must have been a black hole. While it is generally claimed the universe had some initial singularity, as I had mentioned in some other thread, the BB signularity is a fundamentally different singularity than that in your typical black hole. Also to boot, the properties of physics themselves as well as the strengths of the 4 forces were very different in the early universe (and yes not all of that is theoretical. Particle accelerators have verified that as we get to higher energy levels the behaviors of forces do change, for example, the weak nuclear force and the electromagnetic force couple into the electro-weak force. At even higher temperatures [which we haven't reached yet so this is not yet verified directly] the strong force joins in, and then eventually at the instants of creation so does gravity). Again also it does not take into account the inflationary Big Bang in which quantum fluctuations essentially turn the gravitational field from what is classified as a tensor field into a scalar field and cause immediate exponential expansion until freezing out and returning to normal.

As I said, all this is well documented and a bit of research from credible sources will show it.

There are simpler cosmologies which fit the data much better without the constant readjustments of inflation etc. required by the big bungle.
 
  • #47
there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.
 
  • #48
This may sound picayune, but: The CBR is not isotropic.Recent measurements have demonstrated this (although the means of measurement are taxed to the limit, signal-to-noise-wise).

Incidentally, the spectrum of CBR should tell us the same thing (or the fact that CBR has a spectrum).

The concepts of uniformity and isotropy are related, but different:
CBR may be "uniform" everywhere we look, but not necessarily isotropic (A bit like comparing precision with accuracy).

We can't "see" the future, but we can predict it (A bit like predicting the weather, though).

For example: Assuming the same dimensions, if we could reasonably compare the manifold(s?)) of the CBR with the manifold(s?) of what the Universe looks like today, perhaps we could derive an end-point of some sort.

It may be simplistic to say so, but the fact that CBR is the same everywhere we look may mean the the Universe has no center.

Thanks, Rudi
 
  • #49
Right on, I was just about to say, the CBR is slightly anisotropic..but this is extremely small, which is good. If it were perfectly isotropic, structure would not have emerged in the universe.

Anywho, cases for the Big Bang:

The universe is expanding. This indicates that sometime in the past it was denser.

The CBR. Not only does the thermal spectrum match extraordinarly well with what the BB predicts. Not only that, but we can measure it at cosmic distances as well and show it was hotter in the past (Researchers at the Paranal Observatory showed it was by studing intersteller dust clouds).

Not only that, but the evolution of stars and galaxies and clusters is indicated by the big bang and observed. As are the production of light elements from primordial nucleosythesis.
 
  • #50
Originally posted by subtillioN
The matter in the region near the sun is much hotter obviously. Why would you expect it to stay at 3K. The ambient temperature is very weak and cumulative.

But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.

The correct phrase is "finite but without boundary". Care to explain why it is nonsense? (I make this correction because "unbounded" and "without boundary" really do have totally different meanings)

Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.
 
  • #51
Yes, as brad points out it is slightly anisotropic, but only 1 part in 10,000 a degree of isotropy which means that the source must be very far away.
 
  • #52
Actually Hurkyl, your incorrect, unbounded is the right term here. In cosmological models it means 'without boundaries'.

Sigh, so much for the myth of standardized terminology!
 
  • #53
Originally posted by jcsd
But why don't we see more radiation of the CBR wavelength from the sun? The point is though if it had a stellar origin it would be less isotropic.


The CBR is only measured at ~3K and the matter near the sun is HOTTER than 3K. Therefore it is NOT seen in the 3K CBR surveys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #54
Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
there may be clouds, but the nebulae are not isotropic.

And the argument is not valid in the new big bang. As for simpler cosmologies, I must disagree. All the other possible versions I have read about lead to serious problems. And inflation does not make constant adjustments mind you-it happened once for an extremely short amount of time and is a sound theory.

You are severely lacking in your understanding of the alternatives. Do you know Plasma Cosmology models?

see www.electric-cosmos.org

Learn it and then come back to debate it, otherwise you are just blowing smoke.
 
  • #55
Anywho, cases for the Big Bang:

The universe is expanding. This indicates that sometime in the past it was denser.

The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

The CBR. Not only does the thermal spectrum match extraordinarly well with what the BB predicts.

Actually the steady state model was much more accurate with its prediction.

Not only that, but we can measure it at cosmic distances as well and show it was hotter in the past (Researchers at the Paranal Observatory showed it was by studing intersteller dust clouds).

Obviously if the radiation gets red-shifted it cools down. That is no argument for the BB.

Not only that, but the evolution of stars and galaxies and clusters is indicated by the big bang and observed.

That is completely false. The galaxies at the very edges of the visible universe look EXACTLY the same as those in the very center. The problem is that in a Universe of a mere 15 billion years (only three times as old as the minimum age of the infinitesimal earth) those furthest seen galaxies would have only rotated about two times! That is simply not enough time to create the spiral structure that they exhibit.

As are the production of light elements from primordial nucleosythesis.

Plasma Cosmology can deal with that as well through fusion and fission processes in stars. See www.electric-cosmos.org if you care to understand the alternatives which you are dismissing off-hand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #56
Sub-troll said: The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

I say: No - doppler is one of the hundreds of various INDEPENDANTLY DISCOVERED AND MASSIVELY TESTED ways that the big bang has been proven. Disproving one of them does NOTHING to the theory at all whatsoever.
 
  • #57
Originally posted by CrystalStudios
Sub-troll said: The universe is only expanding according to the doppler interpretation of redshift, but Halton Arp showed this interpretation to be flawed.

I say: No - doppler is one of the hundreds of various INDEPENDANTLY DISCOVERED AND MASSIVELY TESTED ways that the big bang has been proven. Disproving one of them does NOTHING to the theory at all whatsoever.

So is that how you deal with any alternate interpretation? By calling its proponents trolls?

You continually just repeat your mantra that the BBT is beyond reproach continuing to ignore any arguments to the contrary.

This is a sign that your mind has ossified. You can no longer participate in civilized debate.


You say there are HUNDREDS of tests. List them one by one and I will carve them up for you with Occams Razor. I am certainly willing to debate the alternatives.
 
  • #58
You continually just repeat your mantra that the BBT is beyond reproach continuing to ignore any arguments to the contrary.

That's because the arguments to the contrary are directed at a convenient strawman and not BBT itself.



You say there are HUNDREDS of tests. List them one by one and I will carve them up for you with Occams Razor. I am certainly willing to debate the alternatives.

Well, big bang theory is based upon general relativity... and you appear to be a Newton type of guy, so I imagine the discussion would be most productive if we started with the tests of general relativity.


Test 1: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Classical theories were off by 43 arcseconds per century in the calculation of the precession of Mercury's orbit.

General Relativity, however, is dead on.
 
  • #59
Originally posted by Hurkyl
That's because the arguments to the contrary are directed at a convenient strawman and not BBT itself.


Care to back up this or any other statement? I am attacking the BBT head on. If you think otherwise then prove it.

Well, big bang theory is based upon general relativity... and you appear to be a Newton type of guy, so I imagine the discussion would be most productive if we started with the tests of general relativity.

Test 1: Precession of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit.

Classical theories were off by 43 arcseconds per century in the calculation of the precession of Mercury's orbit.

Besides the fact that proving Relativity Theory does not prove BBT the perihelion had been calculated by classical science previously to Einstein and when Einstein calculated it he used Newtonian time not relativistic time to do so. See this classical explanation of the Mercury perihelion.

http://www.Newtonphysics.on.ca/MERCURY/Mercury.html

"Using Einstein's general relativity, it is generally believed that space and time distortions are absolutely required to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury. This is untrue. The advance of the perihelion of Mercury was first calculatd by P. Gerber in 1898 by Paul Gerber (1A). We show here that this phenomenon can be fully explained using Newton's physics and mass-energy conservation, without any relativity principle. Without having to introduce any new physics, we arrive to the same equation as predicted by Einstein. Therefore, the relativity principles are useless. "

General Relativity, however, is dead on.

Well you are half right.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
The Steady state model did not predict a CBR, nor does it have any reason to include a CBR.

And I did some research on this Arp fellow.

Quoted from a site containing his theories

Mainstream astronomy is presently trying to explain away a large set of high redshift quasars that are closely associated with low redshift galaxies as being optical illusions caused by "gravitational lensing". Here, below, are ten examples of such groupings. The only way such an optical illusion could occur is if Earth, a nearby galaxy, and a distant quasar (all three) precisely fall on a single straight line. Could this happen once? Surely. But dozens of times?! Not likely. In fact the probability is vanishingly small.

That alone tells me that we are dealing with a crackpot fringe movement here. It is appealing more to the layperson who does not have a firm grasp of just how immense the cosmos is. It is indeed so immense that such an 'improbable' allignment is actually rather probable. Indeed, such sights that rely on imagination and the massive scientific conspiracy are just plain silly.


And you misunderstood my point about the gas and all. They showed the CBR was hotter, not merely the gas clouds.


That is completely false. The galaxies at the very edges of the visible universe look EXACTLY the same as those in the very center. The problem is that in a Universe of a mere 15 billion years (only three times as old as the minimum age of the infinitesimal earth) those furthest seen galaxies would have only rotated about four times! That is simply not enough time to create the spiral structure that they exhibit.
Not sure what you mean there...in the picture of galaxies ones at the edge look like the center? Or ones further away look like ones closer up? You are mistaken there. They do indeed look different. Generally they are more blob like than spiral shaped.

And unfortuantely for your position, plasma techniques and fusion in stars (indeed fission cannot occur past iron, just as fusion can't occur past iron) create the universal 23-24% helium concentration that is present.


That and it is generally not good when sites you link to deal with such things as "Were the ancients really visited by aliens? We think so!"

D'oh!
 

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