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.
  • #151
Originally posted by subtillioN
The simple fact is that I do not believe in relativity theory. That gives me license to ask ANY question I like. Such a license is quite usefull really, when trying to get to the truth.

Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

There are many questions that one is not "supposed" to ask when dealing with relativity theory. That is because the theory is far removed from experience-based logic and must maintain the hermetic seal of its alternative logic chamber in order to function. When one asks questions based on the logic of experience, one breaks this seal and contaminates the structure of the logic with experience of reality. When this happens the whole self-consistent, self-referential logic structure grinds to a halt.

Like I said, you have to learn what a certain theory actually says before proclaiming it to suffer from logical inconsistencies.

That pidgeon-hole technique is just a mechanism that believers use to justify the continuation of their ignorance of an alternate i.e. "dissident" pov.

Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. Legit science continues to make enormous progress, while cranks continue to accomplish absolutely nothing. Coincidence?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #152
Originally posted by chroot
I can guarantee that subtillioN (a self-proclaimed explorer, thinker, plasma cosmologist and anti-relativity zealot) cannot explain to us what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

I can guarantee that Warren (an inherently zeno-phobic individual) can not give a mechanism for gravity.
 
  • #153
Originally posted by subtillioN
I can guarantee that Warren (an inherently zeno-phobic individual) can not give a mechanism for gravity.
Actually, I thought Zeno served up some pretty good food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant 'xenophobic,' but in reality, some of my best friends are foreigners.

Oh well, you still can't tell me what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren
 
  • #154
Originally posted by Eh
Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.


The fact is that I have studied Relativity. It is not dishonest whatsoever.


So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.

So let us debate the alternatives. That is my point.

Like I said, you have to learn what a certain theory actually says before proclaiming it to suffer from logical inconsistencies.

I know what it actually says. What makes you think that I don't? and be specific.

Yeah yeah, I've heard it all before. Legit science continues to make enormous progress, while cranks continue to accomplish absolutely nothing. Coincidence?

So I guess you would have called the Copernican model of the solar system a "crank" theory just because it was not established at some point in time.
 
  • #155
Originally posted by chroot
Actually, I thought Zeno served up some pretty good food for thought.

Or perhaps you meant 'xenophobic,' but in reality, some of my best friends are foreigners.

Oh well, you still can't tell me what the Einstein equation is.

- Warren

Zeno was wrong too.

So you don't know something that I do and vice versa. Big deal.

Enough with this banal ad hominem nonsense. Let's discuss the alternatives.
 
  • #156
Originally posted by subtillioN
I know what it actually says. What makes you think that I don't? and be specific.
You don't know what the Einstein equation is. How much more specific do I need to be?

- Warren
 
  • #157
Originally posted by subtillioN
So you don't know something that I do and vice versa. Big deal.
What don't I know? A mechanism for gravity? GR is a mechanism for gravity. A precient one, too.

- Warren
 
  • #158
Originally posted by chroot
You don't know what the Einstein equation is. How much more specific do I need to be?

- Warren

Are you claiming that one can not understand relativity without knowing the mathematical formalisms?

That is not what my professor said.
 
  • #159
Originally posted by chroot
What don't I know? A mechanism for gravity? GR is a mechanism for gravity. A precient one, too.

- Warren

That is a description of the effect of an unknown mechanism.

Please tell me HOW mass creates a gravitational field. And then proceed to tell me how this field ACTUALLY changes the motion of an object.
 
  • #160
Originally posted by subtillioN
Are you claiming that one can not understand relativity without knowing the mathematical formalisms?

That is not what my professor said.
Sounds like you need a new professor.

- Warren
 
  • #161
Originally posted by subtillioN
That is a description of the effect of an unknown mechanism.

Please tell me HOW mass creates a gravitational field. And then proceed to tell me how this field ACTUALLY changes the motion of an object.
Please tell me HOW 1 + 1 = 2. And then proceed to tell me how this equation ACTUALLY predicts the structure of the integers.

(Psst.. there are axioms in any system -- even yours!)

- Warren
 
  • #162
Originally posted by chroot
Please tell me HOW 1 + 1 = 2. And then proceed to tell me how this equation ACTUALLY predicts the structure of the integers.

(Psst.. there are axioms in any system -- even yours!)

- Warren

get real. I am talking about the physical mechanism of gravity which you can only think of abstractly several levels removed from the level of causality.


Of course there are axioms in any quantitative system. But the point is to distinguish between mathematical formalisms and reality. They are not the same thing, BTW.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #163
Originally posted by Eh
Most people here don't believe in cartoon theories of GR either. Asking questions is what forums like these are all about, but to proclaim you've studied the theory after asking the said questions (which clearly show you have not) is rather dishonest.

So it will take a little more intellectual honesty to get anything out of these forums. Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.


I simply understand it from a different point of view which can only exist if you don't believe in the theory. So to say that because I talk about it differently than the flock does not prove that I don't understand it at all or that I have never studied it.

The fact is that Relativity theory is incorrect and superfluous to the understanding of physical reality.

See this article for some Sorce Theory about Relativity.
http://home.comcast.net/~anpheon/html/Articles/4LP.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #164
Originally posted by Eh
Simply screaming that current theories are wrong and quoting plasma cosmologists is not going to help anyone.


You are correct, no one seems willing to entertain any alternative to the prevailing theory. There doesn't even seem to be any curiosity even with all the problems of the standard model that Plasma Cosmology claims to fix. I would be intensly curious as to any alternative to any obviously problematic model... but that is just me.
 
  • #165
Why do you continue to tell everyone that you've studied relativity, despite the fact that you are incapable of telling us what the Einstein equation is?

Someone certainly does need to get real, but it ain't me.

- Warren
 
  • #166
Originally posted by chroot
Why do you continue to tell everyone that you've studied relativity, despite the fact that you are incapable of telling us what the Einstein equation is?

Someone certainly does need to get real, but it ain't me.

- Warren

I have studied it qualitatively and I have not memorized the equations. Not so difficult to understand really.
 
  • #167
Originally posted by subtillioN
I have studied it qualitatively and I have not memorized the equations. Not so difficult to understand really.
Listen, kiddo. It means nothing to study a scientific theory "qualitatively."

- Warren
 
  • #168
Originally posted by chroot
Listen, kiddo. It means nothing to study a scientific theory "qualitatively."

- Warren

Ok pappa, but you are absolutely wrong on that count.

I am not a physicist so I don't yet need the math. You are only correct in the fact that the modern theory is devoid of causality and simply contains mathematics, but that is because of its core errors.
 
  • #169
Originally posted by subtillioN
I am not a physicist
So let me get this straight... you're not a physicist, you don't know the math, and don't even know qualitatively what the Einstein equation is...

What makes you think you're qualified to even DISCUSS relativity?

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

- Warren
 
  • #170
Originally posted by chroot
So let me get this straight... you're not a physicist, you don't know the math, and don't even know qualitatively what the Einstein equation is...

What makes you think you're qualified to even DISCUSS relativity?

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

- Warren

Qualified to even DISCUSS? What? Oh do I need to get a certificate in order to discuss it?

I don't care about "qualifications". I care about understanding. I am interested in discussing the mechanism of gravity which relativity does not touch upon.

This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery

Yes, second graders who call each other idiots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #171
Originally posted by chroot
This thread is like watching a room full of second-graders arguing about neurosurgery.

Claiming that I am not "qualified" is an elitist method of saying that you cannot answer the original question I posed to you. It is an attempt to justify your ignorance by "disqualifying" my question.

Can you, with all your quantitative knowledge of Relativity Theory, even come close to giving me an explanation of the MECHANISM of gravity that exists beneath the equations?

Relativity Theory is an incorrect interpretation of the equations that quantify the structure of "space" and "time". It is completely unnecessary to actually UNDERSTAND the structure of a g-field and the "gravitational" response to this field by each and every atom of a molar body.

Can you give me a description of the mechanism of Time dilation? Or are you forbidden to ask whether there actually is a mechanism?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #172
Claiming that I am not "qualified" is an elitist method of saying that you cannot answer the original question I posed to you. It is an attempt to justify your ignorance by "disqualifying" my question.

He didn't only claim it, he proved it by demonstrating you have no idea what the most important equation of General Relativity is. I don't even have a physics degree (mine are in Math and Computer Science) and have only taught myself the very basics of differential geometry, and I know what the Einstein equation is. I think Chroot has given a fairly convincing demonstration that you are not qualified to talk about it.
 
  • #173
Originally posted by Hurkyl
He didn't only claim it, he proved it by demonstrating you have no idea what the most important equation of General Relativity is. I don't even have a physics degree (mine are in Math and Computer Science) and have only taught myself the very basics of differential geometry, and I know what the Einstein equation is. I think Chroot has given a fairly convincing demonstration that you are not qualified to talk about it.


The fact is that relativity itself is not qualified to talk about the mechanism of a gravitational field nor is it qualified to discuss the mechanism of the gravity force itself. It's sole purpose is to define the shape of the field and not the mechanism. Such a purpose is relatively banal (no pun intended) IMHO. I am interested in discussing the actual mechanisms of all the forces, however, but if your elitest qualification scheme excludes me from being worthy of your company then oh well. You can't force someone to want to understand the mechanisms of physical reality.

Can you explain the mechanisms of all the forces as manifestations of a single fluid-dynamic pressure? I think not. Do you care what the mechanism actually is? I think not. Do you feel comfort in your self-prescribed elitism? I think so.
 
  • #174
Sorry.. what's this thread about?

Maybe I should start one up called: Centre of the universe and we could talk about that!
 
  • #175
It's called thread hijacking, Dave.
 
  • #176
Originally posted by Dave
Sorry.. what's this thread about?

change vs. stagnation
 
  • #177
Originally posted by Eh
It's called thread hijacking, Dave.

It is called the natural flow of conversation. I wasn't the one who decided to discuss relativity. Because obviously I think it is irrelevant to the understanding of physical reality.
 
  • #178
The filamentary structure of the superclusters is "bubblelike", and mostly circular in structure. Not like the "fingers of god"
The structure of the universe is bubblelike. But the superclusters are located in the tangent points of the bubbles, and indeed have a filamentary structure.One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall
Subtillion, give up. You are one against a hundred. A hundred people can't be wrong
 
  • #179
Originally posted by meteor
A hundred people can't be wrong

Now THAT is a laugh!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #180
Originally posted by meteor
The structure of the universe is bubblelike. But the superclusters are located in the tangent points of the bubbles, and indeed have a filamentary structure.One very famous filamentary structure is the Great Wall
Subtillion, give up. You are one against a hundred. A hundred people can't be wrong
Yes, the superclusters have a filamentary structure, but in a circular/spherical pattern, not as straight lines. Your argument fails anyway, since the Virgo cluster does not look like two fingers pointing at earth. It is spherically distributed like all the other clusters. See this map .. http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/virgo.html

This is subtillioN's point - the redshift mapping gives incorrect results.

A hundred people can't be wrong ? .. please ...
 

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