Where is the center of the universe?

[ynot1]

That's the number of years that the oldest light has been traveling towards us, but due to the expansion of the universe, the actual radius in significantly larger. I don't remember exactly, but I think it's about 45 billion light-years.

So our telescopes only show us the universe in its past. Wouldn't it be nice if we could see the present? In fact we're building them right now - the gravitational interferometers. But you say even gravitational waves take time to propagate, so we really couldn't see the present even if we wanted to. Yes unfortunately this planet is being accelerated so we can't see anything in the present. However we sure could see a lot more considering all matter created during inflation is now in gravitational communication since the universe was very small at that time. The trick is when objects accelerate the changes in their gravitational fields propagate only at the speed of light. However note static gravitational fields are in instantaneous gravitational communication.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

So our telescopes only show us the universe in its past. Wouldn't it be nice if we could see the present? In fact we're building them right now - the gravitational interferometers. But you say even gravitational waves take time to propagate, so we really couldn't see the present even if we wanted to. Yes unfortunately this planet is being accelerated so we can't see anything in the present. However we sure could see a lot more considering all matter created during inflation is now in gravitational communication since the universe was very small at that time. The trick is when objects accelerate the changes in their gravitational fields propagate only at the speed of light. However note static gravitational fields are in instantaneous gravitational communication.

Yes it would be nice if we could see the present but unfortunately we cant, the Universe speed limit forbids it. There is no such thing as instant gravitational communication on a static field, this is more to do with observation than instantaneous propogation, in fact gravity propogates at the speed of light.

Please see a relevant wiki extract:

The consequence of this, is that static fields (either electric or gravitational) always point directly to the actual position of the bodies that they are connected to, without any delay that is due to any "signal" traveling (or propagating) from the charge, over a distance to an observer. This remains true if the charged bodies and their observers are made to "move" (or not), by simply changing reference frames. This fact sometimes causes confusion about the "speed" of such static fields, which sometimes appear to change infinitely quickly when the changes in the field are mere artifacts of the motion of the observer, or of observation.

In such cases, nothing actually changes infinitely quickly, save the point of view of an observer of the field. For example, when an observer begins to move with respect to a static field that already extends over light years, it appears as though "immediately" the entire field, along with its source, has begun moving at the speed of the observer. This, of course, includes the extended parts of the field. However, this "change" in the apparent behavior of the field source, along with its distant field, does not represent any sort of propagation that is faster than light.

 

[ynot1]

Yes it would be nice if we could see the present but unfortunately we cant, the Universe speed limit forbids it. There is no such thing as instant gravitational communication on a static field, this is more to do with observation than instantaneous propogation, in fact gravity propogates at the speed of light.

Please see a relevant wiki extract:

The consequence of this, is that static fields (either electric or gravitational) always point directly to the actual position of the bodies that they are connected to, without any delay that is due to any "signal" traveling (or propagating) from the charge, over a distance to an observer. This remains true if the charged bodies and their observers are made to "move" (or not), by simply changing reference frames. This fact sometimes causes confusion about the "speed" of such static fields, which sometimes appear to change infinitely quickly when the changes in the field are mere artifacts of the motion of the observer, or of observation.

In such cases, nothing actually changes infinitely quickly, save the point of view of an observer of the field. For example, when an observer begins to move with respect to a static field that already extends over light years, it appears as though "immediately" the entire field, along with its source, has begun moving at the speed of the observer. This, of course, includes the extended parts of the field. However, this "change" in the apparent behavior of the field source, along with its distant field, does not represent any sort of propagation that is faster than light.

Good quote. Note static gravitational fields do not propagate.

 

[Drakkith]

Good quote. Note static gravitational fields do not propagate.

True, but a static field permits no communication either.

 

[ynot1]

True, but a static field permits no communication either.

A logical necessity since if you tried to send some type of gravitational signal you would no longer be a static field. However moving static fields allow the precise determination of their position, mass, velocity, and direction of travel, assuming you can track the magnitude of the field at different positions and times. That way you can get out of the way of that big boy before it comes crashing in. It wouldn't do much good to try and communicate with an asteroid anyway. Note the shape of the object from your perspective, even if it passes, could theoretically be calculated. If the object had spin you could even get a 3d profile. I am wondering if the resolution of the measurements would be limited by the zero point energy on the interferometer reflecting surfaces. I believe there is however a logical question if non-symmetrical rotating objects generate a static field.

 

[Drakkith]

I'm not sure a massive object coming towards you is an example of a static gravitational field.

 

[ynot1]

I'm not sure a massive object coming towards you is an example of a static gravitational field.

If it's not accelerating or rotating I think it would have to be. Else you would have to pick a preferred initial frame of reference (namely yours).

 

[bmehmud]

Some questions do not have logical answers. We should consider the universe is created as it is and expanding rather considering it originated from a center point. Every point in the universe if a creation point and further looking for logical answers would confuse the physical theories itself.

 

[ynot1]

Some questions do not have logical answers. We should consider the universe is created as it is and expanding rather considering it originated from a center point. Every point in the universe if a creation point and further looking for logical answers would confuse the physical theories itself.

Don't forget - those who have all the answers also have all the questions. So further looking wouldn't be helpful.

 

[phinds]

Some questions do not have logical answers. We should consider the universe is created as it is and expanding rather considering it originated from a center point. Every point in the universe if a creation point and further looking for logical answers would confuse the physical theories itself.

Uh ... HUH ?

Is there any physics in whatever it is you just said?

 

[bmehmud]

Ok. How this big bang originated. I want a logical answer involving the 'physics' what you know.

 

[Drakkith]

Ok. How this big bang originated. I want a logical answer involving the 'physics' what you know.

We don't know. Just like we don't know how to make Fusion power work. Or any of a thousand things we know that we don't know.
We CAN say that the universe was once in a very hot very dense state and expanded outward from there. We can extrapolate back in time to a point very close to where the big bang is theorized to have occurred at, but beyond that we cannot say as our model breaks down.

 

[bmehmud]

That is not a logical answer not physically proved. You are saying that universe 'WAS' once very hot dense state or we may say 'singularity' BUT from where does the singularity came from? who created the 'singularity' and how this 'singularity' got infinite density? what is density by the way? who created the matter? when the matter was created? giving the accurate calculation time of creation of matter? what is time by the ways? who created the time, space, matter and after all the 'physics' and its principals as we say AND the mother of all questions "How this all is created by itself"?

 

[phinds]

That is not a logical answer not physically proved. You are saying that universe 'WAS' once very hot dense state or we may say 'singularity' BUT from where does the singularity came from? who created the 'singularity' and how this 'singularity' got infinite density? what is density by the way? who created the matter? when the matter was created? giving the accurate calculation time of creation of matter? what is time by the ways? who created the time, space, matter and after all the 'physics' and its principals as we say AND the mother of all questions "How this all is created by itself"?

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING ... as drakkith pointed out, we don't know. Get over it.

 

[Drakkith]

That is not a logical answer not physically proved.

I already answered your question on the origin of the universe. We do not know. The state of the early universe is a much different story. Our current model describes it very well. It is both logical and proven according to current observations. It would be illogical to disregard simply because you don't want to believe it or don't know anything about it.

 

[bmehmud]

I already answered your question on the origin of the universe. We do not know. The state of the early universe is a much different story. Our current model describes it very well. It is both logical and proven according to current observations. It would be illogical to disregard simply because you don't want to believe it or don't know anything about it.

Yes I am listening that is why I asked the question. Simply quoting "We do not know" is proving my point here. I want to believe if I get a logical answer. If you do not want to answer is another point. Thank you guys.

 

[Spourk]

If you do not want to answer is another point.

This seems beligerantly redundant, no offense. If your point in the first place was to prove that physics isn't sure about what created the universe, your point was proven already, (by physics).

You asked a question, you got an answer, and frankly, that answer IS backed by all the physics we know. It may not be the answer you want per sae. Hell, I hated finding out that distant galaxies are receding FTL, meaning we, in our current state of progress, will NEVER see those galaxies up close and as they are now, not as they were 47 billion years ago or however long it took for the light to reach us.

We observe the universe as is, (it's expanding, use whatever term you want), and when you reverse that whole aspect, you end up with everything closer together. Singularities don't make any sense, that is why people will tell you they just don't know. Best guesses based on today's understanding is that yes, we were once more compact, and something made us start to be less compact. Dark Force? The great turtle holding us all up on his shell farting after eating some bad cabbage?

I can make up something more creative that is logical and deals with physics, but it's no closer to the truth than the singularity. That is just the result of extrapolating what we know of the universe back as far as it goes. And typically, in physics, a singularity means we don't quite know what happens, because our math breaks down.

 

[Fredrik]

from where does the singularity came from? who created the 'singularity' and how this 'singularity' got infinite density? what is density by the way? who created the matter? when the matter was created? giving the accurate calculation time of creation of matter? what is time by the ways? who created the time, space, matter and after all the 'physics' and its principals as we say AND the mother of all questions "How this all is created by itself"?

Simply quoting "We do not know" is proving my point here. I want to believe if I get a logical answer.

You clearly don't have a point other than "God did it", which of course is unscientific garbage. It's certainly not implied by the things we know. The "big bang" is a feature of a few different theories of space, time, matter and motion. None of those theories make any claims whatsoever about what, or who, created those things in the first place. They don't even involve the concept of creation in any way. There are no theories of creation.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

Yes I am listening that is why I asked the question. Simply quoting "We do not know" is proving my point here. I want to believe if I get a logical answer. If you do not want to answer is another point. Thank you guys.

saying that we don't know doesn't prove anything other than the fact that we don't know. Someone saying that they do know how the universe was created doesn't prove anything other than that they are saying that they know how the universe was created. Nothing can be proved in this situation because there is no data about it.

 

[Genx63]

Ok maybe this is just too much for me to understand. I try to look at everything in its simplest form. If you were able to travel beyond the limits of the universe (if there is such a thing) and look back on it would it not have a geometric shape? If so, wouldn't that shape have a center point? Whether or not it is expanding or contracting it still has a shape. Unless you know the physical dimensions you can't calculate it but it still has to have one. It's my uneducated opinion that one day we will gain enough knowledge about the physical universe that all the knowledge we have now will seem like stone age nonsense. I appeal to all you free thinkers out there. Don't let the so called scientific authorities tell you that your ideas are wrong or impossible. The Earth is not really flat!

 

[Spourk]

Ok maybe this is just too much for me to understand. I try to look at everything in its simplest form. If you were able to travel beyond the limits of the universe (if there is such a thing) and look back on it would it not have a geometric shape? If so, wouldn't that shape have a center point? Whether or not it is expanding or contracting it still has a shape. Unless you know the physical dimensions you can't calculate it but it still has to have one. It's my uneducated opinion that one day we will gain enough knowledge about the physical universe that all the knowledge we have now will seem like stone age nonsense. I appeal to all you free thinkers out there. Don't let the so called scientific authorities tell you that your ideas are wrong or impossible. The Earth is not really flat!

Did you take a look at my links to the hyperspheres?

Just in case you didn't, just google Hyperspheres and you can see how you can move around through one without seeing a center.

The universe is all-encompassing, there really is no "going beyond the limits to get a look at the over all shape" since going beyond any limit would still put you inside the universe, since the universe is everything. Just like the one dimensional being analogy. If you lived on the outside of a 2 dimensional circle, you could only move forward or back. You wouldn't even know there is a center, because you would have to be 2 dimensional to see the circle at all. So with that in mind, where is the center of a circle when you only live on the edge, only able to go forward and back?

 

[Fredrik]

Ok maybe this is just too much for me to understand. I try to look at everything in its simplest form. If you were able to travel beyond the limits of the universe (if there is such a thing) and look back on it would it not have a geometric shape? If so, wouldn't that shape have a center point? Whether or not it is expanding or contracting it still has a shape. Unless you know the physical dimensions you can't calculate it but it still has to have one. It's my uneducated opinion that one day we will gain enough knowledge about the physical universe that all the knowledge we have now will seem like stone age nonsense. I appeal to all you free thinkers out there. Don't let the so called scientific authorities tell you that your ideas are wrong or impossible. The Earth is not really flat!

And yet you're suggesting that people should rely on their intuition even though science has proved that many of the things we intuitively "know" to be true are actually false.

 

[phinds]

Ok maybe this is just too much for me to understand. I try to look at everything in its simplest form. If you were able to travel beyond the limits of the universe (if there is such a thing) and look back on it would it not have a geometric shape?
...

Well, whether it is too much for you to understand or not, it is reality to the best of anyone's ability to figure it out. There IS no edge or outside, so the rest of your post is not meaningful

 

[Drakkith]

What everyone here means is that it is simply a waste of time to talk about anything "outside" the universe because even if there is an outside to the universe we cannot see it, interact with it, or anything else. It is absolutely unscientific to try to develop theories based on the "outside view" of the universe, no matter how much they may make sense to us or not. This is akin to trying to explain gravity being caused by fairies that we can't see or interact with in any way pulling everyone down to the ground. The end effect is the same; we are attracted to the Earth. Yet a theory that remains based on observations and math is far better than one based on fairies, as the former requires us to make up far few things. The simplest answer is *usually* the best.

 

[ynot1]

If you were able to travel beyond the limits of the universe (if there is such a thing) and look back on it would it not have a geometric shape?

Can something without a surface have a shape? Strange.

 

[bmehmud]

So what I understand is that anything beyond physical laws is not to be studied or should not be studied? Say we try to study the creation process instead what is already created, God has a physical presence or not? I think there is a study of things we can not prove by physics.

 

[Drakkith]

So what I understand is that anything beyond physical laws is not to be studied or should not be studied? Say we try to study the creation process instead what is already created, God has a physical presence or not? I think there is a study of things we can not prove by physics.

No, the point is that anything beyond physical laws CANNOT be studied. It isn't possible. To study something requires that we be able to interact with it. Things that are beyond that aren't capable of being studied. That's why we don't even try. How would we be able to prove anything? Who's to say which models are right and which models are wrong without any evidence?

 

[Fredrik]

So what I understand is that anything beyond physical laws is not to be studied or should not be studied? Say we try to study the creation process instead what is already created, God has a physical presence or not? I think there is a study of things we can not prove by physics.

Science is about coming up with theories and finding out how accurate their predictions are, and something that can't be used to make predictions about results of experiments is not a theory. Statements like "there's a god" or "the universe was created" aren't theories. They're just garbage.

Edit: If I had seen Drakkith's post before I wrote this, I probably wouldn't have replied. I totally agree with what he said.

 

[Chronos]

This is a discussion of first principles, which by defintion, is unprovable.

 

[phinds]

I think there is a study of things we can not prove by physics.

If you wish. But NOT on this forum. You misunderstand the purpose of this forum. Read the rules.

 

[bmehmud]

If you wish. But NOT on this forum. You misunderstand the purpose of this forum. Read the rules.

Knowledge is knowledge whether it relates to physics, science, biology, or eschatology. We as a human have critical minds, we have eager to acquire knowledge whether through books or internet. I will keep asking questions and appreciate if worthy people like you reply my stupid questions. Cheers.

 

[ynot1]

This is a discussion of first principles, which by defintion, is unprovable.

Good point. All the evidence in the world cannot prove anything. All the fossils on Earth cannot prove evolution, and all the global warming cannot prove man-made global warming. People have been testing relativity for 100+ years and never give up hope. Ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance is all about ignoring the evidence. I guess hope springs eternal against all odds.

 

[DaveC426913]

You guys are misunderstanding.

Knowledge is knowledge whether it relates to physics, science, biology, or eschatology. We as a human have critical minds, we have eager to acquire knowledge whether through books or internet. I will keep asking questions and appreciate if worthy people like you reply my stupid questions. Cheers.

There is knowledge and there is speculation. We can only have knowledge about things for which we can verify with evidence.

Good point. All the evidence in the world cannot prove anything. All the fossils on Earth cannot prove evolution, and all the global warming cannot prove man-made global warming. People have been testing relativity for 100+ years and never give up hope. Ignorance is not stupidity. Ignorance is all about ignoring the evidence. I guess hope springs eternal against all odds.

Yes. Science is not about proving theories. It is about forming predictive models. We have evidence that our models of evolution, global warming and relativity are accurate. We have no evidence of what preceded the BB.

 

[D H]

Thread locked pending moderation.