Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Locating the centre of the Universe


  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

#16    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 04 January 2010 - 04:06 PM

Quote

its your balloon.

I fill mine with water, so in my balloons the inside is different than the outside.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#17    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,799 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 04 January 2010 - 07:26 PM

If there is a centre of the universe than there is also an `edge' of the universe. Besides from the unsatisfactory philosophical implications of this, if there is an `edge' of the universe than the universe is spatially confined1. Spatial confinement implies periodic momenta.

While certainly now, at this stage of the universe, such effects are probably too small to be reliably observed, in the formation of the early universe these effects would be much larger, and in particular have a strong impact on the distribution of early galaxies. I believe this would cause most of the galaxies to be formed close to the `centre' of the universe, leaving the edges relatively empty.

Since the universe appears isotropic on the large scale (an certainly free-space periodic momenta has never been observed), this suggests that there is no `edge', and hence no `centre'.

-------------
1. One of the alternatives, a cyclic universe, also suggests confinement but the boundary conditions for complete periodicity are much less constraining than those for a `hard stop'.


#18    dazdillinjah

dazdillinjah

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Auckland

  • "We went to explore the Moon & discovered the Earth" Gene Cernan

Posted 11 January 2010 - 06:50 AM

The balloon analogy ..that has been mentioned time & time again by people parroting stuff they have found on wikipedia & various other internet sites never managed to convince me ...now I finally have a better answer to my question provided by a UM link ...thanks so much UM :)

UM link to video of the known universe

watching this I am pleased to know the Universe isnt the skin of a balloon after all & in fact there is so much of the Universe we havent even observed it will be awesome to watch mankinds progress in completing this picture.


#19    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,622 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 11 January 2010 - 01:49 PM

View Postdazdillinjah, on 11 January 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

The balloon analogy ..that has been mentioned time & time again by people parroting stuff they have found on wikipedia & various other internet sites never managed to convince me ...now I finally have a better answer to my question provided by a UM link ...thanks so much UM :)

UM link to video of the known universe

Do you know how tedious it is to be told you're "parroting" something by people who simply just don't like the explanation you're giving them?

The reason why the balloon is used as a frequent explanation is that its the best in visualising the nature of expansion.

The video you've found is nothing to do with this. Its do to with the scale of the visible universe from earth. It has nothing to do with expansion or any "centre" of the universe.


View Postdazdillinjah, on 11 January 2010 - 06:50 AM, said:

watching this I am pleased to know the Universe isnt the skin of a balloon after all

No one has ever said that the universe is "the skin of a balloon". They said that the expansion of the universe in 3-11 dimensions can be visualised in 2 dimensions on the skin of a balloon. Imagine that the skin is the entire universe. When the balloon expands the skin stretches out. There is no centre or edge. Now image this in 3 dimensions - that is the universe expanding. It really shouldn't be that hard.

Don't dismiss something as "parotting" just because its an explanation you don't like, and that you want something else to be true instead. Its lazy pseudo-science.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 11 January 2010 - 01:49 PM.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#20    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,080 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 11 January 2010 - 03:34 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 11 January 2010 - 01:49 PM, said:

Do you know how tedious it is to be told you're "parroting" something by people who simply just don't like the explanation you're giving them?

The reason why the balloon is used as a frequent explanation is that its the best in visualising the nature of expansion.


No one has ever said that the universe is "the skin of a balloon". They said that the expansion of the universe in 3-11 dimensions can be visualised in 2 dimensions on the skin of a balloon. Imagine that the skin is the entire universe. When the balloon expands the skin stretches out. There is no centre or edge. Now image this in 3 dimensions - that is the universe expanding. It really shouldn't be that hard.

Don't dismiss something as "parotting" just because its an explanation you don't like, and that you want something else to be true instead. Its lazy pseudo-science.


Actually they are completely correct. Most ppl do nothing else than just parrot without comprehending it themselves. That's why ppl keep bringing up useless analogies like this balloon one.
It's one of the worst ways to try and explain the phenomenon. And very bad to visualize.
It raises even more questions than to begin with. Questions that are pointless because ppl link it to a balloon.
It's not that ppl don't like the explanation, it's simply because they don't understand it. And they have every right to not understand since it's not explained clearly.
And it doesn't exactly help when ppl that feel like explaining it just keep repeating the same unclear analogies.

The fact that you try and compare a multidimensional facet to a 2D balloon in itself is enough for mass confusion.

Ppl don't just see a 2D happening in a 3D way. And it's ridiculous to expect this of ppl.
Most ppl start asking questions about the balloon which reflect a 4D situation. And NO ONE has a clear answer for that since we ourselves cannot perceive it.

Expansion, balloons, .. my god. Great copy pasting there  :tu:

It's maybe easier to compare the rubber skin of the balloon as space. Not the entire universe...don't see it as something blown up with curves and edges, a sphere.
Comparing it to a balloon would make the universe finite also. Which again, no one knows for sure.
So the skin is space. Space as something tangible which can "stretch". This space itself can expand. Not the universe.
Here: http://www.unexplain...5


#21    dazdillinjah

dazdillinjah

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined:25 Aug 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Auckland

  • "We went to explore the Moon & discovered the Earth" Gene Cernan

Posted 13 January 2010 - 09:28 AM

View PostTriade, on 11 January 2010 - 03:34 PM, said:

Actually they are completely correct. Most ppl do nothing else than just parrot without comprehending it themselves. That's why ppl keep bringing up useless analogies like this balloon one.
It's one of the worst ways to try and explain the phenomenon. And very bad to visualize.
It raises even more questions than to begin with. Questions that are pointless because ppl link it to a balloon.
It's not that ppl don't like the explanation, it's simply because they don't understand it. And they have every right to not understand since it's not explained clearly.
And it doesn't exactly help when ppl that feel like explaining it just keep repeating the same unclear analogies.

The fact that you try and compare a multidimensional facet to a 2D balloon in itself is enough for mass confusion.

Ppl don't just see a 2D happening in a 3D way. And it's ridiculous to expect this of ppl.
Most ppl start asking questions about the balloon which reflect a 4D situation. And NO ONE has a clear answer for that since we ourselves cannot perceive it.

Expansion, balloons, .. my god. Great copy pasting there  :tu:

It's maybe easier to compare the rubber skin of the balloon as space. Not the entire universe...don't see it as something blown up with curves and edges, a sphere.
Comparing it to a balloon would make the universe finite also. Which again, no one knows for sure.
So the skin is space. Space as something tangible which can "stretch". This space itself can expand. Not the universe.
Here: http://www.unexplain...5

Totally agreed & because wikipedia & related sites have no response to what youve said noone will reply to your statement


#22    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 13 January 2010 - 11:05 PM

Quote

Totally agreed & because wikipedia & related sites have no response to what youve said noone will reply to your statement

Ive replied to his statements in the Ancient Mysteries and Alternate History section on this subject if youre interested. Theres a BBT thread there.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#23    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,799 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 January 2010 - 01:41 AM

View Postdazdillinjah, on 13 January 2010 - 09:28 AM, said:

Totally agreed & because wikipedia & related sites have no response to what youve said noone will reply to your statement

Another reason why nobody has a response to Triade's statement (other than what Stellar said) is that there is no response to his statements.

Is Emma_Acid correct, and the `balloon analogy' is a valuable tool in visualizing the expansion of the Universe? Yes.

Is Triade correct, and the `balloon analogy' is painfully limited and prone to creating misconception by lay-people? Yes.

Unless we are willing, at minimum, to break out the Einstein field equations and start arguing which metric tensor and what Ricci curvature is most applicable to the current state of the Universe we've probably come as far as this sort of discussion can go.


#24    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,308 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 15 January 2010 - 01:58 AM

View Postsepulchrave, on 15 January 2010 - 01:41 AM, said:

Another reason why nobody has a response to Triade's statement (other than what Stellar said) is that there is no response to his statements.

Is Emma_Acid correct, and the `balloon analogy' is a valuable tool in visualizing the expansion of the Universe? Yes.

Is Triade correct, and the `balloon analogy' is painfully limited and prone to creating misconception by lay-people? Yes.

Unless we are willing, at minimum, to break out the Einstein field equations and start arguing which metric tensor and what Ricci curvature is most applicable to the current state of the Universe we've probably come as far as this sort of discussion can go.
we live in a 3d spacial diminsions.  however there are 8 other diminsions in the universe, the 11th diminsion is a membrane, which begs the question are we in a living cell.  and if so does the cell divide and would we know if it did.  also would we be able to see into other cells, if there are others.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#25    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,887 posts
  • Joined:27 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male

  • The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
    -Patton

Posted 15 January 2010 - 02:15 AM

Quote

we live in a 3d spacial diminsions. however there are 8 other diminsions in the universe, the 11th diminsion is a membrane, which begs the question are we in a living cell. and if so does the cell divide and would we know if it did. also would we be able to see into other cells, if there are others.

Whoah, lets not get too carried away with the word "membrane". The theory doesnt use the word "membrane" to mean a biological membrane. But, to answer your question, who knows whats outside of this membrane. Maybe we are all part of something living... but currently, that is nothing more than speculation.

"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."

----Seraphina

#26    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,799 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 15 January 2010 - 03:29 AM

Again, to add to Stellar's post... it is quite a stretch to definitively say there are 11 dimensions to the Universe.


#27    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 17 January 2010 - 05:25 PM

Consider the following illustration:

Imagine that the black circle represents the circumference perimeter of our universe. The two darker circles ( located at 90 degree and 270 degree) represent "black holes". At these to coordinates Light from outside the universe can enter into our physical/spatial universe. As well Light can traverse the spatial area of the universe and exit through these black holes. The "clumsy" analogy of the balloon does not account for the reality that our universe encompasses invisible space energy as well as geometric form..."mass". Thus our universe is comprised of BOTH space energy and space energy communicated to "mass" visible forms. This being true the circumference of the black circle( relative to the picture) would represent the farthest points ( comprising a circle/sphere)or the "perimeter/demarcation of the universe separating it from what lies outside the universe. Thus the black holes represent "small vestiges" of the CIRCUMFERENCE of the universe that allow light energy to into the universe resulting in the functionality and "being/animation" that occurs within the universe. Light in ...light out! A constant flow of light energy inexhaustible from light energy ORIGIN ( outside our universe)

The thin lined square extroverting the circle was drawn for aesthetic purposes as well to locate the center of the full space/"mass" area of the universe. The center of the circle would represent the intersection point of the 4 diagonal lines through the circle.

The circumference of the circle ( i.e., black circle) represents a solid/liquid ( glasseous= reflective/refractive)perimeter "capturing" such and such amount of invisible space energy light and holding it within the area of the circle( universe). Only at "designated" SPOTS does the circumference of the sphere( area verses "mass") lack ( or is devoid of) the solid/liquid ( glasseous= reflective/refractive)phenomenon. Thus/Or... (ore)... the SPOTS represent "black holes" (openings)found EXCLUSIVELY at the farthest reaches of the universe and demonstratively fall on the circumference of the sphere universe. Black Holes are not dwelling inside the spatial area of the universe( inside the universe) rather exist implicitly ON the circumference of the universe( circumference of the "balloon" relative to the balloon analogy).

To illustrate: If you had a glass ball that had a circumference such and such thick the area in the ball would represent invisible space. If one were to drill holes in the thickness of the circumference of the ball these holes would represent the diametric holes ( black holes such and such diameter)...and would demonstratively "exist" along the circumference thickness of the ball. The holes do not dwell inside the SPACE of the ball...such space is vacuous and could not bear any "holes". However these holes are superiorly relevant to the functionality of all that occurs within the ball. Without these holes no light could enter or exit the ball and all of the principles of life and animation, color, spectrum of color, reflection, refraction ect..would not and could not exist. If a light source was within the "ball" but had no way of exiting all of the processes in the ball would be distorted and not able to function relative to light appropriately and effectively.

Relative too this postulate I add the following:

If one could mathematically deduce( after finding) a black hole at the point 90 degree along the circle( relative to the picture)( sphere as related to the universe)....and then find another black hole at the point marked 270 degree then they would find the distance /linear measurement( two vectors) across the diameter of the universe. The center of this line A-B would be the first coordinate necessary to find the CENTER OF THE SPHERE UNIVERSE (though A to B represents the center of the DIAMETER of the universe up to this point. Thus A-B divided by half represents "a" radius of the diameter of the circle. Thus A-------> center of line A-B= radius.<------------------B center of line=radius. A X B= diameter of circle. Now one must find 2 more black holes located relative to 90 and 270 degree ( black hole(s))at the two other coordinates of 0 or 360 degree and 180 degree. By doing so and intersecting these 4 coordinates( 90;270;0/360;180)then one CAN find the center of the universe. In this postulate lies the reality that anything we see physically with our eyes ( "mass object) or any point that represents space within the sphere universe could fall at the center of the sphere universe. Though it has been proven that the Sun is the center of the SOLAR SYSTEM  this does not relegate the potentiality for the EARTH falling at the point representing the center of the UNIVERSE.

If we changed our relative view of the picture illustration what could be true is the next illustration labeled "Earth Jewel". Thus the earth could fall at the center of the sphere universe. However may I draw attention to another strange coloration. we have all heard of the expression that the Earth is like a "Jewel in space". Lets consider the word Jewel backward and do so phonetically. Jewel backward = leweJ. Lets write this out phonetically ( approximately):

                                 EL+E+W+E+JAY

The word "ELE"( first 3 letters in the above word illustration) approximates the Hebrew abbreviated form of the word elohim= ELI ( Aramaic is approximated as well). The next 5 letters form the words and sounds representing when sounded out or stated the word "WEDGE". Thus we see that the idiomatic expression related to the Earth ( that is the expression: "Jewel in Space") accommodates the meaning "ELI WEDGE". Now if you pay close attention to the way I have altered the view of the first picture to a different relative view ( 2ond picture) that the "wedge is formed...the circle representing the universe is formed relative to the wedge( extroverted square outside the circle with the diagonal spans drawn to find the center) and that the EARTH JUST MAY REPRESENT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE CIRCLE /SPHERE. One may find it interesting that the word "wormhole" phonetically ( when considered backward) approximates the expression : "elohim row; where once again elohim appears ( word for "god"= mighty or strong)along with the word ROW. The word row draws into the discussion further postulates.

The universe is NOT expanding! it is reflecting/refracting. Primarily ( as to volume) it is REGFLECTING. Imagine that the circumference of the circle/sphere universe represents a solid/liquid reflective medium. If such were true; anything ( mass relative to space) within the reflective sphere would reflect into the solid/liquid ( glasseous= reflective refractive)circumference perimeter( i.e, reflective medium= grey matter circumference combined with glass thickness...where the grey matter combined with the glasseous solid/liquid comprises the thickness of the circumference of the universe).If this were so and there were 1000 stars , 9 planets and a few "orbiting" satellites then according to the principles behind these postulates they would REFLECT infinitely ( like the rows of reflection produced when holding two mirrors in parallelism to one another or even deviating from parallelism ) back into the thick reflective circumference of the sphere universe. What would occur? THE ILUSSION OF EXPANSION.............where really everything is REFLECTED SPACE LIGHT ENERGY. This could only occur if the circumference had "holes" in it for light to flow in and flow out.

"Black Holes"= holes in the circumference of the universe allowing light energy to enter and exit the universe after producing and resulting in the full functionality of the universe.

The universe is reflecting and not expanding.

If one could find two black holes representing two points exactly opposed to one another on a protractor( for instance a black hole at 0 degree and a black hole at 180 degree relative to the black hole at 0 degree)  then measure the distance between these two coordinates one could mathematically deduce the diameter of the universe. repeat this process from "black hole 90 degree" to "black hole 270 degree"..............intersect the points : one could deduce the center of the universe.

I would postulate with the absence of any esoteric predisposition  starting with the earth as representing the "center of the universe". Absurd? Have to start somewhere why not at the "ELI WEDGE". ( illus., 3)

Further i would say that the reason why we dont percieve or know what lies in the center of the universe is related to why we dont percieve a certain portion of light image that is communicated to our retina. when our left and right retinas register light there is a small space that is not picked up representing the  area between the crosssection of both eyes ( illustration 4 represents this where the blue triangle( pyramid)is the absent space not percieved). Is it any wonder that the word center spells backward ..phonetically...........RETINAS!:

                               CENTER=RETNEC..............RETNEC= ARE+E+TE+IN+E+CE= "a retina see"!

Attached Files



#28    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 17 January 2010 - 11:07 PM

The universe and EVERYTHING inately bears a center no mater the shape no matter the space.

Center of the "universe Baloon" illustrated. The center does not reside ANYWHERE on the circumference of the baloon ( rubber membraneous skin). Rather within the area of the baloon captured inside the "skined circumference".


Relative to the illustrations:

Measure the line measurement from A-B divide this line in half you get the center of the baloon whether blown up or not.

Attached Files



#29    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 17 January 2010 - 11:30 PM

stellar is quoted too say this: "Its not the objects in the universe that is moving, it is the space between them that is expanding".

Says who!

of necessity if space expands anything within the space( Objects.duh) will move relative to the "expanssion". if i have two balls sitting 1 ft apart and i expand the space around or between them then of necessity the distance between the balls will increase. This increase in space will necessitate movement of the balls( object balls-"mass") away from each other from one ft proportionate to the space that expands between or around them.

I postulate that everything is at zero motion within the SPACE AREA of the universe and any inferred expansion is a product of reflection accompanied by light reflection off of zero motion objects and that accompanied by the way light plays tricks on our relative perceptions via the eye .equally a product of the functionality of reflection relative to light photon.

If i shine a light on a wall that is 2 ft in diameter( motionless) and shine a subsidiary light( smaller diameter= closer to wall) within the area of the preceeding light, then "move the second light around the circumference of the larger light diameter ( motionless)....the illussion will be created that the larger light is in motion. Actually it is at zero motion it is "another" light "moving" within the larger light diameter that makes the larger light appear to be moving.

If i scratch a circle on  the back of a mirror and face the front of the mirror parallel with another mirror...then shine a light through the circle from the back of the mirror the reflected light on the opposing mirror ( light circle reflected to opposing mirror) will appear to move as the light source behind the mirror reflects off the edges of the circle circumference. Thus motion is a product of light reflecting off of objects( motionless)i.e, coliding with thin membranes(="mass") that are encompassing and capturing space at any location in space/time. Thus all motion( relating to "mass objects") is illussionary...the only true thing in motion is light energy!


#30    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 17 January 2010 - 11:34 PM

View PostStellar, on 04 January 2010 - 07:11 AM, said:

Indeed... but inside and outside of the balloon isnt the universe... the membrane of the balloon is the universe.


I beg to DIFFER..............as you DEFER to the theories.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users