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

#46    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,105 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 18 January 2010 - 07:38 PM

tell you what the balloon analagy failed, because we are not on or in a balloon.  what you should have said is that we are riding a shock wave.

then you end up with the middle having what was there before the shock wave started, whatever that was.

Edited by danielost, 18 January 2010 - 07:39 PM.

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. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#47    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,813 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 18 January 2010 - 07:45 PM

Quote

tell you what the balloon analagy failed, because we are not on or in a balloon. what you should have said is that we are riding a shock wave.

No, the balloon analogy didnt fail. People failed to comprehend it. Theres a difference!

Quote

then you end up with the middle having what was there before the shock wave started, whatever that was.

Hey daniel, what does a 3 dimensional shockwave resemble? Think hard!

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

----Seraphina

#48    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,758 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 18 January 2010 - 07:46 PM

View Postdanielost, on 18 January 2010 - 07:38 PM, said:

tell you what the balloon analagy failed, because we are not on or in a balloon.  what you should have said is that we are riding a shock wave.

then you end up with the middle having what was there before the shock wave started, whatever that was.
Except that the limited, and often misinterpreted, balloon analogy is at best identical, and at worse `more correct' than your shock-wave analogy.


EDIT: Whoops, Stellar beat me to it.

Edited by sepulchrave, 18 January 2010 - 07:47 PM.


#49    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,105 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 18 January 2010 - 08:02 PM

View PostStellar, on 18 January 2010 - 07:45 PM, said:

No, the balloon analogy didnt fail. People failed to comprehend it. Theres a difference!



Hey daniel, what does a 3 dimensional shockwave resemble? Think hard!


don't know never seen one.  and no it doesn't look like a balloon.  a balloon skin is a closed system.  as far as i know the universe is an open system.

a shock wave moves from a central location outwards and sometimes returns to where it started.  which is why you have a mushroom shape from nukes and large conventional explosions.

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. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#50    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,813 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 18 January 2010 - 08:11 PM

Quote

a shock wave moves from a central location outwards and sometimes returns to where it started. which is why you have a mushroom shape from nukes and large conventional explosions.

A shock wave moves from a central location outwards in all directions unless it is affected by other factors. Hence, the edge of the shockwave is the same as the edge of a balloon.

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

----Seraphina

#51    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 18 January 2010 - 10:29 PM

[quote name='Stellar' date='17 January 2010 - 07:57 PM' timestamp='1263776221' post='3248974']
Says science.



Oh yeah? Relative to what part?



The distance is increasing, but the objects themselves arent "moving". Lets take your example, but use 3 balls instead. Which direction is the center ball moving in, hmm?



Differ all you want, I really couldnt give a damn.




THEORETICAL Science!

The balloon is represented by two component parts : Part rubber skin( membrane) part air. Thus if any part of the balloon ( i.e., skin or air encompassed by membrane skin)"moves". Of necessity if the balloon moves the air within moves equivalently.

Definition of move: to go or pass to ANOTHER PLACE or in a certain direction with a continuous motion
to start AWAY FROM SOME POINT or place
to CHANGE one's residence or LOCATION

Thus: of NECESSITY if the space between two objects is increased then THE object BALLS move...from the former place( distance from each other as defined by space)to the latter( proceeding space increase). In reality space(between) increase when relative to objects  is synonymous with movement or motion of the objects. As well the force acting upon the objects would be the space energy between them being expanded or increased!

Definition of motion: an act, process, or instance of CHANGING PLACE
: an act or instance of moving the BODY(skin, membrane of balloon)………….. OR its PARTS( part air)

Thus:  in BOTH(Motion and movement) instances SPACE INCREASE between two objects= Motion of the "object mass(es)". Or: ‘instance of changing place, point or location‘.

The principles of relativity are expressed here. That is to say  that space increase between objects represents the change in relativity (= motion/movement of “mass objects”)-- ( instance of changing "relative" place) of OBJECT relative to OTHER object(s). This change in relative placing ( due to space increase) dictates the motion or movement of the "object mass(es)”.

If more than 2 objects are drawn into the equation the same principles of "relative" change as to placing( spacing)(i.e., = Motion/movement) applies . Refer to illus.

Postulate: Space increase= the motion/movement of ALL "mass object(s). Thus any movement or motion in the universe is not initiated by the “mass object” rather “acted upon by space”. If I push one of the balls representing space energy encompassed;  then the SPACE ENERGY of my “object mass” ( space energy encompassed) has acted upon the “space energy of the ball. Space energy acts upon space energy. EVERYTHING IS INVISIBLE SPACE ENERGY!

Attached Files



#52    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 18 January 2010 - 10:39 PM

View PostStellar, on 18 January 2010 - 01:01 AM, said:

:rolleyes:

Fine. Let me make things clearer. You have a baloon. You blow it up, and it is slowly increases in size. Where is the center of the membrane of the balloon? Answer me that and maybe I'll continue to waste my time with this simple *analogy*.

My god people. You ask a complex question on the workings of the universe, something which has been studied in and out and in again for decades by the brightest minds, along with the dimmest minds, using state of the art technology... You ask a question because you dont understand the theory. When someone gives you an analogy, a simplified version, designed to help you conceptualize the idea, you *think* you find holes in the analogy, which for some reason you and your 5 year old are the *only* ones that "found" this, all those millions of scientists just overlooked it, and act as if youve disproven the BBT. Go get an education and study the subject if you *truely* want to understand it, otherwise stop wasting peoples time arguing it.

LOL.


The center of the ballon is always the center of the balloon and is found in the center of the balloon. That center remains in the center no matter how large the balloon grows in diameter. When the balloon bursts then the center of the balloon is no longer the center of the balloon but assumes its non-centered place in the area of space. Unless of course the balloon center also falls in the center of the universe. If this is the case when the balloon burst the POINT of the center of the baloon now assumes its place with the exact POINT representing the center of the universe.

As for your other remarks i will simply add: I sense that you are just as frustrated as the "brightest minds" you parrot  as they formulate theories and try to Theoretically explain them as non theory.


#53    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 18 January 2010 - 10:49 PM

View Postdanielost, on 18 January 2010 - 02:12 AM, said:

the so called expanding ballon idea, doesn't explain how some galaxies are on collision courses.  if  galaxies aren't moving but the space they are in is moving they would never collide with each other.


In this case the "cause" is space contraction( decrease). Again demonstrating the reality that " the entity" called space dictates the existence or destruction of any and all "mass objects". Space is the immutable controlant factor of all that occurs in the universe. What is space? LIGHT ENERGY!

As well the expression "Space/ time continum" is clumsy at best. More accurately : Space controls the time continum or lack thereof ( or stopage of time).

Question: If you removed all the space out of your body what would you have? SPACE! If you removed the space outside your body comprising your house what would you have? Space!............remove the space from the universe what would remain? SPACE!

Can space ever be fully removed without leaving ...space???????


Thus: Space is the only everlasting unstopable and immustable CONTINUM! Such is the eternal quality of LIGHT and ENERGY.


#54    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 18 January 2010 - 10:57 PM

View PostStellar, on 18 January 2010 - 02:42 AM, said:

Thats because the balloon analogy is an analogy to simplify the concept of there being no center to the universe. The reason some galaxies are colliding is because they are gravitationally locked and are pulling themselves closer to each other. Picture the balloon with 2 ands on it. Each ant is a galaxy. The ants are moving towards each other while you're blowing the balloon up.

So which is it stellar: The "gravitational pull" is  pulling "them" together...or they are "pulling THEMSELVES together". Paradox. If they are "pulling themselves together than how can gravity be the one pulling THEM together. If therefore Gravity is the puller how can they be said to be "pulling themselves together."

You have to stick to one and abandon the other if you wish to be consisitent. Isnt science supposed to be consisitent. Well we know that when it comes to theories there is plenty of room for inconsistencies.

Picture an expanded baloon with two ants on it. If the baloon contracts( deflates= space decrease between object ants) the ants come closer together.

Postulate: Gravity = space expantion/space contraction! We are headed toward Unified "Theory here.
1) weak attraction= space contraction(decrease)
2) strong attraction= space expantion(increase)


#55    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

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

Posted 19 January 2010 - 12:16 AM

View PostStellar, on 18 January 2010 - 07:45 PM, said:

No, the balloon analogy didnt fail. People failed to comprehend it. Theres a difference!



Hey daniel, what does a 3 dimensional shockwave resemble? Think hard!

Now for some phonetic relevancies. Perhaps the word comprehend will itself suggest to us who is closer to the reality. Stellar mentions the word comprehend( he refers to us as not able to comprehend , yet it is more a case of his theories( borrowed from books full of erroneous so-called science). would it be incomprehensible if i were to say that the very word comprehend bears an idiomatic message that is relevant to the discussion? Lets state the word phonetically( approximately)

     CE+OWE+EM=PE+ARE+E+ACHE+E+IN+DE.

"SEE OHM PEER EACH END."

Dissimilar to stellar ( as it seems the majority of the room is) we have all been indicating that the center of the universe is inside the balloon. We see that the from letter 11 in the above succession to number 20 it reads; "reach in". well obviously this doesn’t refer to the outside circumference of the balloon. rather the IN-side ("reach in). toward the center!

If we consider letter 13-22 we see it reads: "each end". I have drawn illustrations indicating that one must find "one end" of the balloon ( anywhere along the balloon circumference) and that this point (:end) would represent point A(vector). Then they must exactly find the other "end of the balloon" ( representing the exact diameter of the balloon) and mark this end B(vector). Then by attaching "each end"( as the word compr-ehend tells us idiomatically)and exactly dividing this line in half you find the center of the balloon.( LYING ...OF COURSE.........IN THE SPACE AREA OF THE BALLOON AND NOT ALONG THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF SAID BALLOON)

FURTHER: CE+OWE+EM=PE+ARE+E+ACHE+E+IN+DE.

From the last letter in this succession(backward) to the 8th letter it could read: "IT A NICHE". What defines a niche better the outside of a balloon skin ( where one is dwelling on a 1-DIMENSSIONAL plane) or inside the balloon? You decide with the following definition of niche accompanied by appropriate synonyms:

: a recess(space) in a wall
a hollowed-out space
niche noun POSITION niche noun HOLLOW
. A cavity, hollow, or recess,
``asylum, bay, bolt-hole, cache, carrel, concealment, cove, cover, covert, coverture, cubby, cubbyhole, cubicle, dark corner, den, dugout, foxhole, funk hole, hideaway, hideout, hidey hole, hiding, hiding place, hole, hollow, inglenook, lair, oriel, pitchhole, place, position, recess, recession, refuge, retreat, roomlet, sanctuary, secret place, slot, snuggery, stash, undercovert

CE+OWE+EM=PE+ARE+E+ACHE+E+IN+DE

lets go farther: Notice that the first 7 letters could phonetically read: "SEE OHM". WHAT IS AN OHM? DEFINED:- a unit of electrical resistance equal to the resistance between two points on a conductor when a potential difference of one volt between them produces a current of one ampere

Postulate: Space = electrical resistance................. ( strong force or weak force dependent upon the amount of light/energy, electric resistance)........ .....equal to the resistance between two points................. ( A and B on the circumference of the balloon either proportionately moving toward or away from each other equal to the amount of space expanding or contracting relative to A-B.)............................. on a conductor.................... ( the balloon circumference skin/plain/conductor. Remember: the two points(A and B) ARE on the skin of the Balloon and the balloon skin represents the conductor, However the electric resistance dwells within the balloon= space expansion /contraction(weak or strong resistance). ...................... when a potential difference..........................( addition of electric light energy space)............................ of one volt between them.............................( space between A-B added= electric light energy added)................... produces a current..............................(space addition between A and B increased= motion/movement)(space energy added).......................of one ampre( produces a "furtherance" of the distance between A-B)

Thus "See OHM refers to the space inside the balloon.

A lot can be learned from a consideration of the idiomatic expressions found within words , letters. Phonetics

The word comprehend means in part: comprehend - include in scope; include as part of something broader( As I am demonstrating a broader view of the universe as bearing many phenomenon’s including those lying within language); have as one's sphere(universe with a spatial center) or territory.

I can resist to draw attention to the fact that the word BARAC as well as CHERUB as well as ADONIAH also are found within the word comprehend. Perhaps a visit to my rooms ( Manipulating the retina leads to discovery)(Satellite images explain all that is mystery) would peek ones interest in the relevancies of this. I have also been showing others the need to comprehend relevancies in this regard.


#56    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,813 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 19 January 2010 - 03:35 AM

Quote

The balloon is represented by two component parts : Part rubber skin( membrane) part air. Thus if any part of the balloon ( i.e., skin or air encompassed by membrane skin)"moves". Of necessity if the balloon moves the air within moves equivalently.

But we're not talking about movement, we're talking about expansion. I suppose you can say that the membrane is moving in the "outward" dimension, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. When refering to objects within the universe, we speak of any sort of movement relative to the universe. Why? Because we have no idea what or even if there's anything "outside" of the universe, nor do the laws of physics even necessairly apply to anything outside of the universe. Hence, when dealing with expansion, it is not the objects that are moving due to the expansion, but rather the space between them that is expanding.

Quote

to go or pass to ANOTHER PLACE or in a certain direction with a continuous motion
to start AWAY FROM SOME POINT or place
to CHANGE one's residence or LOCATION

No object is changing location due to the expansion of the universe though.

Quote

Thus: of NECESSITY if the space between two objects is increased then THE object BALLS move...from the former place( distance from each other as defined by space)to the latter( proceeding space increase). In reality space(between) increase when relative to objects is synonymous with movement or motion of the objects. As well the force acting upon the objects would be the space energy between them being expanded or increased!

That is first of all wrong, as I already explained, and second of all contrary to the laws of physics.

Quote

Definition of motion: an act, process, or instance of CHANGING PLACE
: an act or instance of moving the BODY(skin, membrane of balloon)………….. OR its PARTS( part air)

Thus: in BOTH(Motion and movement) instances SPACE INCREASE between two objects= Motion of the "object mass(es)". Or: ‘instance of changing place, point or location‘.

Nope. Not from a physics stand point.

Quote

The principles of relativity are expressed here. That is to say that space increase between objects represents the change in relativity (= motion/movement of “mass objects”)-- ( instance of changing "relative" place) of OBJECT relative to OTHER object(s). This change in relative placing ( due to space increase) dictates the motion or movement of the "object mass(es)”.

Not relative to the universe itself. The universe, in the baloon analogy, is the membrane. Relative to that membrane, two motionless ants arent moving.

Quote

The center of the ballon is always the center of the balloon and is found in the center of the balloon. That center remains in the center no matter how large the balloon grows in diameter. When the balloon bursts then the center of the balloon is no longer the center of the balloon but assumes its non-centered place in the area of space. Unless of course the balloon center also falls in the center of the universe. If this is the case when the balloon burst the POINT of the center of the baloon now assumes its place with the exact POINT representing the center of the universe.

But in the balloon analogy, the balloon isnt the universe, the membrane is the universe. Hence, the center of the balloon does not correspond to the center of the universe.

Quote

The "gravitational pull" is pulling "them" together...or they are "pulling THEMSELVES together". Paradox.

What paradox? One experiences a gravitational pull from the other. There is no paradox here.

Quote

if they are "pulling themselves together than how can gravity be the one pulling THEM together. If therefore Gravity is the puller how can they be said to be "pulling themselves together."

Really? Are you shitting me? Do I need to explain gravity to you?

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

----Seraphina

#57    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 29,105 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 19 January 2010 - 03:46 AM

View PostStellar, on 19 January 2010 - 03:35 AM, said:

But we're not talking about movement, we're talking about expansion. I suppose you can say that the membrane is moving in the "outward" dimension, but it is irrelevant to the discussion. When refering to objects within the universe, we speak of any sort of movement relative to the universe. Why? Because we have no idea what or even if there's anything "outside" of the universe, nor do the laws of physics even necessairly apply to anything outside of the universe. Hence, when dealing with expansion, it is not the objects that are moving due to the expansion, but rather the space between them that is expanding.



No object is changing location due to the expansion of the universe though.



That is first of all wrong, as I already explained, and second of all contrary to the laws of physics.



Nope. Not from a physics stand point.



Not relative to the universe itself. The universe, in the baloon analogy, is the membrane. Relative to that membrane, two motionless ants arent moving.



But in the balloon analogy, the balloon isnt the universe, the membrane is the universe. Hence, the center of the balloon does not correspond to the center of the universe.



What paradox? One experiences a gravitational pull from the other. There is no paradox here.



Really? Are you shitting me? Do I need to explain gravity to you?


and that brings us back to the question.  if the universe is expanding and the universe is everything what is the universe expanding into?

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. Thank for careing and if you don't peace be with you.

#58    Stellar

Stellar

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 14,813 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 19 January 2010 - 04:04 AM

Quote

and that brings us back to the question. if the universe is expanding and the universe is everything what is the universe expanding into?

We dont know.

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

----Seraphina

#59    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,758 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 19 January 2010 - 04:10 AM

Stellar: I admire your patience and dedication.

To everyone else: Please try to understand this. Describing space as `curved' is, in a sense, just another analogy (just like our much debated friend the expanding balloon).

It would be more correct (and correspondingly less meaningful to non-physicists and mathematicians) to say that the presence of mass and/or energy makes the metric of space (roughly speaking, you could define `metric' as the process for defining a coordinate system in the spot you are observing based on the spot were you are standing) not translationally invariant (i.e. the process by which you explain what you are looking at changes depending on where you are standing).

One way of describing this is to visualize and n-dimensional curved object embedding in m-dimensional space (where m > n).

So, if, for example, we think the Universe is a 3D object embedded in a 4D (or higher dimensional) region, then - and only then - is it relevant to speak of `what the universe is expanding into'.

It is important to realize that this need not be the case. The entirety of existence could be bound up in only 3D (or 4D, or 11D, or whatever). Space could still be considered `curved' - without anywhere for it to curve into.

You could have the Universe be on the skin of a balloon, without having any interior or exterior to that balloon.

I'm not saying that's the way it is, I'm just saying there is no reason why that can't be the way it is.


#60    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,458 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 19 January 2010 - 09:59 AM

Bloody hell.

What is it with you people?

Daniel: don't ask questions that have complex answers if you're going to whinge when the simplification is too abstract.

View Postdanielost, on 18 January 2010 - 06:49 AM, said:

i think this thing is getting more and more complex.  i believe the universe likes things simple.  the simpliest is a sphere with a middle of the universe and not a middle of nothing.

This is where you utterly fail. The universe, its structure and constituents are mind-meltingly complicated. Just because can't grasp the basics doesn't mean that the universe suddenly has to follow simple rules.

You're right, the simplest idea is a sphere with a centre. But that isn't what the universe is structured like, and no amount of whinging is going to change it.

You think this is getting more and more complex? Damn right it is, and you know what, this isn't even 2% of how complex this can get.


physicsolved: I'm sorry, but almost nothing of what you've posted is even close to something that can be considered science. You're not thinking outside the box, you're not rallying against the "parroting science worshippers" - you're just wrong, completely wrong. What you've posted make no sense and has no practical value or application. None.

View Postphysicsolved, on 18 January 2010 - 10:57 PM, said:

Postulate: Gravity = space expantion/space contraction! We are headed toward Unified "Theory here.
1) weak attraction= space contraction(decrease)
2) strong attraction= space expantion(increase)

My breakfast was closer to a unified theory than that.


Triade: do you not understand the idea of an "analogy"? Do you actually think that Steller is suggesting that we live on a giant balloon???

View PostTriade, on 18 January 2010 - 07:18 PM, said:

debate "the evidence" that we're in a giant balloon?

This is what is known as a "lost cause".

This thread has gone absolutely nowhere - a question is posed with a complex answer that takes a bit of abstract thinking, and an answer challenged by minds that seemingly couldn't be any less capable of abstract thought.

If you don't like or understand the answer given, it doesn't mean its wrong.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 19 January 2010 - 10:03 AM.

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




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users