The big bang happened, that we can all agree on (religions aside)
My question is this, if everything from the big bang is moving away from the centre of the said big bang, whats happened or happening to the centre?
anyone...

The Centre will alway's remain central.

There is no center. All of the universe occupied infinitesimal space during the first instant and all of it started expanding. A good analogy is the surface of a balloon. Start the balloon at zero size and the inflate it. Every point on the balloon moves away from every other point. There's no point on the surface of the balloon that can be called the center of that surface.

Just as blizno said, there was no center during the big bang and theren is no center now and there won't be any center. The universe doesn't have a center, if there were to be a center then everything would have be be moving away from it right? But in the universe, everything is moving away from each other, every single point is moving away from each other, except those points with the effect of gravity or other forces, but in general the energy realse from the big bang, so called "dark energy" is enough to move the whole universe away from itself. The balloon explanation explains it very well.

Try drawing little dots on a balloon, and then inflate it, what's happening? All the dots and including the rubber (the balloon itself) is expanding, the points keep getting away from each other. Until the balloon pops, but the universe won't pop will it? Let's hope not.

The problem with this theory is that the universe has to be expanding into something no? According to modern physics everything that has volume needs space to expand too no? The balloon expands to it's sorounding space as you fill it with air ( wich would be the dark energy in the universe), but the universe itself has volume and to expand it needs space. SO can we say the universe is expanding into something else? Something even greater? Or just complete emptyness, nothingness, the truth is... we don't know.

Actually, there is a center Alex. In our system it is called the Bary Center. We have a Solar-Jupiter (BarySolar) and one between the Earth and Moon, (BaryEarth) or The mass of what makes our solar system, and our Earth in this universe.

This link is used for educational purposes for young students, but sometimes that is useful for those who've not heard the about Barycenters. See ~ http://spaceplace.jpl.nasa.gov/en/kids/barycntr.shtml

The Centre, as in gravity is a balanced point, in centifugal/cetripetal force's out/in rotating mass's the centre is still central. It might help if you thought of a nuclear bomb (nucleus/nuclei is central) now imagine it sitting there all new and behaving itself, it has an exact central point? Now 3.2.1. boom huge reaction/ explosion!!! The actual centre is, and cannot be anything other than central......

Of course Theodore, but the barycenter is due to gravity, gravity and some other forces in the universe have been strong enough to attract objects to them and put them in orbit, anulating the dark energys force. But as this dark energy force is sparced throuhout the universe, even objects under the effect of gravity keep moving from other far objects, for example, andromeda is getting closer due to the long terms of gravity, but our galaxy, andromeda and our other close by galactic neighbours ( hold tight by gravity) are moving away from other much further away galaxies. It's like the balloon, instead of drawing points, stick tyny magnets to it, and start blowing the balloon, you'll see what happens.

Sorry if I didn't explain very well, I have just woken up, need something to drink.

So if there is no centre point? and all things are moving away from each other independantly, as the big bang happened at the same time everywhere, how come everything in space is at different stages of movement compared to one another, ie pluto is further out than we are, but it all happened at the same time, hows that work out?

"My question is this, if everything from the big bang is moving away from the centre of the said big bang, whats happened or happening to the centre?" See Beyond The Border's Of Space,? There is Alway's a centre point!!! We Are ?

There is a centre point, please ingore these fools they are not scientists.

1. The universe did not expand at an infinite speed as is claimed by one person here. Nothing can travel faster that light but light is itself is not thought to be a constant anymore. The speed of light in the early universe is thought to have been a lot higher than todays and as the expansion of the universe progressed it is thought to have dropped. Sadly even in those first few instants of the big bang it was not infinite or anywhere near it. Also if this reall ywas the case how can you be here to read this? Surely every atom you are made of would be an infinite distance apart.

2. We know there is a centre point to the universe because the stars are moving away from it. If you trace them back all the way to the centre point then you also find out how old the universe is. This is how scientists can tell you its age.

3. As for the other claim here that because stars are also moving away from each other there can be no centre point, that is complete rubbish to.
A grenade has a centre point, its blast has a centre point yet the blast produces a scatter radius doesn't it. As the blast radius increases the fragments move away from each other don't they.

"We know there is a centre point"" There is a centre point, please ingore these fools they are not scientists."atom268 Nobody can denie the centre is the Central point, wot is This conversation about,? I,ve lost the central theme?!?!...LOL

1. I missed the suggestion that the universe ever expanded at infinite speed. Of course it didn't, for the reasons you state.

2. All of the galaxies are moving away from our galaxy, except the handful close enough for random motion to have an effect, such as Andromeda, or for gravity to have an effect such as on the Magellanic Clouds, tiny proto-galaxies in orbit around the Milky Way. The farther away we look in all directions, the faster all galaxies are moving away from us.
All galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies except when they're close enough for their gravity to interact or else the random motion is more important that the universe's overall expansion.

3. The grenade analogy works inside the universe because there is space around the grenade. The fragments of the grenade move through space that's already there. There is no space outside of the universe, as far as we know. We can't know what is outside the universe but it's entirely possible that there's nothing outside the universe. No space, no time, no vacumn. Everything that exists is inside the universe.


"So if there is no centre point? and all things are moving away from each other independantly, as the big bang happened at the same time everywhere, how come everything in space is at different stages of movement compared to one another, ie pluto is further out than we are, but it all happened at the same time, hows that work out?"

belial, Pluto is captured by the Sun's gravity. The Sun is captured by the Milky Way's gravity. These local effects far overpower the expansion of the entire universe. It's only on the galactic scale and larger than we see the overall expansion.
Oh, and events such as stars forming, some blowing up making heavy elements, new stars being formed from the shock waves of the exploding stars, galaxies forming, planetary systems forming, etc. happened long, long, long after the BB.

Light ITSELF is part of the universe, light ITSELF was at the beginning of the big bang, EVERYTHING in the universe is exanding, even the simple fabric of the universe is expanding, according to the theory of the big bang. The atom you are made of is held together by other INDEPENDENT FORCES, you don't NEED to be a scientist to learn that.




You have just made up your own theory. SCIENTIST tell the age of the universe observing the arriving light and relative expansion of the universe itself. THIS is the actual theory of the big bang:

According to the Big Bang model, the universe developed from an extremely dense and hot state. Space itself has been expanding ever since, carrying galaxies (and all other matter) with it.




Observational evidence for the Big Bang includes the analysis of the spectrum of light from galaxies, which reveal a shift towards longer wavelengths proportional to each galaxy's distance in a relationship described by Hubble's law. Combined with the assumption that observers located anywhere in the universe would make similar observations (the Copernican principle), this suggests that space itself is expanding. The next most important observational evidence was the discovery of cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964. This had been predicted as a relic from when hot ionized plasma of the early universe first cooled sufficiently to form neutral hydrogen and allow space to become transparent to light, and its discovery led to general acceptance among physicists that the Big Bang is the best model for the origin and evolution of the universe.

Dark Energy

Measurements of the redshift–magnitude relation for type Ia supernovae have revealed that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since the universe was about half its present age. To explain this acceleration, general relativity requires that much of the energy in the universe consists of a component with large negative pressure, dubbed "dark energy". Dark energy is indicated by several other lines of evidence. Measurements of the cosmic microwave background indicate that the universe is very nearly spatially flat, and therefore according to general relativity the universe must have almost exactly the critical density of mass/energy. But the mass density of the universe can be measured from its gravitational clustering, and is found to have only about 30% of the critical density.[8] Since dark energy does not cluster in the usual way it is the best explanation for the "missing" energy density. Dark energy is also required by two geometrical measures of the overall curvature of the universe, one using the frequency of gravitational lenses, and the other using the characteristic pattern of the large-scale structure as a cosmic ruler.

Negative pressure is a property of vacuum energy, but the exact nature of dark energy remains one of the great mysteries of the Big Bang. Possible candidates include a cosmological constant and quintessence. Results from the WMAP team in 2006, which combined data from the CMB and other sources, indicate that the universe today is 74% dark energy, 22% dark matter, and 4% regular matter.[19] The energy density in matter decreases with the expansion of the universe, but the dark energy density remains constant (or nearly so) as the universe expands. Therefore matter made up a larger fraction of the total energy of the universe in the past than it does today, but its fractional contribution will fall in the far future as dark energy becomes even more dominant.

In the Lambda-CDM model, the best current model of the Big Bang, dark energy is explained by the presence of a cosmological constant in the theory of General Relativity. However, the size of the constant that properly explains dark energy is surprisingly small relative to naive estimates based on ideas about quantum gravity. Distinguishing between the cosmological constant and other explanations of dark energy is an active area of current research.





You just made up another of your own theories, the Big Bang did not behave like an explosion, don't let the name confuse you, the big bang is the expansion, of matter, time and space all together.



In this graph you can see how the universe is expanding and how the big bang DID NOT behave like an explosion. The whole universe is expanding itself, not from a center point but from an extremly hot and dense state.


I am not going to take another insult like this from you, do it again and I will have to report your post due to violation of the forum rules, personal attacks and flamebaiting.



P.S. Please inform yourself, here I'll give you a boost, follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang#Gala...nd_distribution

Now i am confused even more...is there a central point to space or not? and if so can someone answer my question please.

Look, you won't get a conclusion here, since people here speak without having a clue of the big bang, here visit this link for info and read the info I provided in my previous post: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang</a>

But according to the theory of the big bang, the universe does NOT have a central point, I am just saying what the theory says, read the link for more info on this.

Do you mean that there is no origin point, where the Bang happened, or that there is physically no spot in the universe that is the exact center of everything?

There could be a center point that is the exact physical center of space. This would depend on if the universe expanded uniformly in all places at once and on if there is an outer surface to the universe. If you think of the universe as infinate then there could be no center. If the universe has an outer surface then it would be possible to calculate the exact center. I'm sure some Grad student somewhere has already done this or someone is working on it. Seems simple enough on the surface of it.

Also there could be a energy & mass center to the universe, where the average of energy plus mass in every direction is roughly equivalent. But, that would depend on if the universe is constant in the distribution of mass and energy. And if it expands evenly.

So, yes a Center is possible (according to some models), but not likely to be proven to exist any time soon.

There has to be a center, the graphic hot place at the bottom or the left area of time and space origin in your posted pictures display the center. So I would say that it is a center. But the center is not part of our universe anymore. If you buy a balloon and hang it in a wire from the ceiling, call that sloppy balloon you see the center. Then you blow up the balloon (resembing the big bang) and then the universe (surface) is expanding from the center. The universe is then only on the surface and not part of the center, which it's in the balloon case is only air. We can't even turn our heads towards the center, since we can only move in the directions on the "2D" balloon surface.

I see you didn't read the info on the link, if you would have done, you woudn't be asking this questions or be speculating ( wich is all that you done in your post demostrating you don't have a clue on the Big Bang). According to the theory of the Big Bang........ .....bah... I'm tired... I already answered those questions in this same thread.


There doesn't "have" to be a center, the theory of the big bang is just an explanation ( the most accepted one) on the origin of the universe, in no way has it been said in the theory that there has to be a center. The graphic "hot place" is not a place or a center, it is a state, it represents the state of the universe ( time, matter, energy and space itself) before the big bang occured.


The not blown up balloon is the state of the universe before the big bang, as soon as you start blowing that balloon you begin what is happening now, the expansion of the universe, the little dots you draw on the balloon would be mattter atracted by gravity and other forces wich keeps moving away from every other dot, the fabric of the balloon would be the same fabric of space ( space itself) wich would be expanding too with, time. This is an overall expansion so there is no center.

Everything as a starting point, doesn't it? So from that we can call it the centre...

Except that every point in the present universe was the starting point. The entire universe consisted of one point. One unimaginably massive, energetic point.

So this single event caused everything known and unknown, science knows the staring point, is this how space time is measured? and if so this as to be the central point of origin.

Yes, except as I said, every point that will ever exist existed in that one single point. Every point in the universe is the point of origin.

blizno, that was a very concise central point you made...

Everything that is the universe now, was there at the beginning, just in a different state. The universe hasn't 'grown' - nothing has been added to it. To think of the universe as 'bigger' than it was is only valid from our point of reference inside the universe because we are subject to the expansion of the universe's dimensionality.

Imagine, instead, of space stretching rather than increasing in quantity. We don't know the starting 'point' so much, as assume the starting conditions were as the Big Bang model predicts (or almost predicts).

hi, religions aside?

He(Allah) is the Originator of the heavens and the earth…(Surat al-Anam: 101)

Do those who are disbelievers not see that the heavens and the earth were sewn together and then We unstitched them and that We made from water every living thing? So will they not have faith? (Surat al-Anbiya': 30)

It is We Who have built the universe with (Our creative) power, and, verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Surat adh-Dhariyat: 47)


it was said universe has the shape of human body without gender. for that matter, you're staring within you while staring at the stars. center would be the heart. never wondered where that is. now i kinda do.

OK, so there is no point of origin and the we assume the universe is expanding evenly. But, is there a physical place where the measurable universe (in 3 dimensions) is equal in all directions?

There is a center to our solar system. There is a center to our galaxy. There is a center to our local galactic group. So what is so hard about saying there is a center to all measurable matter?

Those are local centers. You have chopped a slice of the universe, probably a 3D piece, and in that we have a center because you decide the limits. Maybe it is then ax Alex01 pointed out, there is no center. But at least I believe we agree on that there is no center within the universe. If you select a piece of the ballon and cut it out, you can decide a center. but not on the entire ballon surface. But I don't believe that the universe is as even as a balloon/ball. New space is probably popping up here and there and then we have black holes.

From the wiki site you linked to earlier. Big Bang

If the universe is assumed to be homogeneous, then you can treat the whole thing as you can a smaller piece. So a local comparison of a solar system, a galaxy and a galactic group can be assumed to hold true for the entire universe.

If we accept the balloon idea, then there is an outer boundry to the universe and thus a center would exist. A place where the amount of matter in any direction is roughly equivalent. Again, assume the universe is homogeneous.

I don't believe we can find it, because we can not hope to identify all the matter in the universe and map where it is.

The center of our solar system is a barycenter, the center of ur galaxy is a barycenter, the center of our local galaxy groupis a barycenter, this center is produced by gravity, not by dark energy wich is the cause of the expansion of the universe, the same fabric wich makes up the universe wich is expanding.

The hot and dense ball wich was before the big bang is not the center, but a state, a very hot and dense state in which the universe was.

The universe is suffering an overall expansion and so there is no center.

As I've understood it, in the balloon analogy the surface of the balloon is the (2-dimensional) universe, which means that it has no boundaries and every point on it fulfills that "the amount of matter in any direction is roughly equivalent" requirement. The expansion in the example happens in three dimensions and the center of that expansion is outside of the 2D universe. If our 3D universe is the same way then the expansion happens in a higher dimension like 4D and its center lies outside of our universe.

So are you saying the Universe is endless, or that it loops back on itself? If you went in one direction faster then light, would you eventually reach where you started?

If not, then the Universe has defined limits and is more like the inside of the balloon then the skin of the balloon. How can you use a 2D anology to represent a 3D universe?

OK, I understand this, but how can you measure the extra dimension? If you can't measure it how can you say it is true? It would be just a theory. And in that case it is conceivable that there is a physical center to the universe.

The balloon anology isn't used to describe the shape of the universe, or if it has an end or not, that's another complex topic wich deserves it's own thread but anyways.....

The shape of the Universe is an informal name for a subject of investigation within physical cosmology. Cosmologists and astronomers describe the geometry of the universe which includes both local geometry and global geometry. It is loosely divided into curvature and topology, even though strictly speaking, it goes beyond both.

The local geometry is the curvature describing any arbitrary point in the observable universe (averaged on a sufficiently large scale). Many astronomical observations, such as those from supernovae and the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation, show the observable universe to be very close to homogeneous and isotropic and infer it to be accelerating. In General Relativity, this is modelled by the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model. This model, which can be represented by the Friedmann equations, provides a curvature (often referred to as geometry) of the universe based on the mathematics of fluid dynamics, i.e. it models the matter within the universe as a perfect fluid. Although stars and structures of mass can be introduced into an "almost FLRW" model, a strictly FLRW model is used to approximate the local geometry of the observable universe.

Another way of saying this is that if all forms of dark energy are ignored, then the curvature of the universe can be determined by measuring the average density of matter within it, assuming that all matter is evenly distributed (rather than the distortions caused by 'dense' objects such as galaxies). This assumption is justified by the observations that, while the universe is "weakly" inhomogeneous and anisotropic (see the large-scale structure of the cosmos), it is on average homogeneous and isotropic. The homogeneous and isotropic universe allows for a spatial geometry with a constant curvature. One aspect of local geometry to emerge from General Relativity and the FLRW model is that the density parameter, Omega (Ω), is related to the curvature of space. Omega is the average density of the universe divided by the critical energy density, i.e. that required for the universe to be flat (zero curvature). The curvature of space is a mathematical description of whether or not the Pythagorean theorem is valid for spatial coordinates. In the latter case, it provides an alternative formula for expressing local relationships between distances.

If the curvature is zero, then Ω = 1, and the Pythagorean theorem is correct. If Ω > 1, there is positive curvature, and if Ω < 1 there is negative curvature; in either of these cases, the Pythagorean theorem is invalid (but discrepancies are only detectable in triangles whose sides' lengths are of cosmological scale). If you measure the circumferences of circles of steadily larger diameters and divide the former by the latter, all three geometries give the value π for small enough diameters but the ratio departs from π for larger diameters unless Ω = 1. For Ω > 1 (the sphere, see diagram) the ratio falls below π: indeed, a great circle on a sphere has circumference only twice its diameter. For Ω < 1 the ratio rises above π.

Astronomical measurements of both matter-energy density of the universe and spacetime intervals using supernova events constrain the spatial curvature to be very close to zero, although they do not constrain its sign. This means that although the local geometries are generated by the theory of relativity based on spacetime intervals, we can approximate it to the familiar Euclidean geometry.

The geometry of the universe is usually represented in the system of comoving coordinates, according to which the expansion of the universe can be ignored. Comoving coordinates form a single frame of reference according to which the universe has a static geometry of three spatial dimensions.

Under the assumption that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic, the curvature of the observable universe, or the local geometry, is described by one of the three "primitive" geometries:

* 3-dimensional Euclidean geometry, generally annotated as E3
* 3-dimensional spherical geometry with a small curvature, often annotated as S3
* 3-dimensional hyperbolic geometry with a small curvature, often annotated as H3

Even if the universe is not exactly spatially flat, the spatial curvature is close enough to zero to place the radius at approximately the horizon of the observable universe or beyond.




Global geometry covers the geometry, in particular the topology, of the whole universe—both the observable universe and beyond. While the local geometry does not determine the global geometry completely, it does limit the possibilities, particularly a geometry of a constant curvature. For a flat spatial geometry, it used to be thought that the scale of any properties of the topology is arbitrary, though recent research suggests that the three spatial dimensions may tend to equalise in length.[1] The length scale of a flat geometry may or may not be directly detectable. For spherical and hyperbolic spatial geometries, the probability of detection of the topology by direct observation depends on the spatial curvature. Using the radius of curvature or its inverse as a scale, a small curvature of the local geometry, with a corresponding radius of curvature greater than the observable horizon, makes the topology difficult or impossible to detect if the curvature is hyperbolic. A spherical geometry with a small curvature (large radius of curvature) does not make detection difficult.

Two strongly overlapping investigations within the study of global geometry are:

* whether the universe is infinite in extent or is a compact space
* whether the universe has a simply or non-simply connected topology

In a flat universe, all of the local curvature and local geometry is flat. In general it can be described by Euclidean space, however there are some spatial geometries which are flat and bounded in one or more directions. These include, in two dimensions, the cylinder and the Möbius Strip. Similar spaces in three dimensions (such as the Klein bottle) also exist.

A positively curved universe is described by spherical geometry, and can be thought of as a three-dimensional hypersphere.

A hyperbolic universe (frequently but confusingly called "open") is described by hyperbolic geometry, and can be thought of as something like a three-dimensional equivalent of an infinitely extended saddle shape. For hyperbolic local geometry, many of the possible three-dimensional spaces are informally called horn topologies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

We still cannot make a complete scientific and mathematical theory for the shape of the universe, this topic is still under extreme research and study, what I presented in my previous post is the posibilities that currently exist scientifically and mathematically. Anyhow, the universe shows evidence of expansion and so showing evidence of the Big Bang and how it originated. But don't confuse the balloon explenation with the shape of the universe, it is used to explain the expansion of the universe in a way but not the shape, because the balloon is round or spherical doesn't mean that the universe is round or spherical, we could also use another object wich can expand to explain the expansion of the universe.

My head hurts. But I would have to disagree here. People really need to be more observant of nature, because all the answers are there right before your eyes. Does fire come from every where all at once? no it has a source
Were the planets formed out of nothing? No they had to have a source. The universe had to have a beginning point its only logical. It started as one thing then changed over time to another.

Exactly, but the starting point of the universe is not considered the center but a state wich would be a hot and very dense state until the overall expansion. Unfortunatly the universe is not like a fire, the universe does come from every where all at once, the universe is everything, space, matter, energy and time so it can't have a center, according to the theory of the Big Bang.

If something is everything it can't have a center because that center would be part of that something wich is considered everything and so that everything would be that center too, but that is not a center, a center is not the everything of something but the point where everything around it is equal. And so the universe is everything it cannot have a center because that center would be the universe itself but the center cannot be the universe itself because that is not the definition of center and so that is not a center........ and so the universe does not have a center. Oh my, I need a break, I feel loopy.

Do you agree with the theory that the universe is expanding?

well string theory states that our universe is shaped like a do-nut i would guess that the center was forced our of existent although it is possible that, that is ware space is tarring and reconnecting to the other side.

That the universe is expanding is not a theory. It is an observed fact. Why the universe is expanding is a different story.

A fire has a source. It's hotter when you come closer to the fire and colder when you retract from it. The universe has also such a fire source, and it's the cosmic radiation. But it's equal everywhere. The cosmic radiation is from when the universe was very young. In the Hubble pictures you can probably see some the universe's source or at least very close. You don't point Hubble into one "there it is" spot, but anywhere where it's a clear view.

Here's another analogy for the expanding universe, which doesn't need imagining a 2D situation happening in 3D:


http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=651

The link also explains the confusing parts about the balloon analogy. I think the important point is that the galaxies don't radiate from a single point within the universe but instead get further away from each other in all directions. And that the universe may or may not be shaped like a lump of dough.

But what is this gigantic cosmic oven he's talking about??

I understood your previous post, but the expansion of the universe does not preclude a physical center of all energy and matter. The universe is roughly homoginous, like a sphere of ice, so the fact that the universe is expanding evenly should not even come into where the physical center of the universe is, as the distribution of the matter/energy will not change.

Your post also stated that the observed Ω was roughly equal to 1, so that would descibe a flat universe. And that the universe has three static dimensions. So I ask again, if the universe can be thought of as flat for curviture, and is three dimensional and is basically homoginous, then why can there not be a physical center to it all? Is it just that do to the incertainty and the percentage of error due to the little curviture that you think it can not exist? Maybe it could not be tagged down to a specific galaxy sized area, but certainly it could be statisticly shown to be in some area several million light years across.

I still believe it impossible, because we have no way to measure the total energy and matter in the universe. We can barely measure what is in our local group of galaxies, and that is the point of a fine needle measured against the size of the Earth or the Sun as being the Universe.

And I reply to your question with my other post:


The universe cannot have a center, because the universe is everything, and if there was a center,that center would be part of the universe and the universe itself and so that center would be everything, but a center is not everything by definition.

If the universe is expanding then it is changing its shape. Expansion implies an increase in mass and shape. So therefore there is a physical centre of the universe. It is coprised of the original shape and mass before the expansion began. Everything that happened after in expansion is the outer portion.

I repeat, the universe is EVERYTHING, the universe does not have an outer edge because the universe is by definition EVERYTHING in EXISTENCE. According to modern theories, there is no other existence other than the universe, except for the 'multiverse theory'. So the universe is everything that exists, it cannot have an outer edge so it can't really have a determined shape.

Ok this was my last post in this topic, I already provided the info, presented the theories and explained them, so I think I'm done, I'll stop banging on people and let them bring up their own conclusions, but please provide yourself with info before you do so, so that you don't make a conclusion out of a fairy tale.

Cheers mates.

Your two statements aren't contradictory. Everything moving away from a central point is also moving away from each other. Throw a rock in a pond - ripples. Notice how the ripples get farther apart the more they distance themselves from the center? That is because they are moving away from each other.

Would you rather be standing 10 feet away from a hand grenade or 100 feet away? If all the objects weren't moving away from each other as they moved away from the center than you would be in as much danger 100 feet away as you would be at 10 feet away.

It would also imply inifinite mass.



If what you say is true, it would make the scientific possibility of travelling to the "opposite" end of the universe impossible (even allowing for travel at such high speeds as to make it instantaneous) because in order to get to the opposite side of the universe we would have to travel through the center of the universe and you say that there is no center to the universe.

Carrying this to the extreme, it would make travel from any starting point to any destination equally impossible (unless there is some threshold of heading "towards" the center that physics has already accounted for) because, unless we were heading directly away from the center, our travel would take us closer to the center and the center doesn't exist thertefore you can't go closer to it therefore you can't travel.

ummm I don't know how this happened........but I agree with Repo.

Shhhh!!! If you won't tell anyone, I won't tell anyone.

Plus it was already said that the universe has a finite amount of energy and matter. If that is true, theoretically it could be measured. If it can be measured then there can be a center of that mass.

Also, if the universe includes time then is time expanding too? Exapnding time then causes a lot of problems.

Ok, Alex01 pointed out that there's no center of the universe. Find Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality" (2005) and you'll find answers for your questions