Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
dazdillinjah

Locating the centre of the Universe

85 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

I have never been able to get an answer for this ..but worse, I keep finding information suggesting there isnt one.

As far as Im concerned that is just wrong ..imo there 'must' be a centre of the Universe, and especially if the big bang theory is to be believed.

I realise the big bang theory is 'just a theory' however if the universe did begin from a point or singularity & that scientists propose the universe is expanding due to measurements of galaxies then the expansion must be from one single position in all directions.

A further point of contention when considering a 'centre of the universe' is the use of red shift/blue shift in calculating if a galaxy is moving further away or closer toward our point of perspective ...why I say this is because everything in the Universe is moving, due to the effects of gravity & I believe that there is nothing in the universe that is at a standstill. The thing is that I believe everything orbits something (ie: our moon orbits the Earth, Earth orbits the Sun, Our Solar system orbits our galaxy etc etc) and I have never found any information regarding known orbits of galaxies which would be critical in assessing a possible centre of the universe (or point of the singularity where the big bang as theorised occurs)

As for calculations based on red/blue shift ..how can they be trusted when various stars that have been observed over time have changed from red shift to blue shift (which happens because they orbit their respective galaxies & at certain parts of their orbit would be moving away from our position but then at other parts of their orbit would be moving towards our position)

So yes ...what are your thoughts about this ? Im sure finding the point where the big bang occurred would be priceless for the science of astronomy so I hope its a thing that one day we can locate

Edited by dazdillinjah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have never been able to get an answer for this ..but worse, I keep finding information suggesting there isnt one.

As far as Im concerned that is just wrong ..imo there 'must' be a centre of the Universe, and especially if the big bang theory is to be believed.

There need not be one. Picture a balloon. The rubber of the balloon is the universe. is there a centre to this universe? No.

I realise the big bang theory is 'just a theory' however if the universe did begin from a point or singularity & that scientists propose the universe is expanding due to measurements of galaxies then the expansion must be from one single position in all directions.

Not necessairly. Thats assuming a pretty linearly shaped universe. Refer to the balloon example.

A further point of contention when considering a 'centre of the universe' is the use of red shift/blue shift in calculating if a galaxy is moving further away or closer toward our point of perspective

Actually, this indeed shows that there is no centre to the universe.

why I say this is because everything in the Universe is moving,

Yes and no. Its not the objects in the universe that is moving, it is the space between them that is expanding.

As for calculations based on red/blue shift ..how can they be trusted when various stars that have been observed over time have changed from red shift to blue shift (which happens because they orbit their respective galaxies & at certain parts of their orbit would be moving away from our position but then at other parts of their orbit would be moving towards our position)

Why shouldnt they be trusted. If you know the position of the star and the mass of the star, you can determine the speed at which it is moving in stable orbit. Knowing this speed and its current position, you can determine how much red or blue shift there aught to be, and then verify it experimentally. The deviation of the red or blue shift from the theoretically expected shift would correspond to the redshift due to the expansion of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There need not be one. Picture a balloon. The rubber of the balloon is the universe. is there a centre to this universe? No.

Yes there is ...its right inside the balloon at an equal distance from the balloons skin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes there is ...its right inside the balloon at an equal distance from the balloons skin

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I thank you for your help with my question Stellar ..very much appreciate discussion about this. However I cannot conceive our Universe as the membrane of the balloon, eg: If we send spacecraft/satellites out to explore the Universe we can send them in any direction ...we are not limited to sending them across the 'membrane' ...in saying that our Universe doesnt have a membrane as per the description that means we cannot travel in a direct line to a destination on the opposite side of the balloon ...we can go straight toward it (correct me if I am wrong) because as far as I know our Universe is at least 3 dimensional

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However I cannot conceive our Universe as the membrane of the balloon, eg: If we send spacecraft/satellites out to explore the Universe we can send them in any direction ...we are not limited to sending them across the 'membrane' ...

Thats because the balloon is a mere example of what we believe the universe to be shaped as. In reality, we believe the universe to have more dimensions than the 3 spacial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension we are very familiar with. Think of the balloons 2d membrane to be some sort of a 3d membrane for the universe.

in saying that our Universe doesnt have a membrane as per the description that means we cannot travel in a direct line to a destination on the opposite side of the balloon ...we can go straight toward it (correct me if I am wrong) because as far as I know our Universe is at least 3 dimensional

Ever hear of the curvature of space-time, and Einstein-Rosenberg bridges? What may appear to us as travelling in a straight line in one of the 3 dimensions may infact not be travelling straight on along the universe. Just as if you were to take a boat from, say, Europe to North America, to you it seems like you are travelling in a straight line but infact you are travelling along the curved surface of the Earth. What is a "straight line" from London to New York isnt actually a straight line unless it were to go through the surface of the Earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats because the balloon is a mere example of what we believe the universe to be shaped as. In reality, we believe the universe to have more dimensions than the 3 spacial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension we are very familiar with. Think of the balloons 2d membrane to be some sort of a 3d membrane for the universe.

Ever hear of the curvature of space-time, and Einstein-Rosenberg bridges? What may appear to us as travelling in a straight line in one of the 3 dimensions may infact not be travelling straight on along the universe. Just as if you were to take a boat from, say, Europe to North America, to you it seems like you are travelling in a straight line but infact you are travelling along the curved surface of the Earth. What is a "straight line" from London to New York isnt actually a straight line unless it were to go through the surface of the Earth.

Thank you & yes I have read a bit on curvature of space/time ... and as in your example of taking a boat from Europe to North America its true you are actually travelling along the curved surface of the Earth because the water is there ....and similarly if that route was by land (for example) it would still be along the curved surface of the Earth due to being unable to travel through the Earth ie: through something of solid matter ...however in the Universe there are vast expanses of empty space and if their is some kind of solid matter (such as a membrane or skin of a balloon) that isnt any object we know about (such as a planet, a star, an asteroid and so on I would be absolutely stunned to find out about it

I can grasp the example of the balloon skin/membrane but thats because there is air inside the balloon inflating it (using space to do so) ...however its a whole huge leap to say our universe resembles a balloon with nothing inside the membrane because from the point of singularity when the universe was atom sized ...this 'so called' balloon expanded in size and as it did so it increased in size through the space this 'membrane' passed during its expansion ... and if light can travel from one side of the membrane to an antipodes point on the other side of the membrane in a straight line then so can any cosmic object or even a spacecraft/sattelite ...therefore there must be something there (empty space) ...if there was a membrane/balloon skin there preventing this from happening we would have known about it by now ..in fact due to the curvature of the membrane/balloon skin we would be severely limited in what we could observe & we certainly would not be able to observe objects that are super vast distances away from us ...just like the Earths horizon precludes our seeing the other side of the world

So this is why I hope one day we can locate the centre of our universe ...apart from being priceless to the science of astronomy it would definately help things about our universe make sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you & yes I have read a bit on curvature of space/time ... and as in your example of taking a boat from Europe to North America its true you are actually travelling along the curved surface of the Earth because the water is there ....and similarly if that route was by land (for example) it would still be along the curved surface of the Earth due to being unable to travel through the Earth ie: through something of solid matter ...however in the Universe there are vast expanses of empty space and if their is some kind of solid matter (such as a membrane or skin of a balloon) that isnt any object we know about (such as a planet, a star, an asteroid and so on I would be absolutely stunned to find out about it

You fail to see the point. To you, on the boat, you think you are travelling in a straight line. It seems to you you are travelling in a straight line, yet you are not. It has nothing to do with something 'solid' being there.

I can grasp the example of the balloon skin/membrane but thats because there is air inside the balloon inflating it (using space to do so) ...however its a whole huge leap to say our universe resembles a balloon with nothing inside the membrane because from the point of singularity when the universe was atom sized ...this 'so called' balloon expanded in size and as it did so it increased in size through the space this 'membrane' passed during its expansion ...

Again, the balloon is merely an analogy to the universe. The example is bound to have flaws. Im trying to break down an 11 dimensional universe (assuming current theories are right), down to a 3 dimensional system. There is *bound* to be flaws.

Another model involves the dimensions of the universe looping back among themselves, thus not leaving any 'space' for the universe to expand into or out of.

and if light can travel from one side of the membrane to an antipodes point on the other side of the membrane in a straight line then so can any cosmic object or even a spacecraft/sattelite ...

I never said it could travel in an actual straight line. Infact, according to the space-time model of the universe, light is actually subject *to* the curvature of space time. In other words, when light travels in the universe, it follows the curvature of it, rather than going in a truely straight line. Because we are limited in the dimensions we can observe, however, it does appear to go in a straight line in our reference frame.

therefore there must be something there (empty space) ...if there was a membrane/balloon skin there preventing this from happening we would have known about it by now

Again, you misunderstand the example. Im not saying the membrane is something physically preventing you from travelling directly from one point to another, rather I'm saying the universe *is* the membrane. Hence, if you travel within the universe, you are travelling along the membrane.

..in fact due to the curvature of the membrane/balloon skin we would be severely limited in what we could observe & we certainly would not be able to observe objects that are super vast distances away from us ...just like the Earths horizon precludes our seeing the other side of the world

Not really. If light were to follow the surface of the earth, then we *would* infact see all around the world. Since light seems to follow the curvature of space-time, we very well might be able to see all around the universe. Or maybe this universal horizon is just too far for us to see?

So this is why I hope one day we can locate the centre of our universe ...apart from being priceless to the science of astronomy it would definately help things about our universe make sense

All current evidence points to there being no center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some information here which may be of help:

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

Thank you for the link Hugh ..I also found the link within that page to the Lambda-CDM model also helpful.

A very big thank you to Stellar ..I know you have given me as much of the relevant (currently theorised) facts regarding this topic in as understandable terms as possible.

I guess I can only say the currently accepted facts regarding the dimensions of our universe dont sit well with me ... the steady state theory (preceding the big bang theory) remind me of the flat Earth middle ages way of thinking & the current big bang theory I liken to a hollow Earth theory ... I appreciate that we are still in our infancy of solving the riddles of the universe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a Starbucks there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I can only say the currently accepted facts regarding the dimensions of our universe dont sit well with me ... the steady state theory (preceding the big bang theory) remind me of the flat Earth middle ages way of thinking & the current big bang theory I liken to a hollow Earth theory ... I appreciate that we are still in our infancy of solving the riddles of the universe

That, indeed, we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK steller now tell us what is inside of said ballon, and outside it too. are they the samething or different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK steller now tell us what is inside of said ballon, and outside it too. are they the samething or different things.

Depends. Is it a helium balloon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends. Is it a helium balloon?

its your balloon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its your balloon.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=172119&pid=3239863&st=105entry3239863

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=172119&pid=3239863&st=105entry3239863

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.