Is there a center of the universe?

[Will Due 3,589]

An atom has a center, a planet has a center, a solar system has a center, a galaxy has a center and so on. 

Is there any evidence that the universe has a center?

 

[Astra. 9,692]

Well, my understanding is that the observable universe and the actual infinite Universe itself are both very different. From what scientists believe, the big bang did not happen in one place. The big bang happened everywhere at once, and everything has been expanding away from everything else ever since. So there is really no particular centre in the Universe.
 

 

 

 

[Will Due 3,589]

1 hour ago, Astra. said:

Well, my understanding is that the observable universe and the actual infinite Universe itself are both very different. From what scientists believe, the big bang did not happen in one place. The big bang happened everywhere at once, and everything has been expanding away from everything else ever since. So there is really no particular centre in the Universe.
 

 

 

 

That's an interesting thing you said, "From what scientist believe." Perhaps you can elaborate on what you think about why it's a scientific belief. Is it because so far there isn't enough evidence to postulate much aside from Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding? I don't recall where I read about this, but didn't Hubble conclude early in his research that everything in the universe was moving away from the same location, a single point, implying a center location of the Universe?

"Well, my understanding is that the observable universe and the actual infinite Universe itself are both very different." That's also very interesting. I wonder if that's because it's a forest for the trees kind of thing. Like how observing the world simplisticly would lead one to believe that the world is flat, without limits.

It seems to me, that if the laws of gravity are consistent generally, then like an atom and a galaxy, the Universe must have a center.

 

[Astra. 9,692]

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

 I don't recall where I read about this, but didn't Hubble conclude early in his research that everything in the universe was moving away from the same location, a single point, implying a center location of the Universe?

 Maybe this will help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_center_of_the_Universe

Expanding Universe

Hubble demonstrated that the redshift of other galaxies is approximately proportional to their distance from the Earth (Hubble's law). This raised the appearance of our galaxy being in the center of an expanding Universe, however, Hubble rejected the findings philosophically:
...if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the Universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the Universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the Universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions."[21]

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

"Well, my understanding is that the observable universe and the actual infinite Universe itself are both very different." That's also very interesting. I wonder if that's because it's a forest for the trees kind of thing. Like how observing the world simplisticly would lead one to believe that the world is flat, without limits.

...

8 hours ago, Will Due said:

It seems to me, that if the laws of gravity are consistent generally, then like an atom and a galaxy, the Universe must have a center.

Well, my advise to you is...go and do some research ...

[Will Due 3,589]

"Hubble rejected the findings philosophically"

That's interesting. That the findings of science are determined at least sometimes, philosophically. 

If that's the case, then it could be established philosophically, that the Universe must have a center, because logically, if all universe systems of orbiting mass include orbital motion around a central dominating object, than everything in the Universe taken altogether, does too.

Could the conventional thinking about a centerless Universe be wrong? It certainly could be philosophically. The earth was flat and at the center of the universe once, philosophically. 

If we can find that the Universe has a center, for now based on the logic of philosophy (until the further discoveries of science can prove it) then the question becomes, what is this dominating thing at the center of the Universe?

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Will Due

[ChaosRose 19,954]

what is this dominating thing at the center of the Universe?

 

It's you, Will. 

Edited July 9, 2017 by ChaosRose

[Will Due 3,589]

1 hour ago, ChaosRose said:

what is this dominating thing at the center of the Universe?

 

It's you, Will. 

Lol 

[ChaosRose 19,954]

Just now, Will Due said:

Lol 

Well...aren't we all sort of at the center of our own universe? It sure seems that way.

[Noteverythingisaconspiracy 9,906]

15 hours ago, Will Due said:

That's an interesting thing you said, "From what scientist believe." Perhaps you can elaborate on what you think about why it's a scientific belief. Is it because so far there isn't enough evidence to postulate much aside from Hubble's discovery that the universe is expanding? I don't recall where I read about this, but didn't Hubble conclude early in his research that everything in the universe was moving away from the same location, a single point, implying a center location of the Universe?

If the universe really had an actual center, wouldn't we expect to see a big empty region of space from which everything is moving away ?

Studies of the cosmic background radioation shows that there is no such place and the background radiation is the same in every direction. Its not easy to wrap your head around this, but thats what the evidence tells us.

On a less serious note there actually is a place that officially claims to be the center of the universe:

This spot in Wallace, Idaho 

 

 

[bmk1245 3,035]

18 hours ago, Will Due said:

An atom has a center, a planet has a center, a solar system has a center, a galaxy has a center and so on. 

Is there any evidence that the universe has a center?

 

Nope.

Think about 2D surface - sphere. Where is the center on sphere surface?

[Will Due 3,589]

1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

If the universe really had an actual center, wouldn't we expect to see a big empty region of space from which everything is moving away ?

 

That's a really good question. I think you're onto it.

It might be that the location of the massive nuclear object at the center of the Universe is in a region that isn't IN space and can't be seen.

 

[Will Due 3,589]

1 hour ago, bmk1245 said:

Think about 2D surface - sphere. Where is the center on sphere surface?

A sphere is a three dimensional object. I don't think the surface of a sphere can be two dimensional. However, the center of a sphere is a distance tangent and equal to its radius and easily calculated from any point on its surface. I believe that a 2D plain, as it might exist in 3D space, is only theoretical and is infinite, and doesn't have a center.

Didn't Einstein establish that all space is curved, which implies Universe centricity?

 

[bmk1245 3,035]

26 minutes ago, Will Due said:

A sphere is a three dimensional object. I don't think the surface of a sphere can be two dimensional. However, the center of a sphere is a distance tangent and equal to its radius and easily calculated from any point on its surface. I believe that a 2D plain, as it might exist in 3D space, is only theoretical and is infinite, and doesn't have a center.

Didn't Einstein establish that all space is curved, which implies Universe centricity?

 

Surface is two dimensional (in our 3D (4D, if time included) world). If you don't like spherical analogy, think about infinite flat sheet of paper. Where is the center on that?

[Will Due 3,589]

21 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Surface is two dimensional (in our 3D (4D, if time included) world). If you don't like spherical analogy, think about infinite flat sheet of paper. Where is the center on that?

So you're saying the Universe is analogous to a 2D plane?

 

[bmk1245 3,035]

1 hour ago, Will Due said:

So you're saying the Universe is analogous to a 2D plane?

 

Well, as far as i know, Universe is flat, so yeah, its analogous to 2D plane. 

[Will Due 3,589]

58 minutes ago, bmk1245 said:

Well, as far as i know, Universe is flat, so yeah, its analogous to 2D plane. 

I must be honest, I've never heard someone describe a non-centric Universe as a 2D infinite plain. 

Generally, I've heard it more usually described as being like a boundless cube, space in all directions to infinity without a center.

[ Btw, I also believe in the planar characteristics of the inhabited Universe of space and time, except that this plain isn't infinite, it's limited and shaped like a doughnut or toroid moving or rotating in a vast orbital swing around a central location. ]

If you believe the Universe to be a plain, what are your ideas about the thickness and other characteristics of this plain?

 

Edited July 9, 2017 by Will Due

[bmk1245 3,035]

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

I must be honest, I've never heard someone describe a non-centric Universe as a 2D infinite plain. 

Generally, I've heard it more usually described as being like a boundless cube, space in all directions to infinity without a center.

[...]

2D plane is just analogy. If you like infinite cube better, thats fine with me. I'd prefer that too.

BTW, I'm surprised you never saw gravitational potential depicted as 2D surface.

10 hours ago, Will Due said:

[...]

If you believe the Universe to be a plain, what are your ideas about the thickness and other characteristics of this plain?

 

In 2D world (universe) thickness (third dimension) is meaningless. Like "how sweet is one kilogram" - just don't make sense.

Extend that to 3D, and "thickness" (in fourth dimension) won't make a sense.

BTW, that has nothing to do with beliefs. If more precise measurements will show universe is curved (either closed, or open), I'll accept that. As far as I know, universe is flat, within 1% margin.

[Will Due 3,589]

Well, the world was "flat" too for a long time.

We'll have to wait and see what scientists find out about the shape of the Universe as they gather more data.

 

[Noteverythingisaconspiracy 9,906]

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Well, the world was "flat" too for a long time.

We'll have to wait and see what scientists find out about the shape of the Universe as they gather more data.

 

Actually we have known that the World was round for over 2000 years. Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth pretty accurately in 240 BC. 

[Will Due 3,589]

22 minutes ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

Actually we have known that the World was round for over 2000 years. Eratosthenes estimated the circumference of the Earth pretty accurately in 240 BC. 

You know, I'm glad you brought that up. I believe even a thinking caveman probably realized he lived on a globe.

Ever look at a new moon at sunset? Just a sliver of light of a crescent moon.

You can see the dark side of the moon as it faces the earth dimly lit up by the reflection of the setting sunlight bounced off the earth. It clearly appears to be a ball, and that it is not a flat disc.

In a way, this kind of philosophical approach to realizing the shape of the Universe is valid too, in my caveman like opinion. 

 

[lightly 4,665]

If the universe is still expanding ...then it isn't infinite.   .....Yet?

    If it is expanding equally in every direction ,from every point,  supposedly since "time" began, then there would still be a center of this expansion?  ..... doesn't that make more sence than every point in the universe is it's center?

dunno...  But there probably isn't a more interesting thing to ponder than the true nature of the Universe?

i think we are just beginning to understand that we really don't Know.  I have a strong hunch that it is not at all what it seems to be.

[Will Due 3,589]

5 hours ago, lightly said:

If the universe is still expanding ...then it isn't infinite.   .....Yet?

I think your line of thinking is very logical, and evidence, that you're right. 

 

5 hours ago, lightly said:

 If it is expanding equally in every direction ,from every point,  supposedly since "time" began, then there would still be a center of this expansion?  ..... doesn't that make more sence than every point in the universe is it's center?

It certainly does to me. I can't think of anything that has more than one center.

 

5 hours ago, lightly said:

dunno...  But there probably isn't a more interesting thing to ponder than the true nature of the Universe?

I'll ditto you there. And it's just as interesting to me to ponder what the true purpose is of being a part of this Universe nature. 

 

5 hours ago, lightly said:

i think we are just beginning to understand that we really don't Know.  I have a strong hunch that it is not at all what it seems to be.

No doubt about It! 

 

[bmk1245 3,035]

6 hours ago, Will Due said:

[...]

It certainly does to me. I can't think of anything that has more than one center.

[...]

So... Where is the center of the Universe?

[Will Due 3,589]

17 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

So... Where is the center of the Universe?

Two places.

It's at the center of everything.

And within you.

 

[lightly 4,665]

...recently , watching the mini series " Genius ", Einstein kept asking, in his younger years, "how does something travel through nothing?"  He was thinking about light traveling through space...so really he was pondering the nature of space...

interesting thought though huh?.... Especially when thinking about expansion of the universe?   

The universe isn't expanding into "nothing".  Because "nothing" cannot and does not exist.   It is somehow expanding within itself?

it can't be infinite, and yet what else can it be?   There is no end.  

 I really can't think how there can be a beginning either...singularily or otherwise, it just   IS , and we can't understand that from our perspective.