Thread: Where is the center of the universe?

1. O'k First, i have no education in physics and any science studies i did was yeas ago. But i have always had a love for science and in particular Astronomy. I say this in advance so that no one will answer my query with a lengthy equation that will just look like a recipe for mud cake written in Russian.
When something explodes with a great force, everything that was at the point of impact is ejected and nothing goes back to that point of impact unless falling back down thru gravity.
Now, if something big were to explode in space, would the matter that was in the bomb be ejected out and never return to the same spot unless the gravity of the sun or planets were to slowly bring that matter back that had exploded away from it?
If so, at the point of the Big Bang there was no matter outside of the BB to have a gravitational effect on where the atoms went, so i would think everything would continue to eject away from the central point forever. Yet this does not seem to be the model of the universe. At some point i am guessing, matter started to come back to the detonation point.
First, why did it come back and second, does physics have any idea how long after the BB this was?
:-D

2.

3. Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
O'k First, i have no education in physics and any science studies i did was yeas ago. But i have always had a love for science and in particular Astronomy. I say this in advance so that no one will answer my query with a lengthy equation that will just look like a recipe for mud cake written in Russian.
When something explodes with a great force, everything that was at the point of impact is ejected and nothing goes back to that point of impact unless falling back down thru gravity.
Now, if something big were to explode in space, would the matter that was in the bomb be ejected out and never return to the same spot unless the gravity of the sun or planets were to slowly bring that matter back that had exploded away from it?
If so, at the point of the Big Bang there was no matter outside of the BB to have a gravitational effect on where the atoms went, so i would think everything would continue to eject away from the central point forever. Yet this does not seem to be the model of the universe. At some point i am guessing, matter started to come back to the detonation point.
First, why did it come back and second, does physics have any idea how long after the BB this was?

:-D
Well, you seem to be thinking properly except for the last part where the center of the explosion would fill up again.

Before I answer this question, I would like to tell you that I do not believe in the BBT.

According to the Conservation of Momentum, the center could not refill again because once something is moving in one direction, it will continue in that direction according to Newtons 1st Law of Motion.

In this case, gravity would be too weak to overpower the momentum of the expanding space(?) or whatever?
Granted, the start of the BBT is that it was 'supergravity' that started the expansion.
But this brings up another question? Gravity is a product of matter.
So this is just another part about the unrealistic nature of the BBT.

Cosmo

4. Well i was kind of driving at how did the matter get back to the detonation point. The scientists tell me it did, that's why i want to know how.
If you don't believe in BBT, then what? If it is more of a divine belief, then how, when and why was God created.

5. I think the scientists you were talking to were talking about the supposed "big crunch" where the expansion is slow enough and there is enough matter in the universe that the gravity of the matter would overpower the expansion, slowing it down and eventually it would start contracting again. And the big bang is NOT a devine belief. You should not think of the big bang as an explosion in the normal sense. Instead, imagine a very small rubber ball with some dots on it. Now if the ball starts to inflate, the dots would move away from each other in a uniform manner. That is why the farther out we look, the faster the galaxies seem to be moving from us, when in fact it is the space inbetween the galaxies that is expanding and not the galaxies moving through space. So from that, one can say that everywhere is the centre of the universe, as the big bang not only created matter, but space-time itself.

6. Yea, like i said, i dont think i'll ever get my head around this one. :?

7. Dog: Back when the Big Bang theory was formed (early 20th century), people figured if it banged, the momentum would eventually have to stop, then contract back to its starting point. That idea has been put to sleep. Others feel Gravity will eventually make ALL matter eventually one unit, but not necessarily anywhere near, what a center could be.

Steady State Universe, a Universe that has always existed and will always is a theory to counter BBT, which many feel was formed with a theological background, even a need to show creation.

No one has a handle on any of this, nor are we likely as humans, to ever know what actually happened or did not happen. Science has accepted the BBT, claiming it explains other speculative observations.

8. I think i understand now how it was a sudden expansion and not explosion of the universe that created it. I still dont quite get what created the unbelievable temperatures that were meant to exist at the time of the BB. I'm guessing that the universe was always there but was so compressed that the heat was extreme. Then something tipped the scales and it was the camel that broke the camels back or in this case, the singularity that popped the universe out at great speed.
I'm still having trouble getting my head around what was here before that "pop". Was it just cold blackness?
Jackson33 wrote:
"Steady State Universe, a Universe that has always existed and will always is a theory to counter BBT, which many feel was formed with a theological background, even a need to show creation".

I'm having even more trouble getting my head around the idea that the universe may have always been here and always will be here. :? My head hurts

9. Either theory you embrace, BBT or SSU, has no time line for a beginning. Both infer something must have always exised...That is, as a singularity or a Universe.

Singularity, the term used for where expansion first started. This unit in containing all the matter (in whatever state) that formed the universe in its entirety, was in a small space. Some suggesting a atom size unit, which would have had to be very hot, then matter being in another form to be so condensed. They suggest 20-40 TRILLION degree kelvin and matter as we know it could not be...

The expansion is said to have been and continues into nothingness. Space itself was created and is being created today by this expansion. You have mentioned a 156 billion light year diameter for the Universe. This is from advanced BBT, so you probably have a preconceived belief on this topic. Our known Universe indicates no more than a 26 to 30mly diameter and SSU has no idea where or if their is an end.

I would ask, why you think a singularity could have been back to infinity and not that of the Universe itself. This is where the arguments or differences are...SSU is a continuous regeneration of matter, which we see through telescopes every day. There is probably no star we see today that was here 15 billion years ago and no star now making up all the matter will be here in another 15 billion years. The formation of a star creates all other matter. Planets, asteroids/meteors are all by products of that formation...

10. Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
When something explodes with a great force, everything that was at the point of impact is ejected and nothing goes back to that point of impact unless falling back down thru gravity.
A classic explosion, similar to what you've described is not what the Big Bang is about.

Now, if something big were to explode in space, would the matter that was in the bomb be ejected out and never return to the same spot unless the gravity of the sun or planets were to slowly bring that matter back that had exploded away from it?
If so, at the point of the Big Bang there was no matter outside of the BB to have a gravitational effect on where the atoms went, so i would think everything would continue to eject away from the central point forever.
Perhaps, but the Big Bang was an expansion of space, which carried along with it all the energy contained in the universe, which eventually formed into matter.

Yet this does not seem to be the model of the universe. At some point i am guessing, matter started to come back to the detonation point.
First, why did it come back and second, does physics have any idea how long after the BB this was?
No, space continues to expand, hence the objects contained within space are moving away from each other, hence they would not come back.

11. Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
Jackson33 wrote:
"Steady State Universe, a Universe that has always existed and will always is a theory to counter BBT, which many feel was formed with a theological background, even a need to show creation".

I'm having even more trouble getting my head around the idea that the universe may have always been here and always will be here. :? My head hurts
Don't worry, the Steady State Universe model is a defunct assertion. It does not follow current observations. That theory does not counter the Big Bang Theory at all.

12. Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
Well i was kind of driving at how did the matter get back to the detonation point. The scientists tell me it did, that's why i want to know how.
If you don't believe in BBT, then what? If it is more of a divine belief, then how, when and why was God created.
The bible is the product of the human mind.
The people that wrote the bible, made the 'momentous' (eureka!) discovery that after copulating with their woman, a new life was created.

So they assumed that if they can create life, than their YHWH can create the universe.

Of course, things are not that simple. So modern science has explained the Nature of things. So Nature is our greatest teacher, rather than the bible.
Of course, some people still believe in the bible.

Cosmo

13. Just putting this out there to make you think too much, what if this universe was just a spherical figure, much like a planet, and other universe were the same and that universe was just one great planet and so on and so forth.

If, in the unlikly event that this was right ^^^ then wouldn't a BB go across this universe then collide again?

14. Originally Posted by Dagg
Just putting this out there to make you think too much, what if this universe was just a spherical figure, much like a planet, and other universe were the same and that universe was just one great planet and so on and so forth.

If, in the unlikly event that this was right ^^^ then wouldn't a BB go across this universe then collide again?
Your presumption of an expanding universe is where I differ.

My idea of a SSU is that it is not expanding or contracting. It is
patterned after an elliptical galaxy that is not expanding or contracting like M87.

Collisions do occur between galaxies but they are rare.

Incidentally, our universe is limited in size while space extends to infinity. So there is the possibility that other universes exist. But that is just speculation.

Cosmo

15. Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
If so, at the point of the Big Bang there was no matter outside of the BB to have a gravitational effect on where the atoms went, so i would think everything would continue to eject away from the central point forever. Yet this does not seem to be the model of the universe. At some point i am guessing, matter started to come back to the detonation point.
First, why did it come back and second, does physics have any idea how long after the BB this was?
:-D
The universe doesn't have to have a "center" and probably doesn't - for analogy, consider the two dimensional surface of a balloon to be the universe. There is no center for that universe, but the universe can still expand. All of space is expanding, but not from some center point.

16. there is no center to the universe because it is infinitely large so. so if there are no borders threre is no center.

17. Originally Posted by unoscooter
there is no center to the universe because it is infinitely large so. so if there are no borders threre is no center.
The BBT does have borders. The walls of the BB space are the termination points of the space.
Beyond that, there is nothing. So you cannot step outside of space because of this.
But to light, it is infinite because the light is routed around this space to continue indefinately.
So the space has a finite limit but not to light.

So all 3D structures must have a center. That is the 'center of gravity'.
Although the BBT supposedly started out as an 'expansion' of super gravity space, this is unrealistic because gravity is an 'attractive' force, rather than having this quality of expansion(?).

The only super gravity I can thing of would be the opposing charged particles like the electron and the proton that are bound together by the coulomb force.
You could define this attraction as SG. But this requires the presence of these particles and their intrinsic charges.

Antway, the SSU is more realistic with no contradictions.

Cosmo

18. [quote="Cosmo"]
Originally Posted by unoscooter
So all 3D structures must have a center. That is the 'center of gravity'.
Why must the universe be only three dimensional, and not the surface of a higher n-dimensional object? Then there wouldn't be a center, as far as our perspective is confined to this surface. (yeah, ignoring time and other possible dimensions according to string theory, but it's the same concept).

And as a closed surface, there is no "boundary" to space. Conceivably, it could be possible to travel around this surface and end back at the starting point. However, theoretically this is impossible, 'cause the event horizon of the observable universe will always limit the total amount of universe we can explore. And as universal expansion is accelerating, the event horizon will grow, but objects will pass beyond the event horizon faster - ultimately, we will only be able to see the local supercluster that is gravitationally bounded.

Thus, even if the universe was a closed surface in a higher dimensional "space", we would never be able to go around it anyways as the observable universe will always be limited.

19. There is a theory about black holes that says the singularity is infinitely dense, and that upon hitting it, your are also infinitely dense, and therefore in every possible place at the same time. If this is true, then the particles in the "Big Bang Orb" must of also have been infinitely dense, so that when big bang happened, all matter occurred everywhere in the universe, and the expansion itself is only the stretching of space, pulling the now galaxies away from each other, rather than mass itself expanding the boundaries or moving by its own kinetic motion . So in a sense, the entire universe could be considered the center.

20. [quote="pianoforte"]
Originally Posted by Cosmo
Originally Posted by unoscooter
So all 3D structures must have a center. That is the 'center of gravity'.
Why must the universe be only three dimensional, and not the surface of a higher n-dimensional object? Then there wouldn't be a center, as far as our perspective is confined to this surface. (yeah, ignoring time and other possible dimensions according to string theory, but it's the same concept).

And as a closed surface, there is no "boundary" to space. Conceivably, it could be possible to travel around this surface and end back at the starting point. However, theoretically this is impossible, 'cause the event horizon of the observable universe will always limit the total amount of universe we can explore. And as universal expansion is accelerating, the event horizon will grow, but objects will pass beyond the event horizon faster - ultimately, we will only be able to see the local supercluster that is gravitationally bounded.

Thus, even if the universe was a closed surface in a higher dimensional "space", we would never be able to go around it anyways as the observable universe will always be limited.
From what I understand about 'spacetime' is that it is 3D space plus time as a 'point source' of 'motion'.
In other words, the time is reduced to a single 'moving' point source..

I think this is done by a 'series' of 3D dimensions with slight changes to introduce the motion of this point source.
Can anyone else explain their version of ST that makes sense?

Cosmo

21. Originally Posted by GrowlingDog
O'k First, i have no education in physics and any science studies i did was yeas ago. But i have always had a love for science and in particular Astronomy. I say this in advance so that no one will answer my query with a lengthy equation that will just look like a recipe for mud cake written in Russian.
When something explodes with a great force, everything that was at the point of impact is ejected and nothing goes back to that point of impact unless falling back down thru gravity.
Now, if something big were to explode in space, would the matter that was in the bomb be ejected out and never return to the same spot unless the gravity of the sun or planets were to slowly bring that matter back that had exploded away from it?
If so, at the point of the Big Bang there was no matter outside of the BB to have a gravitational effect on where the atoms went, so i would think everything would continue to eject away from the central point forever. Yet this does not seem to be the model of the universe. At some point i am guessing, matter started to come back to the detonation point.
First, why did it come back and second, does physics have any idea how long after the BB this was?
:-D
There is no true center of the Universe

22. Food for thought;

A sphere area... 4 X 3.14 (p) X R sq....

If as suggested under big bang expansion, is in all direction ie a sphere, the following would be true in understandable numbers.

7 Billion years ago this would be a surface area of that sphere 615 B sq LY.
Today with a 14BLY radius that, surface would be............... 2461B sq LY.
Some say expansion should make the current universe 156 billion light years across or a radius of 78 BLY. The surface then.... 12762B sq LY.

The area inside this sphere, our Universe, space should have increased over 21 times in total area, from the said size 7BY ago. We can see the density of galaxy and/or matter fairly well, which is what was 7 BY ago and toward us from there.

Size of matter would not decrease in size from other matter, or so said, but distances between matter would. I know pro-BB people, pick out what and where space increases are evident or important, but either our little planet is substantially further from the sun in its 4.5 BY life and Andromeda said to be headed our way, will never make it or something is missing in my figures....

Many do not feel the Universe should be a sphere, nor do I. Motion along with gravity (what ever that ends up being) seems to limit direction which effects are dominant. For this to be wouldn't there need to be a very strong force some place central, somewhat like a spiral galaxy.

A little more food; We know the Universe is at least 28-30 Billion light years high and probably much more, since we can see so far in all directions. If it were like a galaxy, the distances across are going to end up being very long distance, to say the least.

 Bookmarks
Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement