Comments on: You are the Center of the Universe (and so am I)

By: Radar

Radar — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 11:29:22 +0000

The center of the universe is relative to every point and we are all at the center.
As the center we never move-or we would no longer be at the center-relative to every point the entire universe must move so if you walk through a room it is the room, the planet and the entire universe that moves not you.

The center of the universe is the present and we are always in the present as is every point, it is time, the present that is relative to every point. Every point is a point of time and the universe and everything in it is made of time itself.

Finally if the point at the center is you then you are every point because every point is at the center.

By: Swack48

Swack48 — Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:23:35 +0000

Here’s my prospective… If a hurricane starts in the atlantic ocean somewhere and we can spot it at the EXACT point where it starts, the we could place the “center”, so to speak. As the hurricane moves is swirls and distorts eventually moving to the carribean somewhere. Now where is the center i ask??? It is where the hurricane is “now”. If one asks,”where was the original center?” Easy, we saw it start and can pinpoint with some very small level of error where it “started”… Now… that’s is what i would concider common 3 dimentional thinking. We saw it start, move and can trace the center through the atmosphere (space). Any can locate the current center because we saw it start. Now let’s add another dimention. What caused the upper-level atmospheric conditions up to this point to make the creation of this initial point? (our concept of the initial starting point) If we as humans are asking when did it all start, Are we asking when the hurricane started or where the hurricane is now?? So in relation to the initial starting point, There will never be a way to say where it started,(we were not there), i just hope that one day we as a human race can eventually find the “eye of the storm” so to speak… time is a wonderful thing to ponder on, i’m happy knowing that i will never know the begining point but i’m ok with that

By: Dave Willis

Dave Willis — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 18:22:50 +0000

Pam, I’d be interested in your explanation of why we don’t see the same “expanding in all directions” phenomenon in local regions and in small scales. If we can observe it by means of redshift for large scale distances, shouldn’t it be also measurable near us? I’ve heard an explanation of this, but it seemed unsatisfying.

Also, could you address the quantization of redshift? That seems contradictory to the “Universe has no center” view. Thanks.

By: Dave Willis

Dave Willis — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 16:21:55 +0000

It is merely a philosophical construct to conclude that all other vantage points in the Universe would also appear to be a the center, and that the U really has no center. The data itself is equally supportive of the idea that we are at/near the center and other places in the U are NOT at/near the center. And of course that idea is more “normal” to picture in one’s mind. The “problem” with concluding that is that it is “too unlikely” that we just HAPPEN to be at/near the center. It violates the “cosmological/Copernican Principle”. However, that is merely a philosophical concept, rather than something which can be shown true by data. To suggest that we are at such a “special” place in the U goes against an atheistic philosophical world view. Both Hawking and G.T. Ellis have said that there is nothing except philosophy which would cause us to conclude that we were not actually at/near the center of a spherical universe. That is the more parsimonious interpretation to make, unless one has “ruled out God”.

By: Cosmic Backlighting: The Cosmic Microwave Background at Pamela L. Gay

Cosmic Backlighting: The Cosmic Microwave Background at Pamela L. Gay — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 10:42:23 +0000

[...] is the second part in what I had originally seen as a two part series on what may be the neatest tools in [...]

By: pamelagay

pamelagay — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 03:44:18 +0000

Wow - I stepped away from this sight for a week and you all left so many wonderful comments! I wish there was a way to leave comments in a way that allowed me to interleave my comments with your comments. But… Wordpress has some limitations, so here is one big comment.

First and foremost, let me admit that I mis-spoke. The universe is not closed, but it is likely finite, and in imaging a finite Euclidian universe, I pictured the closed torus and mis-wrote. If that left you confused, wait for tomorrow’s post on the cosmic microwave background, and hopefully I’ll be able to clear things up.

To CTB: A Brane is a confined surface that things can get stuck within in a higher-dimensional universe. In English, a 2-d time cartoon living on a 2-d time piece of paper lives on a 2-d time brane that exists in our at least 3-d time universe. We don’t know how to describe what is inside our outside the geometric surface of our universe – it is beyond testable physics.

To David L: You mostly got it. If you are in a fog and can only see 3 ft in all directions, the boundary of your universe is a sphere with a radius of 3ft. The actual fog bank can be any shape at all. The CMB is our fog bank, and we only see a sphere of it. Everyone only sees a sphere – but we all see a different sphere, just as 5 strangers lost in the fog may never see each other and always see a sphere of fog.

To Stephen: The Void is a complex issue. It doesn’t actually push – it just fails to pull. Please check out this story’s coverage.

To Larry: Somewhere I wonder if there might be an artist afraid of math who thinks visually in 4 or more dimensions as easily as they breath. . .

To Deborah: Corrected that to “likely finite.” Thanks so much for the catch!

To sglasson: A torus is basically a fancy word for a donut. 4-D explains how the surface changes with time. Imagine trying to draw the surface of an expanding balloon as a function of time. You are trying to draw a 4-D surface on a 2-D piece of paper. It just hurts in a mentally good kind of way
To John T; Please take a listen to this and this.

To Fizzlingsynapse: In my mental map, the space outside the universe is labeled “Here be dragons.” It is frustrating to contemplate what we cannot test or observe. We need the magic probe that can tunnel outside of time and space to bring back truth.

By: fizzlingsynapse

fizzlingsynapse — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 23:35:28 +0000

I have not been able to formulate a complete and concise opinion upon the Big Bang. On one hand, quite a bit of scientific findings do support this theory. On the other hand, trying to conceptualize the universe (in all of its’ immensity), beginning from a singularity, is just overwhelming at times. I do understand the mathemathics and geometry with no problem but my finite 3-D perception prohibits me from properly and completely grasping the total concept. I believe that in order to fully grasp the concept you must be able to visualize the whole and not just bits and pieces. I hope and pray that one day humankind will be able to break these bonds of finite thinking and grasp the whole concept of the universe. Until then I cannot help but speculate with the greatest of wonder, what is outside the bubble of the universe? Just something that makes me go “hmmmmm”.

By: John Truly

John Truly — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:14:18 +0000

So, in fact, the answer to the question: “Where was the big bang relative to earth?” is “No one knows because too much has happened since then.” This begs the question: Is the Big Bang theory or fact? All too often the “prevailing theory” is treated as fact - a way of thinking that is un-scientific and not conducive to true discovery.

By: sglasson

sglasson — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 17:10:18 +0000

Interesting topic. I don’t get the idea of 4-D. What’s a torus?

By: deborahbyrd

deborahbyrd — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 22:53:02 +0000

We also know the universe is closed.

Pamela … who did the research showing the universe is closed?

Deborah