[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 71 KB, 571x587, the center of the universe cannot exist without edges.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3469414 No.3469414 [Reply] [Original]

>The center of the universe cannot exist without edges.
The center of the universe cannot exist without edges
>he center of the universe cannot exist without edges

>> No.3469424

Your point being?

>> No.3469431

there is no center to begin with

>> No.3469432

But it can. The center does not exist in three dimensional space or we'd observe galaxies receding at different rates. But we observe them all receding at the same rate.

This either means Earth is the center of the universe, or more likely, that the point that the big bang occurred is in 4 dimensional space and we're expanding from that.

Imagine drawing lots of 2d dots on the surface of a balloon, then inflating it. From the perspective of every dot, all the other dots appear to be moving away at the same rate, and they can't figure out where they're expanding *from*. That's because the point of origin is in a higher dimension.

Hope this explanation helped.

>> No.3469433

everywhere is the center of the universe, since everywhere used to be a single point.

>> No.3469448

I guess the point where the Big Bang occurred would be considered the center.

>> No.3469456

it's like a loaf of raisin bread being baked in an oven

where did that analogy come from anyway? my physics prof used it when he was explaining it to me.

>> No.3469457

Why cant the center just be the point all the galaxies are moving away from?

I understand what mad scientist said, about how from every point it will appear to be the center of the universe FROM that point. But shouldnt we still be able to do some analysis and see where the true center is?

>> No.3469459

>>3469448
Everywhere in the universe is where the big bang happened.

>> No.3469461

>>3469448
That's the joke
Big Bang occured EVERYWHERE

>> No.3469466

>>3469459
>>3469461

Not who you were responding to


Wait... what?! Whaaaaaa....?!?!?!

>> No.3469467

>>3469459
The point where the universe EXPANDED from.

>> No.3469470

>>3469448
But the point where the Big Bang occured was the point where everything was, even space. So you could say that the point where the Big Bang happened was all the points in space.

PS. I know it's rather silly to talk about points when you have no space where they would exist.

>> No.3469471

>>3469467
It expanded from EVERY point, that's the point. I'm right at the center just as much as you are right now.

>> No.3469474

There is no space and time outside the universe. However, it does seem to be expanding by current scientific observations. If you'll take the balloon analogy, for example, there is a "center" in that you can measure the distance between opposite edges. And there are edges, in that there are areas beyond where the universe as caused by the big bang has not yet expanded. There is no space and time there, but there is... perhaps the absence of space and time? Dark matter, dark energy? I am not sure, but scientists think there is some sort of force, as the universe appears to be expanding more.

>> No.3469477

>>3469457

Every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy.
Also the further away a galaxy is the faster away it's moving. Since everything's moving away from US, perhaps we're at the center. But then again, you would see the exact same thing at any point in the universe. So is everyone at the center? You could so, or you could simply say there is no center.

There is no "center." The big bang happened everywhere at once. The universe started out as an (infinitely large?) gas of stuff that became less dense over time. All we know about is the 13.7 billion light-year surrounding our Earth. There's probably other stuff beyond that wall but we can't see it because the light hasn't had time to reach us yet.

>> No.3469478

>>3469474
Say I'm in a spaceship right at the edge of space, the event horizon of the universe. What is this, I don't even?

>> No.3469481

>>3469474
I think the area outside of the universe is known as the void.

>> No.3469486

>>3469477

But but but...

Even a balloon has a center, even though it appears from all points to be the center of something expanding.

Isnt there an edge of the universe? Maybe not an edge of space, but an edge of matter. A point at which nothing has traveled to yet?

>> No.3469491

>>3469486
Lawrence Krauss explains the expanding thing the best I've ever seen, about 5-10 minutes in to the "universe from nothing" talk.

>> No.3469496

>>3469478
Everyone knows the universe ends at Dog Doo VII.

>> No.3469497

>>3469491

Oh, I think Ive seen that lecture. I remember him talking about how things would seem from the perspective of every point. I remember that bit but I dont remember that implying there was no actual center. Ill have to rewatch that.

On a related note, Ive met Lawrence Krauss

>> No.3469501

>>3469486

There is no known edge of matter.

Also don't get confused by the other replies with the balloon analogy. They may have implied that the universe is like an expanding balloon, which it's not. The balloon analogy only works in a perfectly flat 2 dimensional universe, whose surface lies on that balloon. The surface of a balloon has no center.

>Isnt there an edge of the universe? Maybe not an edge of space, but an edge of matter. A point at which nothing has traveled to yet?

It seems you still misunderstand the concepts we're trying to tell you. Matter started out everywhere at once. Maybe if I explained it this way: imagine everything started out as is, but very close to each other. Then space keeps getting added in between everything. Does that make any sense?

>> No.3469505

>On June 21, 2011, Marilyn Manson appeared live via the Ustream broadcast of Fleischer's Universe where he announced that the new album title will be revealed within a week.

>He also divulged the following lyrics, "The center of the universe cannot exist without edges", of a yet to be released song.

What a Deep guy.

>> No.3469508

>>3469486
For the balloon analogy, don't consider us in the balloon, consider us on the surface of the balloon. There is no center on the surface of a sphere.

>> No.3469509

>>3469505
2DEEP4U

>> No.3469515

>>3469501

So there is no edge of matter?

So lets say we could freeze time and travel significantly faster than light speed around the universe. There would be no edge? There would be matter in all directions forever?

There is an infinite amount of matter in the universe?

>> No.3469529

>>3469515
No, not that we know of. We can only see out 13.7 billion light years, and everything we see so far seems very similar everywhere, same density of stars/galaxies, etc. If there is an edge beyond that 13.7 billion light-year wall, there's no way we could know about it.

On the other hand some cosmologists think the universe could be "closed," or "unbounded but finite." What they mean by this is if you travel far enough you'll end up back where you started, because all the mass in the universe creates enough gravity to keep everything in. But it seems this is probably not the case, in which case the universe would literally be infinite.

>> No.3469535

>>3469515
>matter in all directions
What? No, what gave you that idea? We don't know if matter goes on forever... we have no way of knowing at the moment whether, past the veil 45 billion light years* or so away where the light from receding stars and galaxies can no longer reach us, whether that matter continues on infinitely or if there is a finite amount of it (Krauss suggests it may be finite). But the universe isn't "just" matter.
The universe is space, too. Everything is the universe. And according to what we know currently (perhaps subject to change), the universe is infinite (unbounded).

*I forget the exact number, please correct.. the current distance of whatever the furthest objects are whose apparent recession due to the expansion of space has not yet exceeded the speed of light.

>> No.3469536

>>3469529

Cool!

So lets just say its like that and if you travel far enough youll end up back where you started. Could that in some way explain why the universe is expanding?

>> No.3469538

>>3469536
curved space

definitely too deep for you

>> No.3469540

>>3469515
>On Earth. Start walking (you might have to do some swimming also) to some direction. Never reach the edge of the Earth. Therefore there is infinite amount of land.

>> No.3469549

>>3469538
>>3469540

Is that what they meant when they said we could live in a circular, or, saddle shaped universe, or a flat universe?

>> No.3469551

>>3469549
Yes, that is exactly what they mean.

>> No.3469558

>>3469536
Well.. the "closed" universe (end up back where you started) universe is one possibility, and it's not entirely ruled out yet, but as far as I can tell, our current findings suggest that isn't the case. I am not an expert and my knowledge of this comes from admittedly brilliant men but filtered through the internet, but apparently the findings of research like the WMAP satellite indicate with a fairly high degree of accuracy that we're living in an "open" universe, i.e. if you pick a direction and start travelling, you'll go forever.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_concepts.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

>> No.3469562

center of universe= the universe's center of mass.
edges= the furthest points from the center that mass has reached .

>> No.3469567

>Since everything's moving away from US
Even the Andromeda Galaxy?

>> No.3469569

>>3469551

Oh okay. I remember that from my astronomy class, and other lectures. I just blew it off.

...

OH... it all makes sense now why a spherical universe would accelerate forever. THANK YOU SCI. I didnt even realize there was a concept I didnt understand until now.

>> No.3469571

>>3469562
However if the universe is spherical (though all evidence suggests otherwise), then every place in the universe is the center of mass.

>> No.3469572

>>3469536

>So lets just say its like that and if you travel far enough youll end up back where you started. Could that in some way explain why the universe is expanding?

The two are actually unrelated. The universe is expanding, we know that to be a fact. We're not sure of the cause, or why everything started out expanding so rapidly, but we do know enough physics to know that gravity slows down the expansion and something called "dark energy" speeds it up.

In fact, dark energy is a very interesting and strange phenomena. It's the almost like the opposite of gravity, it causes things to expand away from each other. What's even weirder is that it's non-conservative, since it depends on how much space is present. So if two objects are a distance x apart, dark energy will create an acceleration of y. But if you separate them to 2x now the acceleration is 2y.

The other question, about ending back where you started, depends on the shape of the universe. The scenario I described is actually only one of three possible scenarios. That one is called a "closed" universe. There's also a "flat" universe, in which gravity slows everything down asymptotically, and an "open" universe in which everything is expanding so fast gravity doesn't do much. In a flat or open universe there is an infinite amount of matter, and no amount of traveling will get you back where you started.

More here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

It's a lot to read but if you're interested you should take a look! There's a lot more there than I know or can explain.

>> No.3469573

>>3469558
No wait, I mean "flat" universe, I think.. though the description still stands.

>> No.3469580

>>3469567
now this is a little tricky
galaxy clusters tend to stick together

>> No.3469581

>>3469536

Maybe it is expanding and maybe it isn't. The only thing we know is that it APPEARS to be expanding. The light comes to us, not us to it, and the data could be corrupted by some undiscovered property of dark matter or dark energy, i.e. the light could be slowed down minutely over great distances creating a redshift which we read as the universe expanding in all directions ,and expanding faster the further away you get from earth.

Appearances can be decieving.

>> No.3469585

>>3469551
>>3469551

No it isn't

>> No.3469586

>>3469581
>maybe

sciencebrofist.jpg

>> No.3469587

>>3469581

Well thats interesting. We use observations from light, but if the light itself is affected by dark matter, how does that change our perception of dark matter?

>> No.3469598

>>3469567

Actually Andromeda is moving towards us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_galaxy#Future_collision_of_the_Milky_Way_with_Andromeda
But Andromeda is so close that relative motions between galaxies drifting about is so prominent that you can't really notice the expansion of the universe. You don't see the expansion until you look very far out. So distant galaxies are receding quite rapidly, and further galaxies faster still.

>> No.3469602

>>3469587
I think the point is we have no idea what dark matter even is, is it even matter? Why does spacetime get all wonky and bent in weird places with nothing around, could that have something to do with redshift? Maybe.

>> No.3469605
File: 11 KB, 360x360, GP0011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3469605

>Every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy.

I don't think so chief

>> No.3469612

>>3469605

Yes, some are moving towards each other in three dimensional space. That doesn't explain all galaxies, in general, appearing to fly away from us. It's a separate phenomenon.

>> No.3469614

>>3469605
0/10
I honestly hope you're trolling.

dat <span class="math">v = H_0 d[/spoiler]

>> No.3469622

>>3469602

How could something get redshifted if it isnt moving away?

Okay I got a stupid idea, seeing as I am not an astro-physicist.

What if space is expanding, and the redshift is the result of more space filling in and lengthing the wavelength of the waves as they are traveling through space?

Kind of like, if you had a balloon, and on the interior a sound was emitted and traveled to the other edge, but at the same time the balloon as inexplicably expanding. The proportion of the wave length, to the distance it has to travel stay the same, but since space is expanding the wavelength also changes, changing the frequency too.

>> No.3469628

>>3469605

I was trying to explain the geometric interpretation of the big bang without being too pedantic. Though you are technically correct. I suppose it would be unfortunate to come across with the idea that this is true for literally all galaxies.

>> No.3469634

>>3469432
This doesn't make sense. How is the epicenter in a higher dimension?

Just measure the area where the stars are moving the slowest.

>> No.3469643

>>3469587

We don't know diddly about dark matter or dark energy. There are just these huge, gaping holes in our understanding of the universe that we decided to fill with hypothetical terms like "dark matter" and "dark energy."

We call them "dark" because we don't know jack shit about them, or if they actually exist. Unfortunately, the only way to make our primative models fit with the data that we appear to observe is to make up a term and force/constantly tweak it untill it meshes with our observations.

Then we pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves cosmologists while marveling at our own genius.

But again observations are only appearances, and appearances can be decieving.

>> No.3469644

>>3469622
Actually that's exactly what is happening.

The red-shift coefficient, <span class="math">z[/spoiler] is given by:

<span class="math">a_e = \frac{1}{1+ z}[/spoiler], where <span class="math">a_e[/spoiler] is the scale factor of the size of the universe when the radiation was emitted (note <span class="math">a_0[/spoiler], or <span class="math">a_{current}[/spoiler] is set arbitrarily to 1)

>> No.3469648

>>3469612

There's probably some fundamental lack of understanding regarding either the nature of gravity or physics on a grand scale. The earth is only a few thousand miles across we are talking about distances in the millions or billions of light years. It is ignorant to think that using such a small test area we could understand what happens across such large distances.

The fact of the matter is many of our little equations and formula are only approximations. It's like a line describing some unknown function perfectly when you zoom in to some tiny area but on the macro level it is actually an insane curve that we basically know nothing about.

>> No.3469652

>>3469644

I thought redshift was because of the doppler effect. As in, the source is moving away, so every pulse includes the distance the object moves in its wavelength.

What I said was, the wavelength itself is getting longer as it moves through space, because space is expanding.

>> No.3469654

>>3469622

>What if space is expanding, and the redshift is the result of more space filling in and lengthing the wavelength of the waves as they are traveling through space?

More space being added is completely indistinguishable form something moving away. Those are literally describing the same thing.

In case you want to know even more, I'm sure you've heard of the cosmic background radiation. Do you know what that actually is a picture of? You may have heard it called the "leftover" or "ash" of the big bang. Really it is just hydrogen. As you look far out you're also looking back in time. At the 13.7 billion light-year wall where we see the CMB is when everything was so dense that hydrogen was packed really tight together, making it very hot. The CMB is just a snapshot of this hot hydrogen, when it was dense enough to emit a wall of photons. But it's redshifted like hell, all the way to the radio spectrum.

>> No.3469659

>>3469652
Well the object emitting the light ISN'T moving away (it might be, but it doesn't have to be moving at all) in reality. The SPACE is expanding, while the ray comes to us. The wave gets stretched out.

>> No.3469660

>>3469652 you,
see this:
>>3469654

>> No.3469667

>>3469580
Ah, oversight on my part, thanks.
So there exist no galaxies outside of our local cluster that are moving towards us?
(I am not trying to discredit universal expansion via apparant redshift galaxies, just curious about these "blueshift" galaxies)

>> No.3469673

>>3469659

Wait its not moving away? I thought it really was.

I also thought it was the doppler effect, and if it was, its not getting redshifted as it travels, it redshifts as a result of us moving away from it as it reaches us.

>> No.3469679

>>3469643

>We call them "dark" because we don't know jack shit about them, or if they actually exist.
What are you talking about, of course these things exist! We have solid proof of both of them!

Dark matter is perhaps less mysterious. We know that something is there, maybe tiny particles or WIMPS or something else altogether. But we certainly know it exists.

Dark energy is the acceleration of the expansion of the universe. We know around 5 billion years ago the universe started accelerating instead of slowing down (as predicted by gravity). To correct for our observations we threw an extra term into Einstein's GR equations.

And it may seem silly to throw an extra term here and there to "correct" for observations, but this is the heart of science! Creating equations that match theory. We can't explain why these things exist, science is purely descriptive, we match our observations as best we can until we develop a more fundamental understanding.

>> No.3469681

>>3469667
They are just being moved around by the force of gravity, which falls off as the inverse square of the distance between them, so given the distances between most galaxies, it's less of a consideration.

>> No.3469688
File: 8 KB, 493x402, 1293033708071.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3469688

>>3469605
that big yellow thing in the middle looks like a sphere.

spheres don't have edges, therefore op is wronger.

>> No.3469699

>>3469673
I phrased that poorly. The object does not have to be travelling through space away from us. There is space getting added to the space in between, however. So the object is "moving away".

>> No.3469707

>>3469699
>I phrased that poorly. The object does not have to be travelling through space away from us. There is space getting added to the space in between

This, holy shit this people.

>> No.3469709

>>3469614

Lulz when we have a Hubble Constant that has yet to be proven to be constant. In fact, the best estimates we have show it to be about 73kps but plus or minus about 3%. Also we're fairly certain that the Ho has been variable in the past, and may yet be variable in the future, yet all of our models and mathematical predictions define this variable as a constant.

>> No.3469779

>>3469709
Lol, of course it's not a constant.
That's why I used <span class="math">H_0[/spoiler]. It varies, but on the order of "very very small" per "huge quantity of time".
In any case, <span class="math">H(t) \equiv \frac{ \dot{a} }{ a }[/spoiler] so it's defined as a variable quantity.
But it's safe to say that for the entire time homo sapiens have existed, <span class="math">H(t) \approx H_0[/spoiler], so we're not making any error when we treat it as a constant in the short term.

>> No.3469781

>>3469679

I'm just saying that they're not facts, their hypothesies. Nothing is proven.

Dark matter : WIMPS are only theoretical and have yet to be discovered. The extra matter holding the universe together may just be normal matter that is too dim to see and too small to obscure our vision (unlikely in it's entirety, but still possible.) Whatever it is can't radiate energy like normal black bodies, but that doesn't mean it has to be these WIMPS that we haven' found yet.

Dark energy: refer to my earlier posts about the "appearance" of redshift and the variability of the Hubble constant. The universe may not be expanding at all. It may just appear to be.

I'm not saying that the current models may not turn out to be correct in the long run, I'm just saying that our understanding of the universe if flawed at best, and at worst is totally incorrect.

A healthy dose of skepticism is needed, and to state that the existance of dark energy and dark matter are known facts is untrue. They're just the best theories that we have at this time, but they're still nothing more than theories.

>> No.3469785
File: 7 KB, 184x273, 7uy777.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3469785

Damn, a lot of virgins here!

>> No.3469795

>>3469779

But the universe, and it's structure have been around for a long time, and to try to extrapolate the shape of the universe ofer the span of it's existance using just a "snapshot" of current (and possibly flawed) observations can lead to a high probability of error in ouf cosmological models.

>> No.3469820

>>3469795
Ah, but we have the benefit of looking back in time!
So our view is not limited to the present, but we can look at photons from billions of years ago and the effect that billions of years have had on it.

It's all here in this equation I've compiled:
<div class="math">a(t_e) = \frac {1} {1 + z}</div>

So by measuring the redshift of a photon, we can know exactly how large the Universe was when it was emitted.

>> No.3469825

>>3469785

Pretty sure there's just two or three of us here now, and I've got to go to bed. Great discussion, though. Will most likely bump in the morning. 'Night /sci/

>> No.3469873

>>3469820

That only works if the light travels at a constant speed on it's 13 billion year journey here. Light travels slower in any medium other than a vacuum. If the light we see is slowed by only a minute fraction every million light years on it's way, then it would show a redshift, and one that would appear to show galaxies moving faster the further away they are. Hubble could be dead wrong if there is some as yet undiscovered property of space/dark matter/dark energy that slows light down.

And then there's the old theories of photon extinction, vacuum friction, and all the others that were dropped in favor of the "seeing is believing" Hubble Constant.

>> No.3469914

And you are correct, there is not center, just as there are no edges. Point to the center of the surface of the earth, now point to its edges. Point being, there exist neither of those. Only difference is that we're talking about a 3d surface when it comes to the universe.

>> No.3469948

but either space is infinite or there are edges.

if space did have a beginning, how did it become infinite? at what point did it go from being finite to infinite?

>> No.3469954

>>3469414
>The center of a normal distribution cannot exist without edges

>> No.3469955

>>3469873

>Hubble could be dead wrong if there is some as yet undiscovered property of space/dark matter/dark energy that slows light down.

Well if there were some strange mysterious force that slowed light down, I'm SURE we would've found it by now. I mean, if it has even the slightest effect on light we'd be able to detect it.
For example, there are a number of ways to calculate the distance to the Sun. And they all agree with the distance calculated by the time it takes for light to get here and the accepted speed of light in vacuum.
So if there is something, it's not a fundamental property of all space (and even if it were, it would effect light everywhere, thus there would be no way to tell the difference. So that's kind of a silly thing to consider).

And if dark matter could somehow effect the speed of light, we'd know about it too.
Consider certain areas which we know to have a lot of dark matter (ie areas of high gravitational lensing, with not enough "regular" matter). We can see the light coming from behind it. It doesn't behave any differently than light which as passes through or by no amount of dark matter. If, say we found that light coming from areas of high dark matter were 70% less redshifted (or more redshifted, or different in some way or another), then that would be glaring evidence that dark matter does effect it. But since this has never been found, there's a good chance that the only effect dark matter has on light is gravitational lensing.
After all, unless light directly interacts with dark matter (and if it did, we would never see that photon again), the only effect that the light is going to feel is gravity.

And as for dark energy, well of course that's effecting it! Dark energy is responsible for the expansion of the universe at it's current rate. So it plays directly with observations and calculations of <span class="math">a(t)[/spoiler].

>> No.3469962

>>3469948
If space is negatively curved then it is open and infinite. If it is positively curved then it is closed like the inside surface of a sphere and finite with no edges.

>> No.3469965

>>3469962

what do you mean by negatively curved?

>> No.3469968

>>3469965
The only way I know how to visualize it is to look at the shape of a horse saddle.

>> No.3469972

>>3469955
You realize you circularly defined yourself right. "of course our observations fit our theory, our theory fits our observations, and since our theory is fact, you're wrong!"

No amount of "short-range" testing could ever demonstrate the kind of red-shifting we see on the large scale. 5-13 billion years of light travel vs 8 minutes, maybe more if we include like those low-quality furthest ever images from space probes.

>> No.3469980

I always wondered if the universe is expanding or not, in what is it expanding IN?

Maybe, it's expanding in God.

>> No.3469981

>>3469431
alternatively, everything is the centre.

>> No.3469988

>>3469980
Outside of the universe its the same size as its always been, its only from inside that it appears to be expanding.

>> No.3470183

The universe is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and whose circumference is nowhere.

>> No.3470287

>>3470183
Infinite sphere? Could you define or elaborate that? Couldn't it be an infinite cube? Or trapoid?

>> No.3470296

Besides, the "Big Bang" was the rapid expansion of very compressed matter. That leads to the conclusion that the universe IS finite, but constantly expanding. Forever. Thus there is an edge, and there is a center.

>> No.3470299

>>3470296
Citation. Oh wait, you don't have none, because that was just pulled out of your ass.

>> No.3470306

>>3470299
Citation: Brief history of Time. Steven Hawkings.

>> No.3470316

>>3470296
Except we don't know for certain either way. Some things imply finite, others imply infinite. Also, NO, there is not a center. Everyone perceives themselves to be at the center of the universe, so you either have to say everywhere is the center or no where is.

Read a fucking book, because you obviously misread the one by Hawking.

>> No.3470322 [DELETED] 
File: 81 KB, 752x645, 1311886014560.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3470322

>>3469988
>make claim about what exists outside our universe
>have no evidence to back it up
>mfw I thought this was /sci/

>> No.3470335

Universe is a 4d sphere.
No need for edges, broski

>> No.3470359
File: 24 KB, 600x600, nope.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3470359

Here OP, I'll fix that for you

>> No.3470389

>>3469432
>But we observe them all receding at the same rate. nope.

>> No.3470395

>>3469432
You have no clue what you're talking about. Shhh.

>> No.3470402

>>3470389
Nope was not supposed to be greentext. How embarrassing of me.

>> No.3470414

Are you guys fucking serious? We learned this shit in middle school. Remember geometry?

<-----------o---------->

Never ending line with a starting origin
The only origin we can determine is earth (for now)
The center of the universe is earth, as we perceive it in relative terms

Thread over.

>> No.3470418

>>3470414
Please go away idiot, or troll.

>> No.3470422
File: 59 KB, 423x520, toolbillhicks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3470422

>>3469432
But if the center of the universe, which lies in 4d space, is the point at which the universe began, then that implies that the universe is expanding in the timelike dimension...the expansion of the universe in this manner is related to the passage of time.
All points in the universe can be described as a 4d analogue of spherical coordinates, (x,y,z,t) where t is distance from center.
The "inflation" of the universe following the big bang, in which the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, is analogous to the an explosion whose explosive velocity is faster than the speed of sound in a medium...it explodes faster than the "allowed" speed, then propagates at the maximum speed. In the same way, a universe expanding in del(x,y,z,t)/dA (where A is a higher-order analogue of time) faster than the critical speed, the speed of light, would be metastable for a brief time.
So, what is the medium? What exactly is A?

>> No.3470425

>>3470418

You soundin' mad jelly because logic has debunked your "herp derp no center" psudo-intellectualism.

>> No.3470429

>>3470425
Please go away idiot, or troll. [2]

>> No.3470432
File: 38 KB, 257x274, 1304305090496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3470432

>>3470422
Whoa

>> No.3470436

>>3470422

Particles cannot into faster than speed of light.

>> No.3470442

>>3470429

All I see is you denying the fact like a butthurt faggot, and not backing up any claims of your own. Think the one who needs to get the fuck out of here is you.

>> No.3470443

>>3470436
Well, maybe. Quantum physics is weird and all. A signal cannot travel faster than the speed of light, and classical particles cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

>> No.3470445
File: 26 KB, 312x445, 1294566376818.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3470445

>>3470436
Space can into the speed of light all it wants.

Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Nothing can, if it wants.

>> No.3470446

>>3470442
A line has no center nor middle. You are misusing the definition of "center" and "middle". There is nothing more that needs to be said.

>> No.3470452

>>3470445

Contrary to belief--nothing being everything in this case--nothing is in fact that, nothing. It does not exist. What cannot exist cannot go faster than what is proven to exist. That's like saying I have a second dick but you cant see it because it's going faster than the speed of light because it doesn't exist.

>> No.3470460

>>3470445
>>3470452
This is what we call philosophy, not science. It's also bad philosophy. Are we going to start discussing the number of Angels that can dance on a pin head?

>> No.3470464

>>3470446

>doesnt know what origin is
>attempts to rationalize it as otherwise

Oh you..

>> No.3470469

>>3470464
Yes. Obviously the Andromeda Galaxy should be picked for the origin, and it should be artificially and arbitrarily declared the center via fiat. How obvious it is now. Thank you.

>> No.3470472

The earth does not move at all.
It is the universe that spins

>> No.3470477

>>3470472
Actually, we can falsify that. While linear motion is relative - you cannot determine if you are "moving" while in a box - you can determine if you are spinning in a box. It is indeed the Earth which spins.

>> No.3470485

>>3470477
Are you... my maths professor?

>> No.3470489

>>3470469

Nigga you flat out dumb. You're implying the center is some far and possibly unknown location for which we haven't, and perhaps never will discover. You don't take into consideration that superposition means center is everything and everywhere, so we ourselves have to give center an origin. As we extend our reaches into space, we are the base for which everything goes. We are the center.

Jesus fuck its like arguing with a child and why they can't have candy for every meal. You just want it, I get it. You're not gonna fucking get it though.

>> No.3470504

>>3470489
When you talk about the center of the universe, this implies that there are edges for which the center is equidistant from the center.

You are abusing the English words. It's not what they mean. There is no known center to the universe because we are currently unsure of its bounds. It's likely that there is no center.

>> No.3470509

>>3469414
OP you forgot something so I'll add it.

U MAD?

>> No.3470513

>>3470504

You're trying to make OPs ignorant statement your own, again without explaining anything. You think there cannot be a center with no edges. There can. It's been explained multiple times over in this thread.

>> No.3470523

>>3470513
That's not what the term "center of the universe" means. When you talk to people about the center of a physical object, that implies the "center of mass" of the object, or some other measure of "equidistant" from the sides. That's simply what the English means.

>> No.3470524

>>3470523

Confirmed for troll or high school student.
Thread hidden

>> No.3470528

>>3470524
Nope. Merely one who wants to communicate effectively.

>> No.3470531 [DELETED] 
File: 5 KB, 251x197, 1311664770171s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3470531

I have to admit something.

My name is Dr. Richard T. Bale, a practiced particle physicist for the last 32 years; graduated with honors from Duke in my early 20s, having gained my Ph.D in physics from Edinburgh shortly thereafter. I was soon picked up by company whom will remain unnamed for various projects, including the search for the Higgs Boson, which lead to more grandeur ventures including a short stay at CERN within these last few years.

We make it all up.

Not a damned night goes by where I don't wonder how it is we've come so far with such asinine and preposterous understandings of science. There are times where I compare the practice to that of spinning some bottle at some 14-year-old girl's birthday party, regarding our fundamental deductions. Frankly, I haven't the slightest inkling how we've not yet blown ourselves up save for the unfortunate people of Japan, for whom we are wholly responsible in crimes against humanity. We're ignorant children playing with a lighter; enamored by the flame in a tribal-like delusion of strength and power. One day we're going to burn it all down until there's nothing left.

I've retired early with disgust in these child-like "sciences", and pray those aspiring in the same field do not lower themselves to be clowns in a circus of lies and ignorance. This old codger is through with the parade, and done wearing masks.

>> No.3470535

>>3470531
Fun troll. Sadly, the computer you're using right now is proof of the falsity of your claims. Physics and science is a bitch, eh? Go away troll.

>> No.3470536

>>3470523
equal distance from some point in 4D? Well yeah, on the time scale the point is ~14bn years.

>> No.3470541

>>3470536
I don't know what you're trying to say.

>> No.3470547

>>3470531
OP Here.

What In The Fuck dude. I read about some MM lyrics and start a thread based around them. This was not grounds for such deep discussion. You people just gave Marilyn Manson a lot of /sci/ points.

>> No.3470573

>>3470541
nevermind just realized that my analogy would require quiet some explanation which I'm in no mood furthermore it will escalate into conservation of energy thread which I'm in no mood on 4chan since everyone just repeats "no way bullshit, it's a law it can't possibly be violated Mr. ABC said so so it must be true" it's just annoying because people take several cases when the "laws" apply and hence assume it's valid all the time.

>> No.3470603

>>3469414
Fortunately, science tells us that the universe has no center.... *sighs in relief*

>> No.3470613

>>3469470
µNo you couldn't. If you do it means you haven't understood modern physics yet. Read more

>> No.3470623

>>3469515
> lets say we could freeze time and travel significantly faster than light speed around the universe.

Let's not say that. Because it's impossible.
You won't understand physics/the universe by overlooking its more fundamental rules.

>> No.3470788
File: 245 KB, 640x890, 1301658782046.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3470788

there is no center of the universe
if you wind back the clock everything will just get closer to each other but relatively at the same place
(other way of thinking about the expansion will be to think that all the matter is shrinking in size, but this wouldn't explain redshifts, it's just an example to get the idea)

there is also no edge of the universe
we don't know if there is something beyond the observable universe but probably there is, the universe is probably bigger than what we can see

the observable universe has no real edge either it's just an effect of the expansion, the farther something is, the larger the expansion.
at the edge of the universe the expansion is larger than the speed of light, that's why no light can reach us beyond the horizon of the observable universe

so maybe there is an edge but we can't see it, or maybe the universe is infinite in size and there is infinite amount of matter which we can't see because of the limit set by the expansion (a radius of 46 billion light years)

and to understand the concept of the observable universe you should first understand the expansion

>> No.3470819

Could it just be that the world expanded from a point that no longer resides at the center? Like a lopsided balloon?

>> No.3470848

Universe = Mobius strip

End thread