How come they say that the universe has no center Yea Forums?

Attached: 9873050572.jpg (1916x1604, 213K)

But that point was a 0 dimensional object that existed before time, how does that translate to the current state of the whole universe where we have 3 spatial dimensions?

There is a center but it may have only existed for one moment in the beginning.
Since the universe is constantly expanding; eventually It will stop expanding and, just like when a sun goes supernova, collapse in on itself returning to it's original state of nonexistence.

Attached: 21846433.jpg (259x482, 45K)

The pausing would obv require some means of stopping time. However, even if we could, we can't pinpoint the center to something of which we don't have a complete understanding. The observable universe is a fraction of what's actually out there. Once we can perceive the entirety of the universe, then we can go about labeling not only centers, but outer boundaries.

If it is infinite then what every spot you choose becomes the center since infinity is in every direction.

They don't know. It's some half assed studies and numbers.

In uniform expansion a center cannot be defined, because every point in the universe appears to be the center of expansion.

This is my current understanding of things, but what Ive read contradicts it.
For sure bro
If we go by the assumption that it is infinite, sure. But we don't know that.
Just for a tought experiment, if the universe issphere, donut or cube shaped, or whatever, and its uniformly expanding, then I can still visualize where that center is even if I can't pinpoint it with 100% accuracy because its expanding, so that doesn't make snese to me.

your question is like :"Why the sky is not falling on us ?" It doesn't have a sense.
Asking the question, "where is the center of the universe" is wrong. The universe, content himself, there is no center.
And "universe" is universe, even if, what we called now universe, is content in an another thing, the "real" universe, the containing and not the content, doesn't have a center, as it doesn't have border (maybe). (Border is more complicate). Or maybe we are nothing and we doesn't exist

Here's a picture. There's a starfield with a 105 % expanded layer above it. If any star is aligned with its expanded partner, they all appear to be the center of expansion.

Attached: uniform exp.jpg (800x1650, 50K)

What have you been reading user?

It's so goddamn big it doesn't matter

I don't see how that addresses my question, the real vs no real shit is more conjecture than saying that is infinite. I get what you're saying but... yea
Been reading since the blackhole pic thing that sparked my curiosity in astronomy again, mostly news articles and a book "One and the Universe".
Yes, I understand that and actually there is a webpage that I came across where you can actually move and see how every point is the center, but that is only for the "observable" universe and not the whole thing (which I know we dont have it mapped or anything, its just a tought experiment).

The same rules apply for the unobservable part of the universe. It would have once been observable but has redshifted out of observation. Likewise every part of the observable universe will become unobservable after sufficient expansion.

Because the universe started from a single point, expanding uniformly, every point in the universe is the center expansion.

>infinity.

There is a principle in mathmathics that shows infinity looping back on itself. Don't know what it's called becasue I'm a dumb nigger so I can't find it.

Attached: Image02.gif (499x308, 3K)

I understand that but I can't visualize it and can't come to terms with that idea. If we are the center of the universe because everything is expanding away from us, then if we had all the information about the universe and everything mapped, we should be able to pinpoint the center, not where it originated or something like that, I mean the geometric center, right?

the universe is really big and from where we are in the universe plus our limited technology we have no way of knowing where the center is

>infinity is a concept not a number

>It would have once been observable but has redshifted out of observation.

>Likewise every part of the observable universe will become unobservable after sufficient expansion.

>center expansion

Center

There is still a center.

Any 2 or 3 dimensional space has a center.

Attached: fig015-02.gif (543x295, 20K)

Wow insightful. Much smart. So you don't know the principle I'm talking about cool.

Attached: 1557812959895.jpg (454x550, 32K)

>from where we are in the universe plus our limited technology
Incorrect, technology has nothing to do with the laws of physics. From where we are, everything is the center from their frame of reference. Your dick is the center but so is your nose and at the same time moot's turd is the center.

Isn't all of this contingent upon the expansion being uniform though? I doubt that something as large as our entire universe would be subject to such uniformity. Wouldn't it be more likely that some areas with high gravitational fluctuations would grow at a slower rate? i.e. areas with a higher concentration of supermassive black holes growing more slowly due to gravity's impact on the expansion?

Not if it's infinite. Think of an plane. If it's an ordinary plane, you can find the center by measuring from the edges. Now imagine it's infinite, and therefore has no edges. That means there's no longer a center.

>Any 2 or 3 dimensional space has a center.
No, 2D objects don't necessarily have a center. Picture a circle on a paper, only where you drew the lines of the circle is where the dimensions exist, everything else doesn't. Where is the center of the circle? Do the same with a sphere where the inside of the sphere is dimensionless.

We have the technology

Attached: pic_0.gif (333x199, 5K)

There is no new space being created in the expansion. There is no outside. The coordinate system expands with the universe.

>durp infinite is a concept

Again see

>durp I'm stupid
yes, yes you are

>There is no outside

Bold statement. Unknown, unknowns

Soild.

No, the space itself (the fabric where particle like photons and protons can exist) still grows. For example, the dimensions in your room will remain because there are forces that hold shit together (not only gravity) and are stronger than that expansion, but the fabric in which your room was standing (assuming we're not moving in space) got bigger. This doesn't matter because your room is small, but over huge distances, light years, millions of light years, the expansion becomes significant. We're still gonna crash with andromeda galaxy because gravity, but the space (the fabric of space) of that distance has gotten bigger.

Different user, but the current conception is that time and space didn't exist before the Big Bang. That's why it's so weird, compared to other explosions. It's not expanding in space, it created space, and there is no space outside of it.

nigga that's sweet af

Attached: nigga-thats-kawaii-4480242.png (500x1026, 258K)

I know that I didnt imply that there is "new" space, well, I dont understand the subject well enough so I may say some wrong shit even tho I get it when i think about it, but that doesn't answer what I said tho.

Say you're a 2 dimensional being, who lives on the surface of a balloon. What's the center of the surface of the balloon? There isn't one, because no matter what direction you go, you'll never run into an edge. You can just keep going and going, until you're back where you started.

The universe may be a 3D version of that.

I'm not into theoretical physics. Am a mathematics undergrad. Would like to study physic for grad maybe.

All that is house shit. Sorry. It's fluff. Shit for people to feel smart. It's like theoretical math. pointless, until applied.

What a better waste of time then to create theories in which note experiment can validate

>Multiverse

Some of those theories have been validated. Red shift of galaxies, for instance. Uniform distribution of large scale stellar structures. Cosmic background radiation.

If you want to pick on a part of physics that seemingly can't be validated, then pick on string theory.

There are different types of "centers", such as observable and centers of mass. the center between the earth and the moon is not the center of the earth, because really the two bodies revolve around the center of mass, not each other. and observational centers depend on points of reference. Therefore, no, there is technically no observable center of the universe, because despite being infinite, there is a finite amount of mass that exists. The center could be anywhere, thus it is nowhere. It gets easier when you stop thinking of reality in terms of "things", because there is no such thing as a thing. And since space isn't technically a true vaccuum, that also fucks you in the ass observationally. Is there a difference between a solid rock and a pocket of space, if true space doesn't exist?

Attached: giphy.gif (200x200, 494K)

>All theories that could be tested.

Welcome to science 101.

>true space

Attached: 1557757161044.jpg (163x255, 9K)

Seemingly abstract mathematical exercises have turned out to have real life applications. Topology is a good example.

I kind of see what you mean, and bear with me I may have misunderstood your point, but I'm not denying the growth as a whole; just the rate of expansion The gravitational forces of the black holes (especially if they are near a point of expansion) would significantly slow down said expansion by pulling in the matter around it, thus creating unequal expansion... Right?

Ive read that analogy and its an unsatisfying answer because the universe is 3D spatial wise, not 2D, you can't do the same thought experiment in 3D with anything real because it has a geometric center. Can you visualize anything 3D without a center? Or can you only do it in math? Because if you can only do it in math then Id understand that. I mean, the universe is 3D, not 2D, visualizing something 3d without a center seems impossible.
Already been adressed in the thread and educated guesses on what the universe's shape or size are conjecture, which is pretty meaningless when you state something like its a hard fact

Whatever you see is the center. For an infinite body, whichever point you touch will be the center. This thinking is used in many places although it may not be correct

What are you talking about
IM THE CENTRE OF THE UNIVERSE!

Seeing how my is my baby the saying is we come up with the theory and it's up to others to find the use.

I was hesitant to lump math in with what ever the fuck is going on with physics. But some math is retarted.

>Also the imaginary 1 is useful.

I dont get why people dont understand your first point. All 3d object have a center. This isn't anything so abstract niggers can't get it. Just a bunch of brainlets in here trying to sound smart.

But the matter has nothing to do with the expansion, space itselfs is going to keep expanding regardless of the attraction between anything that has mass. This is our current understanding of things, we don't know how dark energy works, but it works like that. Its not interacting with matter but with the fabric of space. The rate of expansion only happens affects the "space" where things can exist, not the actual things, an atom isn't going to get bigger but the fabric of space that could only hold one atom at some point now can hold 2 because it expanded on itself. Gravity bends spacetime but it doesn't interact with the rate of expansion itself.

They say that to push their atheistic paradigm. Earth is the center of the "universe" #ResearchFlatEarth

Attached: truth.gif (482x482, 1.25M)

Can you visualize a hypercube, i.e.a 4 dimensional cube? The 3D "surface" of a hypercube would qualify, it's just really hard to explain to 3D people. It's basically the same as trying to explain the surface of the balloon to a 2D person living on it, who can't easily visualize the third dimension that's required to make the surface loop and lack a center.

I bugged my 3rd grade teacher by asking her what the square root of -1 was. She kept telling me it was impossible, I kept telling her it was i.

The problem is that all replies have an "if" attached to it (if its infinite, if observable, if its expanding, if..) but when I add an "if" as an experiment no one can actually give me an accurate representation of it that is 3D, thats my issue with it at least, but smarter people than me say it doesn't have a center so I think there is more to it and I'm just not getting it, or maybe you're right and they're retarded

How do you explain an eclipse or the Horizon?

Try to think of the universe as a bubble, the thin layer that is the surface is time. The single point that was the big bang was the first point of all existence.

As we continue through time, the bubble gets bigger and bigger. We are 3-dimensional creatures living on the surface of the bubble. To higher dimensional beings, they can travel through multiple points in time, they can even exist in more than one time by living on the inside of the bubble and the outside of it (the future and the past).

Worm holes are shortcuts to different places on the bubble (different part of the universe), a black is a hole on the membrane of the bubble, similar to a hole on the surface of a cell, like a channel. No one knows where it goes, most likely to a different place in time in that same bubble (same universe, different time, but only in the past).

Traveling into the future requires us to exist in the past and the future at once (being an object that exists in the past of the bubble and the outside of the bubble).

The bubble expands at the speed of light, you can argue that certain points on the bubble are existing in different points in time than our own, some exist in the past and some places on the edge of our universe are moving faster than light, so they are in the future (we will never see them).

The bubble is not perfectly round, but the universe is a lot simpler than it seems.

Their are an infinite amount of bubbles user.

Attached: 0459453743.jpg (1884x1454, 170K)

some of the "smart people can't distinguish theoretical from applied. That's what makes them retarted.

Most likely never had experience outside of class.

How can you visualize a 4D object when you're constrained to a 3D spatial dimension where no 4D object can exist? I understand the concept of it, I understand how it can work, but visualizing it? No. No one can. No one can picture a 4D object. And the 3D surface of a 4D object is still a 3D object.

>And the 3D surface of a 4D object is still a 3D object.
Then explain the surface of a balloon. It's a 2D object, but it has no center or edge, and that can't be explained except in reference to a third dimension.

In 4 dimensional space-time it does have a centre:
It is the "big-bang".

That occurred around 13.7 billion years ago, and no longer exists in the present.

Let's say you have a one dimensional LINE that is bent round into a CIRCLE in a two dimensional PLANE, now consider where the centre of that LINE is. No point on that LINE can be called the centre, alternatively, all points on the line can be considered to be equal in every respect. Either all of them, or none of them can be called the centre.

Now:
Let's say you have a two dimensional SURFACE that is bent round into the surface of a SPHERE in a three dimensional VOLUME, now consider where the centre of that SURFACE is. No point on that SURFACE can be called the centre, alternatively, all points on the surface can be considered to be equal in every respect. Either all of them, or none of them can be called the centre. It's just like asking which point on the surface of the EARTH can b e considered to be the central point - they are all equal, even if you choose to call the north pole, or your current position, or your country's capital city, or anything else as the central point for some practical purpose, e.g. making a "great circle map".

Now:
Let's say you have a three dimensional spherical VOLUME that is bent round into a HYPERSPHERE in a four dimensional HYPERVOLUME, now consider where the centre of that VOLUME is. No point In that VOLUME can be called the centre, alternatively, all points in the volume can be considered to be equal in every respect. Either all of them, or none of them can be called the centre.

--
Pepe Oldfag Wizard
󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 ▲
󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 󠛡 ▲ ▲

Attached: Great Circle Map of the World with London as the centre .jpg (626x504, 358K)

okay well i rewrote my post because Yea Forums said it didn't go through so here's a different argument: If you could look at the entire universe from the outside you could find its observable center. But until then, we can't say. True space doesn't even exist. There is always something there in the "empty" pockets between everything that glues all objects in the universe together. If there weren't anything there, going from the earth to the some planet on the other side of the galaxy would be as simple as stepping through a door. Distance exists because of the relation between things, so, therefore, there must be SOMETHING between say, earth, and some random planet elsewhere.

>time cube!
kek

Time as a dimension can't be manipulated the same way as space dimension, this comes from the same dude that brought you relativity. Time is connected to space, there is no time dimensio, there is spacetime, you can't travel in one without travelling through the other, your time speed and space speed are connected, no being or matter outside the bubble can be exempt from this once they interact with those dimensions unless its on a scifi show

The surface of a balloon as a perfect 2D, sure, you can explain it, why? Because you live in those 2Dimensions therefore you can visualize it. In the real world you're living in those 2dimensions plus another one, you're not living in 4D, so you can't visualize that. I don't see how you can visualize it, no one can, all the models done to show you 4D are just 3D objects to help you understand the concept of it, visualizing 4D is impossible.

>visualizing 4D is impossible

Attached: fucking-plebe.jpg (529x399, 101K)

>Time dilation

>True space
See

>can't be manipulated the same way as space dimension

>yet

You can test it, there is a simple test for it. Google it And about the 0 dimensional object, that is just a guess/theory, nobody can be sure of that.

But not only is there no example of true space, it also would not exist if it WERE real. Did I say something wrong? The universe sits in a kind of mucus, with no true space in-between anything.

admittedly I have done no research on this, forgive me for spouting bullshit sensei.
So apparently we would only know if it's finite or infinite by looking at the whole thing? Logically then, it is both at once. Nothing is confined, nothing ends. If space existed beyond our universe, wouldn't everything be pulled apart and destroyed? Space must be filled. But nothing ends. So if the universe has no end, then that makes it undoubtedly finite. I take it all back, the universe must be finite. Space must be filled, or else it wouldn't be space. If our universe had an abrupt end, we'd automatically be touching something like a border. But I'm too stupid to imagine what could contain our universe. It's like I'm an ant trying to grasp a computer. Actually, I think if anything were touching our universe it would just be a duplicate universe. Is this what the multiple universe theory is? Since you can technically turn a sphere inside out without any part of its plane bumping face to face with itself, we're probably just living inside of some kind of mirror. Okay, so I've basically solved what's outside our universe, so what next? I see. Escaping our universe into one that isn't essentially the same means doing it from within this exact one. Space travel would be pointless. It's probably a situation where we must perpetually escape into a smaller, slower existence to escape death. But if that were the case, why were WE made in the first place? Was it the experiment of some creator, or a creator's accident? WE did not escape to this place, so what gives? If we did not bring ourselves into existence, that does not bode well for our control over our own future. Surviving would probably be tricky.

Attached: 22f.png (1280x720, 843K)

I would like you to explain why I am wrong.

Yeah this isnt the 1800's we know there is shit in space friend. Never read the term "true space" before. Sound like something a retard says on a Thai riceshucking form.

Oh I see, I'm being made fun for my choice of words.

You're kind of talking about philosophy more than physics.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound? In physics, yes it does, the same way the fabric of spacetime is still there if nothing is ocupying it, its still existing. You can ask the same question if space itself is real even if no particle is ocupying that point of space, in our current understanding, it exists in the same way that the tree that fell made a sound, that fabric of spacetime can be modified by gravity even if nothing is there. And the answer is the same for both scenarios, there is no way to verify that a tree made a sound if when it fell if nothing/no one was able to observe it, the same way we can't verify if space exists when there is nothing occupying it.

Why the FUCK haven't you joined this server yet?
discordapp.com\invite\zSyp9sX
Copy to your browser... EZ...NO-RULES, no yannies
GO GO GO
MSG_ID: jer3eguepl
CAN YOU FUCKING TELL ME WHY YOU'RE NOT HERE YOU SILLY MOTHER FUCKER
DONT READ KIKE
COPY THAT SHIT TO YOUR FUCKING BROWSER
discordapp.com\invite\zSyp9sX
discordapp.com\invite\zSyp9sX
discordapp.com\invite\zSyp9sX

I'd say I'm pretty damn impressive considering I figured all this out by giving it a few minutes of thought when it took the collective intelligence of humanity hundreds of years to reach a similar conclusion.
>Yeah this isnt the 1800's we know there is shit in space friend.
I literally didn't know until I gave it some critical thought just now. Sorry, I didn't need to know this--it's not my job. On research, I see that yes, other people have figured this out.
Also I haven't read a single post in this thread other than the ones responding to mine, and the op's post, so don't get mad at me if I say something repetitive.
>something a retard would say
sry labels aren't my strong suit, I leave the window dressing to housewives like yourself.

Attached: tha1orr4w9901.jpg (1280x720, 100K)

>lol
Do the math nigger

Attached: 4c5de8afeabced6a4c273a85424d2a4a.jpg (564x1441, 139K)

The universe cannot have a central finite point otherwise everything would collapse into it.

>big crush

My interests stop at math. Anyone could do this if they cared enough--easily. It doesn't require creativity to learn what's known. I'm talking about pushing the boundaries. The people who made fucking Interstellar told those dweeb mathematicians things they didn't know about black holes, and they did it by being dreamers, not by burying their faces in "books" and "math". If you want to know about space, try turning your eyes up to the stars for once, huh? And maybe next, turn them inside yourself?

Attached: 1553964942061.jpg (318x318, 36K)

>The people who made fucking Interstellar told those dweeb mathematicians things they didn't know about black holes

Thinking mathematicians study black holes.

Yeah if I was a nigger, I would stop at the hard stuff to.

Attached: 1557655512579.jpg (326x523, 22K)

>thinks math isn't the base of science
>ah semantics, the last refuge of the Wrong
Forgive me, I was just looking for my reaction image.

Attached: 1553965070497.jpg (310x310, 21K)

Define "center". Center of mass? Center of gravity? Center of pressure?

We will never be able to detect any "center" if there is one. The observable universe only allows us to see so much. We have absolutely no clue what there is beyond that... that's why it's called the "observable universe". Without knowing this information, there is no possible way to determine this. It's also a misnomer that "the universe is 13.8 billion years old". Expansion is 13.8 billion years old. We have no clue how much time passed between the singularity and the expansion. It could be fractions of a second... it could be trillions of years (or more).

>Still not knowing anything about something.

Attached: 1557784637119.gif (160x69, 986K)

youtube.com/watch?v=tfp6xLgGsp4

Attached: 1.jpg (1141x856, 736K)

meh, that's not the path the sun & moon take across the sky during the year. try again.

Anyone who says there are more than 3 spatial dimensions is making it up.

Truth is we don't know if there is a centre or if the universe is infinite and eternal. One thing we do know is there is apparent expansion in our observable universe. The rest is hypothesis

>/thread

Bu-bu-bu-but 1,375,093 dimensions

no

>I'm pretty damn impressive
>posts chinese cartoons
kek, go off yourself.

Wrong

>Truth is we don't know if there is a centre or if the universe is infinite and eternal.
And...../thread

This only shows there is no center to *the expansion*

It does not rule out there being a spatial centre. If you believe the universe expanded from a point, there most certainly is a leading edge and therefore a centre

>Center
>Flat Earth/Cosmos

Pick one

The universe is potentially infinite and therefore has no beginning or end. No center or outer shell.

Attached: 4506636833.jpg (1866x1620, 192K)

It does. The scale and our position in the universe just makes it seem like there is none.