Why would universe have no center? Are physicists mentally ill?

Why would universe have no center? Are physicists mentally ill?

I define center as they do in graph theory. Have a tree. Remove all leaves to produce new tree. Repeat until one vertex left.

If you can pick two objects and say which one of them is on the left and which one is on the right you can find center of universe by doing these comparisons to every single object in the universe.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_center
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>If you can pick two objects and say which one of them is on the left and which one is on the right
the universe is non-orientable

Where's the center of a balloon's surface?

Are you literally autistic?

If I give you apple and orange, you cant tell me which one of them is left from your perspective?

>If I give you apple and orange, you cant tell me which one of them is left from your perspective?
You don't know what 'orientable' means.

surely there is a center

If universe were "balloon" you could go into the same direction and eventually return to your starting point, violating conservation of energy.

Also a thing like "surface of a balloon" cannot be defined without referring to concept called curvature. Center would then be point of maximum curvature, that is, shrink the balloon up to a point.

Sure I do, retard. Now answer my question.

the universe has no fixed frame of reference because all things are moving apart from each other simultaneously including the distance between them.


they make the claim space is fold-rotational-invariant, which like you i disagree with, it's far more likely we are looking through a giant filter which surrounds our solar system. because if i had a 7 billion year head start on evolution i would eventually end up fucking around with primitive lifeforms on distant star systems, giving them altered and highly controlled conceptions of reality would be both amusing and a way for me to discover god.

>Now answer my question.
Why? It has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

???
I never said the universe is a balloon. I'm just giving you an example of a case where a simple and familiar object (the surface of a balloon) can exist and also not have a center.

Funny brainlet. You dont know why consensus is universe has no center. You dont know.

>You dont know why consensus is universe has no center.
Because the universe is non-orientable, why else?

That isn't even the reason. If you said that the universe is non-orientatable from an outsider perspective then you might have a point, but there is no way you could know this and it wouldn't have an bearing on OP's question anyway so you don't have a point and it would appear therefore that you don't know what you are talking about.

>That isn't even the reason.
Wrong.

But the Universe balloon analogy is poor, especially when we consider that the universe was infinitely dense (a singularity) and that it is continuous both in space and in time back towards the point of the big bang inself. This is not true of a balloon. Try blowing up an infinitely dense balloon and tell me how you get on.

But thats wrong since universe is orientable. Only way for universe to be non orientable would be if you could have two observers going in different directions of time.

It's not an analogy. Like I said, it's just an example of a case where you can have a surface with no center. OP (or you if you're OP) wrote something along the lines of how he believes he could always identify a center in any structure, so I just provided an example where there isn't really a center. The universe details are irrelevant to this example. I never said the universe was a balloon and I never said a balloon is an analogy for the universe.

It is interesting, but it doesn't sit well with occram's razor. If we have an orientable universe then we can speak of a central point, maybe even without one in some sense. Denying a central point gives rise to talk of non-orientable space which isn't needed otherwise.

>occram's razor
lol

>If we have an orientable universe then we can speak of a central point, maybe even without one in some sense. Denying a central point gives rise to talk of non-orientable space which isn't needed otherwise.
But Occam's razor suggests not making the unnecessary assumption that the universe is orientable

Interesting. But, for the sake of argument. Lets say we are scientists on the surface of that balloon and we wish to know where the balloon was before it expanded and we point in a direction in a third dimension somewhere, which might be like our fourth dimension. So therefore we can work back in time, which is still a function in space and get to a point in time and space where the two 'overlap' and then we can say generally that we have a centre. Or, in the case of our universe, specifically seeing as it was such a dense point/singularity.

Due to a birth defect I exhibit radial symmetry. Please explain left and right to me in simple objective terms that are not dependent on specific context.

Upon further reflection I have decided to concede this point. However, if you actually know what you are talking about then you should know that what you are saying is wrong in a very special kind of way. Lol.

Let V be vector space with a basis {x, y, z} where x = (1,0,0), y = (0,1,0) and z = (0,0,1).

Point A is said to be "to the left of" point B if their distance vector D(from A to B) = ax + by + cz satisfies a < 0.

For example, A = (3, 5, -8) is to the left of B = (5, -2, 3) because D(from A to B) = 2x - 7y + 11z.

*a > 0

>His definition depends on the basis of a space and not the space itself
Dude the entire point of linear algebra was to be able to say correct statements about an entire space regardless of which basis was being used.

Please retake linear algebra 1 and at least try to learn something this time.

>what you are saying is wrong in a very special kind of way.
No it's not.

If the graph has cycles in it, that's obviously not going to work. Same for certain infinite graphs, such as the integers with edges between adjacent integers.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_center
Looks like OP fucked up the definition. And in general, the center may consist of multiple nodes. It can even be the entire graph, which would be the case most analogous to the universe as envisioned by the usual model.

Thats not true. Better way is to give simplest basis that works and just transform the basis later. We know we are dealing with 3 dimensional space.

Philosophically saying "Let V = {n_1, n_2, ..., n} be vector space..." is pretty much equivalent to saying "V = {(1,0,0), (0,1,0), (0,0,1)}". In both cases you are exactly determining basis and leaving no degrees of freedom to your choice of basis.

Its impossible to have cycles physically. If A is left to one object only and right to one object only.

Then the center would be multiple nodes, nothing wrong with that. Lmao

>2017
>trees in space