Center of the Universe

What about the center of mass of the universe?

The Balloon analogy is flawed, and that's what you're having an issue with.

The center of a sphere is equidistant from all points on the surface.

As far as the universe is concerned, only the surface exists. The interior volume of the sphere has no physical analogy. Since the center is in the interior, it has no physiCal meaning.

Even when you shrink the Balloon infinitely small, it still has an interior center, and that center is still "outside" the universe. Since only the surface exists, you can't claim any part of the surface is/was the center.

In your picture, the only extant part of the universe is the bolded line.

At no point in your illustration does the center exist on that line.
Therefore, the universe has no center.

Conventional idea is that time and space both began at the Big Bang. So it makes as much sense to ask when or where it started as it does to talk about points north of the North Pole. The Big Bang didn't start anywhere or at any time, because these
things don't make sense at any time when or where the universe didn't exist.
> everything has a center it is expanding from
Not true at all. You can stretch a rubber band uniformly and there is no center that it stretches from because it is being pulled apart, not pushed out. And if you let go of a rubber band to let it collapse, it will not collapse into a single point but will simply relax to its natural length. Not saying that the situation is similar at all to the universe, I'm just pointing out that your logic is bad, and in this case physicists don't find it obvious at all that there is a point that everything is expanding from. It just doesn't work in the way that you are imagining it and the reality of it happens to be that we have no reason to assume there is a center.

>The Big Bang didn't start anywhere or at any time
...
You are implying you do not believe in the big bang.
>You can stretch a rubber band uniformly and there is no center that it stretches from
Except when it is expanding to all outward directions at the same rate. Your comparison is really bad.

why not?

The origin point pf the big bang is not the same as the current center of the universe. What males you think it expands equally everywhere?

Yeah the Big Bang was everywhere, not in a certain place. So it has no center.

>the Big Bang was everywhere
Yeah. Until it expanded enough it wasn't... cmon think

why not?

The expansion is space itself expanding, not something in space, so your argument fails. Nothing is changing position (except for stuff being pulled together by gravity), every position in space is just getting farther away from every other position. This is the source of your confusion.

Whatever expands in all directions with the same speed must have a center (beginning point). This is basic maths.
Tell me, if the universe would start contracting today, where would it contract to? Nowhere? Impossible.

>Whatever expands in all directions with the same speed must have a center (beginning point)
Imagine an infinite cubic grid of points where the closest points are 1 unit distance away from each other. Now imagine that we increase that distance to 2. Where was the center of that expansion?

>Tell me, if the universe would start contracting today, where would it contract to?
That question doesn't make sense. Space doesn't expand or contract into space. It just gets less "dense" or more "dense."

>The expansion is space itself expanding
>Space doesn't expand
Pick one.

...

>Space doesn't expand
The full quote is "Space doesn't expand or contract into space." If you all you have left is deliberate misrepresentation of my argument with cut off quotes, then you've lost the argument and we're done here. Thank you for admitting defeat.

Imagine, an imagination. Now imagine that this imagination was compressed to an unimaginably small scale. Now imagine this imagination while also imagining an imagination that was imagined over 13.5 billion imaginations ago.

This, OP is just confused.

So many retarded replies to this post...

What's the center in the surface of a sphere? There's none.

Now imagine it in 3D. If you could float at will and started going forward you would end at the starting point.

>t. Doesn't understand what he's trying to criticize

The Big Bang isn't the "start", really, it's just the description of what happened very shortly after the start.

>Except when it is expanding to all outward directions at the same rate.
this doesn't imply the existence of a center

>thinks the big bang is actually real and that he understands it

We don't know why the big bang happened, what it was, what shape the universe it, or why it's expanding
We don't say there's a center because we don't have the understanding of how a center could work, or if it's physically possible for their to be one
You're asking a question that science can't answer yet, and may never be answered

>You're asking a question that science can't answer yet, and may never be answered

Then it's not science then is it?

The big bang is nothing more than a metaphysical thought experiment and exists solely in the sci-fi realm.

You would have thought the LHC would have been the last nail in the coffin but somehow it's still gracing us with its shitty presence.

The big bang is an expansion of space not something expanding in space like an explosion or inflating ball.

All other galaxies are redshifted meaning they're moving away from us. You might think that means we're in the center of the universe, but you'd see the same thing no matter which galaxy you're in. The space between all galaxies is increasing rather than them flying away from a central point.

>You might think that means we're in the center of the universe, but you'd see the same thing no matter which galaxy you're in

The desperate attempt to get away from the fact we are at the center.

Yeah, all the evidence points to us being at the center, but don't worry about that because it would be like that anywhere else in the universe so we are not at the center.

These are some seriously wacky mental gymnastics.

>Space time expands everywhere from every point
>"Hurrr but it look like expand from me"
Literally none of the evidence points to us being the center, all it shows it space time expands, and it expands everywhere, from every single point, and we don't know why

>all it shows it space time expands, and it expands everywhere, from every single point, and we don't know why

Of course you don't, because it's a load of bullshit. We are "in" space time, yes? Everything on earth is separated by it, yes? Where's all the expansion then? I'm sticking with my senses on this one, sorry.

The big bang is just an idea that comes out of the observation that the universe is expanding. If it's expanding then as you go back in time everything must have been closer and closer together, so you do experiments and calculations about how matter and energy etc behave as everything is packed into smaller and smaller spaces and you come up with some theory about what the early universe was like.

I don't see what's so unreasonable about this, it's not like it's just some wild idea someone came up with off the top of their head.

>observation that the universe is expanding

What observation? We should be able to witness this expansion right now seeing as we are just as much part of the universe as everything else. Can't wait for the mental gymnastics on this one.

>I don't know what redshift and blueshift effects are
You can't see the compression and expansion of light from distant objects, as they move away, the visible light is stretched, giving it a red appearance, anything moving towards us compresses light, which gives it a blue hue. We can look at distant objects and see the further away they are, the more redshifted they are (meaning the space between us and the Galaxy has stretched and expanded) it's similar to the Doppler effect

Quite the imagination you have there.

I also asked why can't we see expansion of light locally, rather than distant objects.

>Can't wait for the mental gymnastics on this one.
It seems pointless to engage in any discussion about this if you come in with a preconceived notion that scientists are trying to deceive you or have some kind of agenda. You'll just dismiss anything you don't fully understand as some kind of trick. Scientists really are just people who want to find out more about how the world works using what we have learned over the past few thousand years, they're not out to get you.

I'm not sure where this movement that seems to have emerged in the last few years has come from, where people have this visceral reaction to things they don't understand or are out of the everyday experience of their senses. You're trying to tell me reality isn't always as it appears directly in front of my eyes? You're evil and have an agenda to deceive me!

it seems like people used to be more willing to accept there were things beyond what they could personally comprehend, but hey maybe I'm wrong.

I don't believe all scientists are out to get us, I just think they're wasting their time with these fucking dumb theories that don't lead anywhere.

Reddit-tier argument-bait garbage thread, the same as order of operations threads. Threads like this are the cancer killing /sci./

It's not imagination, hubble won a Nobel prize.

You can't see it locally because the expansion is slow relative to light speed.
But space isn't limited by light speed. Eventually, the expansion will be visible on local scales.

>Why we can't see it locally
You can if those objects were moving fat enough, but they aren't, they close, and in the scale of the universe,very very close, orders of magnitude close than those heavily redshifted galaxies
It's not hard to understand this? A powerful enough telescope let's you see this

>he doesn't understand gravity

>Me no see me no think real
Do you sweep the disgusting mess in your room under your bed? Does it magically disappear if you can't see it?

>It's not imagination, hubble won a Nobel prize

heh heehe hahahhHHAHAHAHAHHAHA

You should look up the history of the Nobel prize. And yes, it is Hubble's pure imagination.
>You can't see it locally because the expansion is slow relative to light speed.
>But space isn't limited by light speed. Eventually, the expansion will be visible on local scales.

Oh, how convenient. And it can expand faster than light speed can't it? And yet I thought nothing was faster than light speed? These mental gymnastics are never ending. These webs of contradictions must concern you.

*pats head*

That's cool bud, if you want to live in sci-fi land then I can't stop you.

>time began at the Big Bang
So why start 13.82 bn years ago then. Why not 50?
BB was a moment something different happened. If time hadn't existed before that, nothing would have changed.

...

Don't bring the G word into this.

Space and light is expanding, two things I can experience with my senses.

Oh but wait the change is too small at our level, but trust me, it's happening. Do I have scientific evidence of this? No but who cares.

>Thank you for admitting defeat

>All other galaxies are redshifted meaning they're moving away from us. You might think that means we're in the center of the universe, but you'd see the same thing no matter which galaxy you're in. The space between all galaxies is increasing rather than them flying away from a central point.
Ok but that still implies there is a center somewhere. Because if everything would contract into one single cell, that cell would be the center.

...

Because the universe is expanding everywhere it has an additive effect.
Every piece of space the light travels through expands the light a tiny amount. The less distance traveled the less it is expanded, the further the more.

>Ok but that still implies there is a center somewhere.
No, it doesn't.
ALL space is expanding. If there was a center somewhere then the center wouldn't be expanding.

>>>scifi

...

...

This is honestly one of the worst images I've ever seen on this board.
0/10

y u mad tho

Well you probably shouldn't be considering that to be the start to be honest. Let's talk about it this way instead: the Big Bang wasn't an event where something happened, it is simply the only moment in all of time that doesn't have any time before it. All other moments in time have history, there is time before this current moment in time. But history is finite. 15 or so billion years ago is the furthest back in time it makes sense to talk about, because right around there is the edge of time where all other moments in time are necessarily in the future. That's what the Big Bang is. It's the moment in time that is necessarily before all other possible times.

> excerpt when it expanding outwards at the same rate
But that isn't the analogy I used, was it? I just showed you that it is conceivable to have a thing that stretches that isn't stretching about a center. Conceivable, meaning that your reasoning to saying that space has to have a center is flawed. Can you demonstrate that space is stretching in the way that you describe (that assumes a center), rather than stretching in the way that I just described (does not need a center)? Learn physics. We already have ways of describing the stretching of spacetime mathematically without terrible analogies like this and we know that there does not need to be a center for it to make sense. So if you really don't like my analogies, then learn the physics yourself and make better ones.

it is going the be hard make him understand

depends on the point of view

you and me move in oposite directions i can say i am the center and you are moving away. You can say the same, if instead of two people you have two thounsand in the same circunstances nobody can say they are the center anymore so no center. I tried my best, the rest is up to you.

There's this thing called gravity that keeps close masses from expanding away front each other, but you probably deny that exists too. What a retard.

if the universe was ultimately zerodimensional then it would have no center, it would just exist

Einstein was very opposed to expansion of space. There is no conspiracy, scientists will gut each other if it means more money/fame/recognition.

There's nothing contradictory about ftl expansion of space. It's just your misunderstanding of what space is.
You still haven't addressed the fundamental flaw though, which was explained at the start of the thread.

Seems like you're the contradiction here.

+1

how do you define the center of something on a non-local perspective?
modern physics assume isotropy and uniformity of space to some extent which axiomatically goes against the idea of a center to the universe, but the only clue that this assumption may be right concern the observable universe...

No...
It is the surface of the balloon which is expanding and has no center.
Take that and conceptually add another dimension.
Pretty simple really
>pic unrelated

Consider an infinite sheet of paper (which can be curved or not), where is its center?

Every point of the universe is the center to its own observable universe...

>Consider an infinite sheet of paper

Paper has to be finite to be paper, you cannot apply infinity to a finite object, it's logically impossible.

You need a universe for notions of time and space to exist, or to be in the form that you and I naturally understand them. You and your intuition on the matter, are results of being a part of the universe.

It's an analogy, the physical underpinning of the universe are not paper.

hologramz

It's ok. You put up a good shit thread with shit posts. You can stop now.

The center of your Universe is whereever you are.

Stay strong friend and win at life.

>Everything that expands has a center its expanding from. If the universe would start contracting today, It would contract towards the center of the universe.
Not true at all.

You're confusing between the barycenter of the existing space and the center of the universe, which doesn't exist.
space is expanding at the same rate between every object of the universe.