could this speaker be any more smug? Like, "This is what they taught me, so this is what I say." We are each the center of the Universe, but not centers of the universe. Science is a metaphor of sex. The Earth is our mother, the sun is the son. The moon is an anus that we've landed on. Black holes are vaginas. The big bang is an orgasm. Light is cum. Rockets are big penises that we shoot into space. Colleges are evolutionary filters, where the strong survive, and the weak fail. When you grow up, you get judged by your peers. This creates the story of your life.
The speaker disputes simplistic claims about the big bang which have often been made overconfidently in the last 20 years or so. He does this without religious undertones, contrary to the remarks of a couple commenters. This video gives you some good questions to think about.
@Jebus495 In case you haven't noticed, I had added "on the surface of the balloon". The "center" must be part of the universe. Since the balloon is a 2D analogue to the 3D universe, the center of the 2D "universe" must be placed on the surface of the balloon. To place it in the middle is to place it *outside* of the "universe". Oh, and the ratio indeed does not change. After all, the ratio is nothing but the 2D analogue to the Hubble constant.
No. It's mearly relative. I could say from my current position (25 north of London) that I am the centre of the Universe, when in fact I am simply the center of MY universe. You are the centre of yours, and the Earth is the centre of OURS, but even in a galaxy 12 Billion light years fom here, you could still ask the same question.
@LKRaider Because gravity and electromagnetic forces are greater than the energy for expansion. Imagine being in a stream, while you float, you float downstream along with the expansion of the water downhill. But, if you swim, you can remain stationary while the stream keeps expanding downhill past your location. The swimming energy was enough that you counteracted the expansion. If the energy of expansion keeps increasing, stream or space, there will come a point where expansion wins out.
The "center of the universe" is the place in the universe where the most exciting, creative and imaginative occurrences are taking place. In other words, the true center of the universe is in Tuks Lossmann's backyard.
because regardless of the big bang, the universe is here now, and finite, albeit it is still expanding. No matter how huge the universe may currently be, if it is finite then it has a center.
Well... In the video, the guy did say our mind 'likes' to have some "center". Such tendency clouded our understanding of the universe for centuries. I think, as science progress, as our instrument because more precise in measurement, some old ideas have to let go, even our inherent tendency.
@LKRaider i think when they say space is expanding they mean it only expands inbetween galaxies, any volume of space that is influenced by a sufficiently strong gravitational field doesn't expand.
LKRaider: The reason you cant measure the expansion at small ranges is the gravitational effect is too great at those distances. The gravitation between the sun and the moon out weights the effect of the expansion. (For now..).
I can handle the big bang. I can handle the notion that universe is finite. I can deal with spacetime itself expanding in the big bang within a second, and now expanding at an ever increasing rate. I can even somewhat tolerate the notion that around our universe is a holographic film with a copy of all the information of our universe upon it. I cannot handle that, this finite universe with an event horizon does not have a center. We may not be that center, but surely it must have one.
Para (1) if 2 person move apart in straight paths, by calculating & back-tracking velocities, we may infer there was a "point" from which both started. But calculations only infer. Its entirely possible they were already apart when they start their initial motion. So, there is this unknown distance where it cannot be determine, they started from a single point. Furthermore, in the measurement of time in pico seconds, who is to say they both started at the same instance? continue . . .
You misunderstand of the word "spherical" in the context of 4-dimensional space time. When you think of a sphere, you probably think of what mathematicians call a 2-sphere which is a 3 dimensional object. But in the context of the shape of the universe, when cosmologists say that in general relativity the universe has 3 possible geometries, flat spherical, or hyperbolic. Then we are talking about 3-spherical, 3-hyperbolic, and 3-Euclidian which are all 4-dimensional objects.
@LKRaider It might also be that it's simply too small of a distance to see any noticeable effect, but I may be wrong, and it seems like Carnage rather knows what he's talking about.
@Jebus495 Take a balloon. Inflate it halfway. Take a felt tip pen and mark few spots on the surface of the balloon. Inflate the balloon further. The distance between *all* marks will increase. This means that *on the surface of the balloon* there is no spot that is different from the others. There is no center. You can do the same experiment with a flat piece of rubber if you stretch it in all directions of its plane simultaneously.
@LKRaider There are forces that keep small objects together and that are stronger than the expansion of the universe. For instance, gravity is what keeps stars bound to each other making whats called a galaxy. Also, gravity keeps planetary systems working and revolving each other with out letting them rocket off into space. As for atoms, there is what's called electromagnetism, which is a force bounding the nucleus and the electrons together keeping the electron in its orbit.
I am not a physicist, so my understanding could be wrong, but that is what I have understood so far. But if there is no space before big bang and the universe is not uniform, then there is no center to speak of. Perhaps, just start and end.
However if space has zero (most likely) or negative curvature then GR suggests that in the 3-dimensional manifold of 4-dimensional spacetime when time approaches zero, space's density and temperature approach infinity. That essentially means that you have infinite high density 3D space expanding with time and as this inflation occurs the universe gets less dense. There is no privilaged point that this occurs from.
At a certain distance space moves away from us faster than the speed of light meaning all information is lost, therefore we ARE at the centre of a 3dimensional bubble and your universe is different to mine. this is because the speed at which the matter is moving away from us is directly proportionate to its distance as space is being created uniformly in all places, this has the effect of accelerating matter away from us at ever greater speeds.
Damn, the very space is expanding, such a difficult concept to grasp. They asked the question like three times, despite it being the main point of the lecture. Is there one point where the big bang started? No, the very space is expanding. It's an awesome universe we live in isn't it?
Wow, you REALLY have a LOVE AFFAIR with THE CAPS LOCK. 180 degree turns are all very well but general relativity is too predictive for us to ignore it's conclusions.
@LKRaider I don't think your question has been answered sufficiently. In fact, all space is expanding, albeit imperceptible to our unaided human senses. Even the space between the atoms that make up your body is expanding. The universe expands uniformly, thus you can think of it as pulling on four corners of a rubber sheet. I'm not sure this has much to do with the hypothesis that information is stored separately and projected like a hologram, though. That's a bit of a different question.
@LKRaider I think its because the speed at which things move away from us is proportional to its distance from us, or possibily the acceleration is proportional in which case it would be exponential. Everything relative to us IS moving away its just on a small scale it is negligible in the same way our mass effects atoms on the otherside of the universe in a negligible way as gravity is inversly proportionate to distance.
Think of a balloon. If you draw points on it, then start inflating the balloon, the points will separate. You could say that the balloon has a central point, but that would be a 3 dimensional coordinate, with the points moving away from each other in 2 dimensions. Similarly, objects in the universe are moving away from each other in 3 dimensions. To declare a central point of expansion, you would have to be able to observe the universe from the outside and give a 4 dimensional coordinate.
I don't think anybody has said that they have discovered either "dark-matter" or "dark energy". Those things are unproven hypotheses that happen to match the data available.
As far as I understand inflation is nothing more than an extremely rapid enlargement of the very early universe. Nothing about that says there is no centre. If the universe expands uniformly in all directions then there is no reason for it's centre to move anywhere. Perhaps there is no special significance to the centre but that is not the same as saying there is no centre. It is a straight forward matter of geometry. As I said, that statement smacks of wooly imprecise language.
Suppose space went on forever. Then every object could be moving away from every other object, with a speed proportional to its distance, and yet there would be no special center. When they say everything started at one point, what they mean is that the mathematics says the different points all were once infinitesimally close at some time.
Everything we currently see was at the singularity, a single point. Either everywhere was the center or nowhere. Take your pick. The singularity was not a black hole, and we're inside the universe, not looking at it from the outside, so the analogy doesn't work.
#1 Yes. And now we have the technology to observe to know better.... This is why dark energy has been hypothesised. #2 And now we are at the point that for the things that we can observe GR is the best description for large scales and quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics are best for the small. Just because Maxwell and Newton weren't correct in all situations doesn't mean they weren't correct and just because GR doesn't work in all situations doesn't mean its not correct.
Is space time stretching .. ie the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space changes over time cause it's being stretched ... or .. is space time.. growing? ie theres more of it over time but the physical characteristics of the space time is constant? From my limited knowledge they seem to believe spacetime is stretching/growing at a constant rate throughout the universe ( excluding warping by gravity etc ) . Do you think it stretches or grows?
The limit to what we see is not the extent of the universe. The limit is set by the distance light could possibly have travelled since the BANG. (The effect of gravity from beyond also could not have reached us.) If our location were instead there at that limit distance, we would see just as much further beyond. The center to what we can possibly observe is theoretically located where we are. At a location 10 billion light years from here, that would be the center.
And that's how galaxies are born, planets.....etc. When you look at the pictures of galaxy clusters, you see that each galaxy has different x,y,z vector(galaxy) in space from each other. If even vector of future paths with speed are reversed to the point of richocheting, you would need as reaaaaaaaly powerful supercomputer to even calculate possible centres. So powerful that it must calculate reversal of all galaxy creation and motion. to a single point. Universe had point of origin at begining.
General relativity does not predict that the universe is expanding into another dimension. It's not expanding "into" anything; the space itself is expanding.
@FIGHTFANNERD3 Because things that a gravitationally bound overides the effect, that is why the doppler effect red shift is between galaxies and not stars. In the spaces between galaxies the expansion dominates.
the universe exists the way it does because we exist the way we do. in dream time for example we enter into another dimensional reality that does not operate according to the laws of physics as we know it. What is the weight and mass of a dream. What is the time and spacial relationships between objects. What are the constants, what are the variables. Are they measurable. Why is there no continuity of experience between dreams. Where do the landscapes and architecture come from. Wondering?
This guy is pretty interesting, and he is off the cuff...Love the the six acts. Others just might not have found what they were looking for and seemed boring to them, but I disagree.
There are those who spend their whole professional careers in physics that can answer those questions. I do know enough to know that there are maths that can deal with the movement of the expansion of the universe and science is getting better and better at methods of measuring these distances. It isn't a guess.
@JohananRaatz I don't fear science, I use it every day. But I know it's limitations. Even if you have discovered that the Wave function is mind, you can not experience the Cosmic Mind by Intelectualization. The Yogis have known this at least as fare back as 90000 years ago. And you can not experience higher realities like the Spirit and the SELF, because you use the mind to figure things out. It will always be a kind of mental gymnastics. Not experiential. We have to go beyond mind all together.
I am not too sure if that is the correct picture of the universe. Your assumption here is, this space is uniformly distributed in a way where a center can be fined. From what I have understood, this space is expanding, the expansion is not uniform. At most, you can define starting point, but that is not the center, as there is no center.
@LKRaider The space between the earth and the sun IS expanding, just like the rest of the observable universe. The momentum of an orbiting celestial body along with the gravity affecting it dictates the orbit. As space expands, the earth readjusts, maintaining its orbit (although orbits are complicated and may change over time).
If the universe is infinite, then earth must be at its centre along with everything else in said universe. If you draw a line of infinite length, any point you pick along that line must be the centre as you cannot have more infinite on one side than the other.
Excerpt from the Daily Galaxy. "Maybe the cosmology is wrong, stellar physics is wrong, or the star's distance is wrong," Bond said. "So we set out to refine the distance." The new Hubble age estimates reduce the range of measurement uncertainty, so that the star's age overlaps with the universe's age-as independently determined by the rate of expansion of space, an analysis of the microwave background from the big bang, and measurements of radioactive decay. -- Problem solved by science.
Center is a point in space, but is space is result of big bang, there would no space before big bang. So, how would your define center in this situation?
By "no centre" maybe that's just their wooly way of avoiding saying that every different inertial frame would see a different centre and they are all valid but different. I don't know.
Para (2) if we cannot be certain both started moving at the same instance(time) or that they were initially at ONE start-point, it would be very difficult to determine where exactly was the start-point of Big Bang, by back-tracking, eg the velocities of 2 galaxies. I am no physicist but I hope that helps you imagine the scenario of an expanding universe.
Right. I agree with your last statement. Let's start with the moments after the big bang, let's say when the universe was 1 meter across. It's approximately spherical, but it doesn't have to be. It has a center of mass, does it not? A blob of matter has a center of mass. Now the universe is 10 meters wide. It has a center of mass. Ad infinitum.
Did the universe have a center when it was a singularity? (before the BB) If 'yes' then how did it lose its center? If 'no' then why not? cant we find the center of a black hole?
Every location is the center of the universe which can also be said that nowhere is the center because every location can see space expand away from their origin. Existence at its most fundamental levels is paradoxical and relative as easily seen in the black hole paradox of Bob and Alice. Occam's Razor cannot discretely define reality because a razor cannot cut a single truth out of a paradox. However, tribal stories of creation have no bearing in science because they were never based on fact.
while im honestly open to either possibility, I have to imagine that, at any one moment, there's only so much universe and it would seem logical to imagine it has a center. Even should I accept that, i don't think it would matter. its not as though in the precise center there's a little old man at a desk saying, "What, you were expecting Waldo?"
There two other forces which are the strong and weak nuclear forces that are what keep protons and neutrons tightly held one another. The weak nuclear force holds what are called quarks which are widely believed to be the building blocks of everything.
i'm glad someone challenged him on the "anthropic principle" - which is a variation on the earth as the center of the universe - it implies that the universe was made for me/us to exist - the fundamental laws of physics that brought us about didn't have a motive - but by phrasing it as a "why" question - it becomes a religious one - which is why the questioner compared it to religious thinking - here's a "why" question - why only look to the fundamental forces that created the universe and allowed life to evolve on earth - what about the large-scale ones - now that makes it seem nothing more than a series of random events that led to life - what if our corner of the universe were inhospitable to life - should we look for a motive for that alternative history?
If we are not there then how is it we are here. Since we are here then we must be there. :)Does the universe have an internal centre. Assumming its spherical or is it.
Big Bang Theory says the Universe started at a point, inflated and then expanded ever since. If that mechanism is correct then the Universe can't be infinite.
Okay, I'll concede that it's not a sphere...but from the moment of the big bang, it's an expanding shape....and the expanding shape (universe) should have a geometric center, like a center of mass or center of gravity.
@kryckeestrooff Quite a supposition and judgment. I didn't claim to have read it cover to cover or have read and understood every word. I did have 14 years of schooling in which studying the book was a requirement. On the other side I was given other evidence to consider, and made an educated decision. Much thought and many years of discussion went into my decision. I reject the idea of the basis of laws. I would find it disturbing to think that divine sanction is required to make us good.
@EvenStar303 I believe I covered that concern in stating those beliefs are "normal brain functions of 'filling in the gaps' where there are good reasons to make gap-spanning connections." Delusions lack 'good reasons,' unlike ordinary 'filling in,' which would not be called delusions. One of the characteristics of 'filling in' is lack of certainty, whereas delusional thought is all about certainty. God is fine if God is featureless. Add features and you must deal with contradicting evidence.
Woah sorry this guy just said that scientists don't view religious questions with the same critical thinking that they view other questions? The reason "religious" questions don't get taken seriously is bc they don't put forth anything of substance. So what do you expect scientists to do? Saying that scientists don't view religious questions critically is so incredibly backwards. Religious people are the ones who don't view religious questions critically. They don't recognize how empty they are.
Ok, let's say some guy started wondering why there's a rainbow after a thunderstorm. If he's curious (and scientific), he'll make up some sort of theory (actually hypotheses). Something to do with the lightning? The sun? Maybe the clouds? He'll be trying to find out, discarding each theory if the predictions aren't correct. He'll dig deeper. What does the religious person do? He'll say "Oh, God did it! Let's all pack up and go home! No need to ask anything else, we've got the answers!"
Yea, that would suck. A zombie attack would also be pretty bizarre too. I bet our ancestors would good zombie killers. Meanwhile though, in reality things like that are not very likely. I'm about as worried of EMP as I am solar flares. It's possible. But it's very unlikely.
@thickblkpa They guy totally had a religionist's banter and presentation, but he did a really good job of presenting the evidence in layman's terms (and I didn't notice him plugging god or Christ in anywhere, despite his tone having perked my ears for it).
@Jebus495 If you cannot tell a troll from someone trying to give an honest answer, you *do* have a lot to learn. Anyway, further recommended reading on cosmology would be: "An Introduction to Modern Cosmology" by Andrew Liddle.
@LKRaider the gravity of the galaxies keep it relatively close together, and the distance between us and the closest spiral galaxy is I think 1.2 million kilometers, that's 12 times more than the radius of the milky way ;)
If (big if) the universe is infinite in extent (something that we can’t possibly know) but if the universe is infinite, then it’s centre must be uniformly distributed throughout its extent. So everywhere is at the centre of the universe. This means that wherever you are, you are at the centre of the universe. Infinite is a very big word that does not quite fit inside the mind, that said, the logic is irrefutable.
My question is," why are scientists ignoring the existence of a body we might be living in? I assume they are cause I haven't heard any theorie of the kind. For me, it is the most acceptable theorie because of the repeatedly similar worlds in us, around us, above us, beyond us, in all imaginable sizes.
@shotaboy100 You'd have a being outside of space- time (the universal wave-fcn) which brings into being, and is thus soveriegn to the universe -which sounds just like God. The one exception is that it still needs to be a mind. But then we discover that it actually is a mind because of Orch-OR. "can't possibly be" Well I suppose you could have a "wave-fcn of the wave-fcn of the universe," like a "God's God" and so on ad infinitum. But I don't see a need for more than one God.
@kryckeestrooff I propose that to believe in some mysterious figure that will have us live eternally after death, or to believe that we, bags of chemicals, raw meat and electricity are somehow important in this universe is the height of egocentricity. I reject the proposition that to believe in a being who is spiteful, egocentric, hypocritical and megalomaniacal (if we are to believe the bible) is a better way to live than a life dedicated to questioning the nature of things.
Atom hasn't center in which energy would be denser as that outside to the area . In the atoms' cores are protons / neutrons in which have quarks and so on. In the sun's middle as being between the atoms cores, as being energy is less denser as atoms quarks which is on Sun's surface energy is. Macrocosm hasn't center in which energy would be denser as that outside to the area . It too energyconcentration which radiates energy waves which have galaxies personality...
if I am no closer to one end of the Universe than I am to the other, no matter which way I look, I would have to guess that no matter where I am, I am in the center of the Universe as far as I am concerned and you are at the center of the Universe from your frame of reference too. I know, the Earth is not the center of the Solar System and the Solar System is not the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Milky Way Galaxy is not the center of the visible Universe, still, I think you see my point
you seem to misunderstand the idea of inflation. Also, places in space don't exist by themselves. There is no invisible marker that has stayed in the same spot for the duration of the universe
How is "The universe isn't a shape that exists inside anything else" anything other than mumbo jumbo? What is the basis for the statement "The Universe is not spherical"?
Actually the universe does have a center and you are it. The only universe we can know is the visible universe, wherever you are you are the center of your visible universe.
Well the term big bang would be wrong to our 3D minds like said, you could say it was more like a big flash, I personally think all the mass was there in space already existed, then an arrow of time hit it, and I see gravity like I see every other force, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the space in between galaxy is like anti-gravity, with the sheet and ball example, being lifted with air with fans under it, this would make the dent made by the balls seem to slowly get deeper.
No it doesn't. The big bang theory says that the universe was very (approaching infinitely) dense 13.77 billion years in the past. Quote: "Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past" IT DOES NOT say that it started from a point. Georges Lemaître's "Primeval Atom" idea of the big bang was discarded. It's not a bang from a single point. It's inflation from all points.
@MultiNaturalist I meditate with God every night, He/She comes to me and Loves me. That is an experiential proof which can not be transferred, unless you also come to the same realization I have. When your mother or your girlfriend loves you, do you have any doubt that they love you and ask them for proof? Further more if you love them, can you prove that logically to someone who doesn't believe you? God is LOVE. Not a bipedal primate.
@47f0 I wasn't talking about gravity, I was saying that science has no evidence where the Universe has come from and how life came to be. Science has many practical applications. But it has it's limits too. Also I am not preaching suto religions. There are many false religions and there are some good ones. You have to distinguish between them. You can't say all religions are bad because some religious fanatics flu an airplane into some buildings. Try to develop some powers of discrimination!
@MultiNaturalist How can YOU be sure you are not delusional? What tests have YOU performed? You say, you want to ask some serious questions, but than you say don't tell me this or that. If you already know where and what is God or where and what He isn't, than why ask questions? I have been meditating for nearly 12 years, and have done a lot of inner cleansing. It is only your polluted mind that doesn't let you see God. Otherwise God is not hidden at all and He is everywhere. Cheers!
![SAFEPLANET - ดาวเคราะห์ [ THE PLANET ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4X1XL3I_k3c/mqdefault.jpg)
The Universe does have a center, it is everywhere, and you are there.
Wooooo.... woooooo.... woooooo.... sorry, man, but you need some sound effects...
+apburner1 fabulous rebuttal lol
could this speaker be any more smug? Like, "This is what they taught me, so this is what I say." We are each the center of the Universe, but not centers of the universe. Science is a metaphor of sex. The Earth is our mother, the sun is the son. The moon is an anus that we've landed on. Black holes are vaginas. The big bang is an orgasm. Light is cum. Rockets are big penises that we shoot into space. Colleges are evolutionary filters, where the strong survive, and the weak fail. When you grow up, you get judged by your peers. This creates the story of your life.
Many thanks to James White and UCTV for posting this lecture. Salute.
+atwaterpub I like the explanation about multi-dimensions and "expanding into another dimension." 40:46
very introductory but I value the mindset of the speaker - critical and respectful to differences
From about 37:00 on is the best part. I like how at the end he says that the center of the universe is everywhere and I am it!
The speaker disputes simplistic claims about the big bang which have often been made overconfidently in the last 20 years or so. He does this without religious undertones, contrary to the remarks of a couple commenters. This video gives you some good questions to think about.
@Jebus495 In case you haven't noticed, I had added "on the surface of the balloon". The "center" must be part of the universe. Since the balloon is a 2D analogue to the 3D universe, the center of the 2D "universe" must be placed on the surface of the balloon. To place it in the middle is to place it *outside* of the "universe".
Oh, and the ratio indeed does not change. After all, the ratio is nothing but the 2D analogue to the Hubble constant.
No. It's mearly relative. I could say from my current position (25 north of London) that I am the centre of the Universe, when in fact I am simply the center of MY universe. You are the centre of yours, and the Earth is the centre of OURS, but even in a galaxy 12 Billion light years fom here, you could still ask the same question.
@LKRaider Because gravity and electromagnetic forces are greater than the energy for expansion. Imagine being in a stream, while you float, you float downstream along with the expansion of the water downhill. But, if you swim, you can remain stationary while the stream keeps expanding downhill past your location. The swimming energy was enough that you counteracted the expansion. If the energy of expansion keeps increasing, stream or space, there will come a point where expansion wins out.
The "center of the universe" is the place in the universe where the most exciting, creative and imaginative occurrences are taking place. In other words, the true center of the universe is in Tuks Lossmann's backyard.
because regardless of the big bang, the universe is here now, and finite, albeit it is still expanding. No matter how huge the universe may currently be, if it is finite then it has a center.
Well... In the video, the guy did say our mind 'likes' to have some "center". Such tendency clouded our understanding of the universe for centuries. I think, as science progress, as our instrument because more precise in measurement, some old ideas have to let go, even our inherent tendency.
@LKRaider i think when they say space is expanding they mean it only expands inbetween galaxies, any volume of space that is influenced by a sufficiently strong gravitational field doesn't expand.
LKRaider: The reason you cant measure the expansion at small ranges is the gravitational effect is too great at those distances. The gravitation between the sun and the moon out weights the effect of the expansion. (For now..).
I can handle the big bang. I can handle the notion that universe is finite. I can deal with spacetime itself expanding in the big bang within a second, and now expanding at an ever increasing rate. I can even somewhat tolerate the notion that around our universe is a holographic film with a copy of all the information of our universe upon it. I cannot handle that, this finite universe with an event horizon does not have a center. We may not be that center, but surely it must have one.
Para (1)
if 2 person move apart in straight paths, by calculating & back-tracking velocities, we may infer there was a "point" from which both started.
But calculations only infer. Its entirely possible they were already apart when they start their initial motion. So, there is this unknown distance where it cannot be determine, they started from a single point. Furthermore, in the measurement of time in pico seconds, who is to say they both started at the same instance?
continue . . .
You misunderstand of the word "spherical" in the context of 4-dimensional space time.
When you think of a sphere, you probably think of what mathematicians call a 2-sphere which is a 3 dimensional object.
But in the context of the shape of the universe, when cosmologists say that in general relativity the universe has 3 possible geometries, flat spherical, or hyperbolic. Then we are talking about 3-spherical, 3-hyperbolic, and 3-Euclidian which are all 4-dimensional objects.
@LKRaider It might also be that it's simply too small of a distance to see any noticeable effect, but I may be wrong, and it seems like Carnage rather knows what he's talking about.
@Jebus495 Take a balloon. Inflate it halfway. Take a felt tip pen and mark few spots on the surface of the balloon. Inflate the balloon further. The distance between *all* marks will increase. This means that *on the surface of the balloon* there is no spot that is different from the others. There is no center.
You can do the same experiment with a flat piece of rubber if you stretch it in all directions of its plane simultaneously.
@LKRaider There are forces that keep small objects together and that are stronger than the expansion of the universe. For instance, gravity is what keeps stars bound to each other making whats called a galaxy. Also, gravity keeps planetary systems working and revolving each other with out letting them rocket off into space. As for atoms, there is what's called electromagnetism, which is a force bounding the nucleus and the electrons together keeping the electron in its orbit.
I am not a physicist, so my understanding could be wrong, but that is what I have understood so far.
But if there is no space before big bang and the universe is not uniform, then there is no center to speak of. Perhaps, just start and end.
However if space has zero (most likely) or negative curvature then GR suggests that in the 3-dimensional manifold of 4-dimensional spacetime when time approaches zero, space's density and temperature approach infinity.
That essentially means that you have infinite high density 3D space expanding with time and as this inflation occurs the universe gets less dense.
There is no privilaged point that this occurs from.
At a certain distance space moves away from us faster than the speed of light meaning all information is lost, therefore we ARE at the centre of a 3dimensional bubble and your universe is different to mine. this is because the speed at which the matter is moving away from us is directly proportionate to its distance as space is being created uniformly in all places, this has the effect of accelerating matter away from us at ever greater speeds.
Damn, the very space is expanding, such a difficult concept to grasp. They asked the question like three times, despite it being the main point of the lecture. Is there one point where the big bang started? No, the very space is expanding. It's an awesome universe we live in isn't it?
Wow, you REALLY have a LOVE AFFAIR with THE CAPS LOCK.
180 degree turns are all very well but general relativity is too predictive for us to ignore it's conclusions.
@LKRaider
I don't think your question has been answered sufficiently. In fact, all space is expanding, albeit imperceptible to our unaided human senses. Even the space between the atoms that make up your body is expanding. The universe expands uniformly, thus you can think of it as pulling on four corners of a rubber sheet. I'm not sure this has much to do with the hypothesis that information is stored separately and projected like a hologram, though. That's a bit of a different question.
@LKRaider I think its because the speed at which things move away from us is proportional to its distance from us, or possibily the acceleration is proportional in which case it would be exponential. Everything relative to us IS moving away its just on a small scale it is negligible in the same way our mass effects atoms on the otherside of the universe in a negligible way as gravity is inversly proportionate to distance.
Think of a balloon. If you draw points on it, then start inflating the balloon, the points will separate. You could say that the balloon has a central point, but that would be a 3 dimensional coordinate, with the points moving away from each other in 2 dimensions. Similarly, objects in the universe are moving away from each other in 3 dimensions. To declare a central point of expansion, you would have to be able to observe the universe from the outside and give a 4 dimensional coordinate.
I don't think anybody has said that they have discovered either "dark-matter" or "dark energy".
Those things are unproven hypotheses that happen to match the data available.
As far as I understand inflation is nothing more than an extremely rapid enlargement of the very early universe. Nothing about that says there is no centre. If the universe expands uniformly in all directions then there is no reason for it's centre to move anywhere. Perhaps there is no special significance to the centre but that is not the same as saying there is no centre. It is a straight forward matter of geometry. As I said, that statement smacks of wooly imprecise language.
Suppose space went on forever. Then every object could be moving away from every other object, with a speed proportional to its distance, and yet there would be no special center.
When they say everything started at one point, what they mean is that the mathematics says the different points all were once infinitesimally close at some time.
Everything we currently see was at the singularity, a single point. Either everywhere was the center or nowhere. Take your pick.
The singularity was not a black hole, and we're inside the universe, not looking at it from the outside, so the analogy doesn't work.
@takeyourpillz: THat is true. Nothing moves faster than light IN spacetime. But space(time) itself expands, which is something completely different.
#1 Yes. And now we have the technology to observe to know better.... This is why dark energy has been hypothesised.
#2 And now we are at the point that for the things that we can observe GR is the best description for large scales and quantum electrodynamics and chromodynamics are best for the small. Just because Maxwell and Newton weren't correct in all situations doesn't mean they weren't correct and just because GR doesn't work in all situations doesn't mean its not correct.
@LKRaider Perhaps the question is not what are measurable limits, but our limitations of measuring.
Is space time stretching .. ie the physical characteristics of the vacuum of space changes over time cause it's being stretched ... or .. is space time.. growing? ie theres more of it over time but the physical characteristics of the space time is constant? From my limited knowledge they seem to believe spacetime is stretching/growing at a constant rate throughout the universe ( excluding warping by gravity etc ) . Do you think it stretches or grows?
"In an infinite Universe every point can be regarded as the center" Anand Vyas
I
I
+Team Lucknow Or not.
If you have any interest in Scinece and the world around you, read Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Universe". Genius.
The limit to what we see is not the extent of the universe. The limit is set by the distance light could possibly have travelled since the BANG. (The effect of gravity from beyond also could not have reached us.) If our location were instead there at that limit distance, we would see just as much further beyond.
The center to what we can possibly observe is theoretically located where we are. At a location 10 billion light years from here, that would be the center.
And that's how galaxies are born, planets.....etc.
When you look at the pictures of galaxy clusters, you see that each galaxy has different x,y,z vector(galaxy) in space from each other.
If even vector of future paths with speed are reversed to the point of richocheting, you would need as reaaaaaaaly powerful supercomputer to even calculate possible centres.
So powerful that it must calculate reversal of all galaxy creation and motion. to a single point.
Universe had point of origin at begining.
General relativity does not predict that the universe is expanding into another dimension. It's not expanding "into" anything; the space itself is expanding.
@FIGHTFANNERD3 Because things that a gravitationally bound overides the effect, that is why the doppler effect red shift is between galaxies and not stars. In the spaces between galaxies the expansion dominates.
the universe exists the way it does because we exist the way we do. in dream time for example we enter into another dimensional reality that does not operate according to the laws of physics as we know it. What is the weight and mass of a dream. What is the time and spacial relationships between objects. What are the constants, what are the variables. Are they measurable. Why is there no continuity of experience between dreams. Where do the landscapes and architecture come from. Wondering?
This guy is pretty interesting, and he is off the cuff...Love the the six acts. Others just might not have found what they were looking for and seemed boring to them, but I disagree.
There are those who spend their whole professional careers in physics that can answer those questions. I do know enough to know that there are maths that can deal with the movement of the expansion of the universe and science is getting better and better at methods of measuring these distances. It isn't a guess.
@JohananRaatz I don't fear science, I use it every day. But I know it's limitations.
Even if you have discovered that the Wave function is mind, you can not experience the Cosmic Mind by Intelectualization. The Yogis have known this at least as fare back as 90000 years ago. And you can not experience higher realities like the Spirit and the SELF, because you use the mind to figure things out. It will always be a kind of mental gymnastics. Not experiential. We have to go beyond mind all together.
I am not too sure if that is the correct picture of the universe. Your assumption here is, this space is uniformly distributed in a way where a center can be fined. From what I have understood, this space is expanding, the expansion is not uniform. At most, you can define starting point, but that is not the center, as there is no center.
@LKRaider The space between the earth and the sun IS expanding, just like the rest of the observable universe. The momentum of an orbiting celestial body along with the gravity affecting it dictates the orbit. As space expands, the earth readjusts, maintaining its orbit (although orbits are complicated and may change over time).
If the universe is infinite, then earth must be at its centre along with everything else in said universe. If you draw a line of infinite length, any point you pick along that line must be the centre as you cannot have more infinite on one side than the other.
Excerpt from the Daily Galaxy. "Maybe the cosmology is wrong, stellar physics is wrong, or the star's distance is wrong," Bond said. "So we set out to refine the distance." The new Hubble age estimates reduce the range of measurement uncertainty, so that the star's age overlaps with the universe's age-as independently determined by the rate of expansion of space, an analysis of the microwave background from the big bang, and measurements of radioactive decay. -- Problem solved by science.
@TomFynn The difference between you and me is that I already know that I am an Idiot, you don't.
That makes me an advanced Human Being. Cheers!
Center is a point in space, but is space is result of big bang, there would no space before big bang. So, how would your define center in this situation?
By "no centre" maybe that's just their wooly way of avoiding saying that every different inertial frame would see a different centre and they are all valid but different. I don't know.
In fact the idea that the Sun is the Center of the "known Universe" did not belong to Copernicus!
The ancient Greeks knew it!
Aristarchus of Samos was the first person to say it!
Para (2)
if we cannot be certain both started moving at the same instance(time) or that they were initially at ONE start-point, it would be very difficult to determine where exactly was the start-point of Big Bang, by back-tracking, eg the velocities of 2 galaxies.
I am no physicist but I hope that helps you imagine the scenario of an expanding universe.
interesting the way he mentions Filippenko´s work at the end... as if the newly discovered accelleration of the universe as is to weird to believe :)
Right. I agree with your last statement. Let's start with the moments after the big bang, let's say when the universe was 1 meter across. It's approximately spherical, but it doesn't have to be. It has a center of mass, does it not? A blob of matter has a center of mass. Now the universe is 10 meters wide. It has a center of mass. Ad infinitum.
love the work here
good job....nice man with good knowledge and clean heart.....
Did the universe have a center when it was a singularity? (before the BB) If 'yes' then how did it lose its center? If 'no' then why not? cant we find the center of a black hole?
Every location is the center of the universe which can also be said that nowhere is the center because every location can see space expand away from their origin. Existence at its most fundamental levels is paradoxical and relative as easily seen in the black hole paradox of Bob and Alice. Occam's Razor cannot discretely define reality because a razor cannot cut a single truth out of a paradox. However, tribal stories of creation have no bearing in science because they were never based on fact.
while im honestly open to either possibility, I have to imagine that, at any one moment, there's only so much universe and it would seem logical to imagine it has a center. Even should I accept that, i don't think it would matter. its not as though in the precise center there's a little old man at a desk saying, "What, you were expecting Waldo?"
There two other forces which are the strong and weak nuclear forces that are what keep protons and neutrons tightly held one another. The weak nuclear force holds what are called quarks which are widely believed to be the building blocks of everything.
i'm glad someone challenged him on the "anthropic principle" - which is a variation on the earth as the center of the universe - it implies that the universe was made for me/us to exist - the fundamental laws of physics that brought us about didn't have a motive - but by phrasing it as a "why" question - it becomes a religious one - which is why the questioner compared it to religious thinking - here's a "why" question - why only look to the fundamental forces that created the universe and allowed life to evolve on earth - what about the large-scale ones - now that makes it seem nothing more than a series of random events that led to life - what if our corner of the universe were inhospitable to life - should we look for a motive for that alternative history?
I'm an alzheimer`s sufferer and it took me three hours to write this!!!
If we are not there then how is it we are here. Since we are here then we must be there. :)Does the universe have an internal centre. Assumming its spherical or is it.
Big Bang Theory says the Universe started at a point, inflated and then expanded ever since. If that mechanism is correct then the Universe can't be infinite.
@lochnarus what? the song name or artist
@Jebus495 b/c it's space-time itself that is expanding. It's expanding from everywhere at the same time.
Why is he holding that mic if he has one on his collar? One for the room and one for the recording?
Okay, I'll concede that it's not a sphere...but from the moment of the big bang, it's an expanding shape....and the expanding shape (universe) should have a geometric center, like a center of mass or center of gravity.
@LKRaider cause what expands is the fabric of space-time itself..not the things in it
@kryckeestrooff Quite a supposition and judgment. I didn't claim to have read it cover to cover or have read and understood every word. I did have 14 years of schooling in which studying the book was a requirement. On the other side I was given other evidence to consider, and made an educated decision. Much thought and many years of discussion went into my decision. I reject the idea of the basis of laws. I would find it disturbing to think that divine sanction is required to make us good.
@EvenStar303 I believe I covered that concern in stating those beliefs are "normal brain functions of 'filling in the gaps' where there are good reasons to make gap-spanning connections." Delusions lack 'good reasons,' unlike ordinary 'filling in,' which would not be called delusions. One of the characteristics of 'filling in' is lack of certainty, whereas delusional thought is all about certainty. God is fine if God is featureless. Add features and you must deal with contradicting evidence.
Add time dimension into account, center of universe should be somewhere around big bang.
what song is that in the start ???
Woah sorry this guy just said that scientists don't view religious questions with the same critical thinking that they view other questions? The reason "religious" questions don't get taken seriously is bc they don't put forth anything of substance. So what do you expect scientists to do? Saying that scientists don't view religious questions critically is so incredibly backwards. Religious people are the ones who don't view religious questions critically. They don't recognize how empty they are.
Ok, let's say some guy started wondering why there's a rainbow after a thunderstorm. If he's curious (and scientific), he'll make up some sort of theory (actually hypotheses).
Something to do with the lightning? The sun? Maybe the clouds? He'll be trying to find out, discarding each theory if the predictions aren't correct. He'll dig deeper.
What does the religious person do?
He'll say "Oh, God did it! Let's all pack up and go home! No need to ask anything else, we've got the answers!"
Yea, that would suck. A zombie attack would also be pretty bizarre too. I bet our ancestors would good zombie killers. Meanwhile though, in reality things like that are not very likely. I'm about as worried of EMP as I am solar flares. It's possible. But it's very unlikely.
@thickblkpa They guy totally had a religionist's banter and presentation, but he did a really good job of presenting the evidence in layman's terms (and I didn't notice him plugging god or Christ in anywhere, despite his tone having perked my ears for it).
@cullurzful i didn't think anything could move faster than the speed of light?
@Jebus495 If you cannot tell a troll from someone trying to give an honest answer, you *do* have a lot to learn.
Anyway, further recommended reading on cosmology would be: "An Introduction to Modern Cosmology" by Andrew Liddle.
@LKRaider the gravity of the galaxies keep it relatively close together, and the distance between us and the closest spiral galaxy is I think 1.2 million kilometers, that's 12 times more than the radius of the milky way ;)
no bud any other galaxy, beside the mily way, is much, much further away
If (big if) the universe is infinite in extent (something that we can’t possibly know) but if the universe is infinite, then it’s centre must be uniformly distributed throughout its extent. So everywhere is at the centre of the universe. This means that wherever you are, you are at the centre of the universe. Infinite is a very big word that does not quite fit inside the mind, that said, the logic is irrefutable.
My question is," why are scientists ignoring the existence of a body we might be living in? I assume they are cause I haven't heard any theorie of the kind. For me, it is the most acceptable theorie because of the repeatedly similar worlds in us, around us, above us, beyond us, in all imaginable sizes.
It says in the description 2/2000
@shotaboy100 You'd have a being outside of space- time (the universal wave-fcn) which brings into being, and is thus soveriegn to the universe -which sounds just like God.
The one exception is that it still needs to be a mind. But then we discover that it actually is a mind because of Orch-OR.
"can't possibly be"
Well I suppose you could have a "wave-fcn of the wave-fcn of the universe," like a "God's God" and so on ad infinitum. But I don't see a need for more than one God.
@kryckeestrooff I propose that to believe in some mysterious figure that will have us live eternally after death, or to believe that we, bags of chemicals, raw meat and electricity are somehow important in this universe is the height of egocentricity. I reject the proposition that to believe in a being who is spiteful, egocentric, hypocritical and megalomaniacal (if we are to believe the bible) is a better way to live than a life dedicated to questioning the nature of things.
Atom hasn't center in which energy would be denser as that outside to the area . In the atoms' cores are protons / neutrons in which have quarks and so on. In the sun's middle as being between the atoms cores, as being energy is less denser as atoms quarks which is on Sun's surface energy is. Macrocosm hasn't center in which energy would be denser as that outside to the area . It too energyconcentration which radiates energy waves which have galaxies personality...
if I am no closer to one end of the Universe than I am to the other, no matter which way I look, I would have to guess that no matter where I am, I am in the center of the Universe as far as I am concerned and you are at the center of the Universe from your frame of reference too. I know, the Earth is not the center of the Solar System and the Solar System is not the center of the Milky Way Galaxy and the Milky Way Galaxy is not the center of the visible Universe, still, I think you see my point
you seem to misunderstand the idea of inflation. Also, places in space don't exist by themselves. There is no invisible marker that has stayed in the same spot for the duration of the universe
@lebiew Especially those that continue to use "'your" instead of "you're" throughout their adult lives in their first language.
How is "The universe isn't a shape that exists inside anything else" anything other than mumbo jumbo?
What is the basis for the statement "The Universe is not spherical"?
Copernicus got his ideas from Aristarchus, BTW. The speaker didn't mention that...
there must be a centre to the universe but we are not there as we have all expanded out from the point of the big bang
Actually the universe does have a center and you are it. The only universe we can know is the visible universe, wherever you are you are the center of your visible universe.
Well the term big bang would be wrong to our 3D minds like said, you could say it was more like a big flash, I personally think all the mass was there in space already existed, then an arrow of time hit it, and I see gravity like I see every other force, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, the space in between galaxy is like anti-gravity, with the sheet and ball example, being lifted with air with fans under it, this would make the dent made by the balls seem to slowly get deeper.
No it doesn't.
The big bang theory says that the universe was very (approaching infinitely) dense 13.77 billion years in the past.
Quote: "Extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past"
IT DOES NOT say that it started from a point. Georges Lemaître's "Primeval Atom" idea of the big bang was discarded. It's not a bang from a single point. It's inflation from all points.
@MultiNaturalist I meditate with God every night, He/She comes to me and Loves me.
That is an experiential proof which can not be transferred, unless you also come to the same realization I have.
When your mother or your girlfriend loves you, do you have any doubt that they love you and ask them for proof?
Further more if you love them, can you prove that logically to someone who doesn't believe you?
God is LOVE.
Not a bipedal primate.
@47f0 I wasn't talking about gravity, I was saying that science has no evidence where the Universe has come from and how life came to be. Science has many practical applications. But it has it's limits too. Also I am not preaching suto religions. There are many false religions and there are some good ones. You have to distinguish between them. You can't say all religions are bad because some religious fanatics flu an airplane into some buildings.
Try to develop some powers of discrimination!
@MultiNaturalist How can YOU be sure you are not delusional? What tests have YOU performed?
You say, you want to ask some serious questions, but than you say don't tell me this or that.
If you already know where and what is God or where and what He isn't, than why ask questions?
I have been meditating for nearly 12 years, and have done a lot of inner cleansing.
It is only your polluted mind that doesn't let you see God. Otherwise God is not hidden at all and He is everywhere.
Cheers!