Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: thedoc on 18/05/2016 20:50:02
-
Nathan Jedrej asked the Naked Scientists:
Dear sir
I'll keep it short. Just after the Big Bang the matter would have spread on a very small but equal scale. There may be around 260 billion galaxies in the universe so using the kerplunk theory we may find the centre of the universe. We find 2 galaxies that are of equal distance from each other in the 3rd dimension. So 130 billion lines may find the centre of the universe.
Or do we know where it is?
What do you think?
-
This may help:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Essentially there is no center due to the nature of cosmic expansion.
-
Just after the Big Bang the matter would have spread on a very small but equal scale. There may be around 260 billion galaxies in the universe so using the kerplunk theory ...
What do you mean by "kerplunk theory"?
...we may find the centre of the universe. We find 2 galaxies that are of equal distance from each other in the 3rd dimension.
The statement "that are of equal distant from each other" is a tautology since every two objects in the universe are equal distance from each other. Why make such an assertion?
So 130 billion lines may find the centre of the universe.
What lines? This doesn't make any sense.
Or do we know where it is?
As agyejy said, the universe doesn't have a center.
-
Take any arbitrary point on the surface of the earth. While standing there look directly up into the sky. Right there before you will not be the centre of the universe.
-
Take any arbitrary point on the surface of the earth. While standing there look directly up into the sky. Right there before you will not be the centre of the universe.
One model of the geometry of the universe is an infinite plane. If you're familiar with a Cartesian plane then you know that plane is infinite in all directions. That means that there is no center to a plane of infinite extent. That's akin to saying that all points are identical in nature to all other points.
-
Non-mathematicians don't appreciate much of the subtleties of geometry. I am learning something new every day.
-
Conservation of energy requires an absolute reference, therefore a center of the universe.
The assumption of relative reference; no preferred reference, can violate energy conservation. For example, say we have two rockets in space at relative velocity V. One rocket has mass M and the other has mass 2M. With relative motion, each can assume they are moving, or each can assume they are stationary and the other is moving.
Although this will work for velocity, relative reference will not work properly for kinetic energy. If rocket M is moving, the system kinetic energy is 1/2MV2. On the other hand, if rocket 2M was moving system kinetic energy is MV2. These are not the same amount of energy. Since energy conservation is a law, reference needs to be absolute to get the proper energy.
For example, say we assume rocket M is in motion. However, in reality, rocket 2M burnt the fuel and therefore has the real kinetic energy. Since our reference assumption will short the universe energy, 1/2MV2 of kinetic energy is subjectively destroyed. This implies we now will have 1/2MV2 of invisible energy in the universe, that we may not notice, right away, which will not be part of universe assumptions. But eventually, this hidden energy, that would have been obvious had we chosen our reference wisely, begins to show up as inconsistencies in phenomena relative our reference. We need to add new things we originally did not need.
An analogous example is say we live up on a plateau, where there is a beautiful lake. Out of convenience we call the lake on the plateau the zero reference, since the prime lake front property is where our tools are, and where all the big wigs live. Since the plateau has a potential relative to sea level, which is the real zero reference for the water, we end up with hidden energy; hidden potential energy in the water.
One day, careful measurements reveal the lake level is dropping. We rule out evaporation and lateral diffusion. Since the lake is the ground state, the potential can't be in the water. Rather it has to be in the guise of new form of energy, called plaid energy, which is causing the water to go through a space-time portal into another dimension. That theory brings us closer to the actual energy balance, while maintaining relative reference. But if brings something to the table we can't see in the lab.
In our universe, the speed of light is the ground state. From that reference the center of the universe is always the same, since the inertial universe always remains a point-instant in the ground state.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.moovvital.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F12%2Fyou-are-here.jpg&hash=e8fb576a86283eed0e8aa092dddd11c0)
-
Good question, and popular science presently has little in supportable answers in an expanding cosmos.
Yet like our hero Einstein while being a copyright clerk thought outside his/the box to offer truth. Here is a tidbit of truth.
1st- there is no center to a void/space that has no beginning or end (infinite)....that is what our universe is inside of.
2nd- mass, the universe as we know it of radiation-atomic-earth-galaxies-universe-masses has a center yet to be detected (understood).
My contention is the main reason the center of the universe is not known is simply because they are looking in the wrong way/belief let alone having the technology/smarts to locate the center. When they (popular science belief/research) search based on an (ever increasing) expanding universe they are 180 degrees wrong and it causes them to imagine things like dark matter and dark energy to explain the false belief of the 'expanding at an ever increasing rate universe'. Suggestion- don't waste your time on false beliefs other than to realize it can't be right etc.
The only explanation that has merit is that the universe is contracting at an ever increasing rate (done by gravitation). It is observable in every known galaxy and supergalaxies etc. From our own Milky Way and throughout all galaxies there is observable contraction/attraction....our galaxy is just a microcosm of the macrocosmic universe. To find a center Plot the direction of all/most galaxies, extrapolate and a center should be possible, though it will most likely be some time before we can find all information needed (on all galaxies/mass) to pin point a center....it will be by definition a center of the masses-galaxies not a center of the void/space/infinite the universe resides in.
Try to think outside 'their' popular science box, don't get hangout by Hubble's 'redshift' and the recent 'redshift' (misleads them to false beliefs) they say proves expanding at ever increasing rate.... they also said first the universe was stagnant/stable then after Hubble's redshift detection that the universe was expanding and now its 'expanding at an ever increasing rate' because of their latest redshift reading(s). They have been wrong about as many times as possible...and still are, wasting millions/billions on 'looking for nothing in the dark', and finding just exactly what they look for, no explanation for expanding or nothing.
My answer, first realize the universe is contracting and follow that until the truth/center is revealed...
Thanks for your good question....
DS
-
Since the universe is something beyond 3-D geometery, I can only suggest a "hypercentre" of some elevated spatial dimension.
-
There is no fixed background or a coordinate centre to the universe.
-
There is no center of the Universe.