| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Jim" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2005 03:37:33 AM |
| Object: |
Center of universe |
There is no center of universe? But if it is infinite then everything is a
center!?
.
|
|
| User: "Jack Martinelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
14 Jan 2005 01:23:42 PM |
|
|
"Jim" <uhor3rih@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xpMFd.127554$dP1.458424@newsc.telia.net...
There is no center of universe? But if it is infinite then everything is a
center!?
It all depends on how you define "center"
Say you're looking for the center of mass of the universe. A mass point
gives you a distinguishable point (a point of space isn't). So here's your
procedure to determine the center of mass of the universe...
Choose a mass point, e.g., an electron and iteratively increase the
distance -- call it r -- from the electron and locate all masses within
each distance & find the center of mass of your collection, you'll find that
with a small number of particles (r is small) the center of mass moves
around quite a bit, but as r increases so does the number of particles and
the center of mass tends stabilize towards the center of your electron.
This is true for every particle. As r approaches infinity, the center of
mass approaches the center of your point mass. I.e, every point mass is the
center of the universe. A question you might ask, then, is , "is the
concept of the center of the universe useful?"
Regards,
Jack Martinelli
http://www.martinelli.org
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
14 Jan 2005 10:41:40 PM |
|
|
"Jim" <uhor3rih@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xpMFd.127554$dP1.458424@newsc.telia.net...
There is no center of universe? But if it is infinite then everything is a
center!?
Right. Every where appears as the center. The observable
Universe is finite in space and time. The "infinite" part isn't
causal because it resides outside of your light cone. It's out
of space and time.
[Old Man]
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
15 Jan 2005 04:17:28 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:0K6dnWX_7YmVAnXcRVn-ig@prairiewave.com...
"Jim" <uhor3rih@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xpMFd.127554$dP1.458424@newsc.telia.net...
There is no center of universe? But if it is infinite then everything is
a
center!?
Right. Every where appears as the center. The observable
Universe is finite in space and time. The "infinite" part isn't
causal because it resides outside of your light cone. It's out
of space and time.
[Old Man]
The infinite, as well as the infinitesimal, has a relative time horizon
where relativity to the observer collapses. You may be outside the horizon
(position and velocity) you see in the distance, inside this relative
universe (u), but you are also one with it: one with the total that is the
Universe (U). Infinite and infinitesimal are two perfectly balanced poles.
With regard to infinite accelerating in expansion away from it in every
direction, this Earth of ours gradually shrinks to an infinitesimal point
indistinguishable from zero and just disappears. The same with the Sun, then
the Milky Way, then this region (we call our universe) of the larger
Universe. In all this at no time does infinitesimal (point singularity
indistinguishable from zero) give up its exact equality, constant, with
infinite (global singularity indistinguishable from one).
As every point is the center of the infinite Universe, each of us is the
center. Each atom of our body is the center. Each subatomic particle all the
way down to each Planck horizon of inner space where relativity to the
observer again collapses: this time at the other end of the scale. The two
horizons perfectly balance each other, as does the infinite on the one hand
and infinitesimal on the other in them. "In them" being the same as beyond
them.
Every infinitesimal (of an infinity of infinitesimals) will always be the
dead center (the core center) of the infinite because it is the opposed
constant to the infinite constant. The horizons of collapse that form
between them 'discrete' (discrete infinities (indeterminately innumerable
finite universes and the indeterminately innumerable finite things each
contain)) mean just that, "discrete." We can move, travel, discrete to
discrete, to discrete, meeting no barrier in horizons that remain constant
to us north-south, east-west, up-down, in-out, in a universal real time, as
the core center of horizons that move, travel, with us as we move, as we
travel and gain and lose relativity to whatever local scenery, including the
local universe. Horizons that move with our movement in space (point,
surface, volume, depth) mean physics sustain their physical constancy within
the bubble of those horizons.
As far time goes, the center of the Universe is zero point. Time isn't a
dimension of space, it is an alternative to space having four dimensions of
its own (zero points, surface or plane relativity, virtual histories in
volume, and elastic frequencies in depth). When Einstein took his famous
mind's-eye trip to the speed of light horizon of position and/or velocity he
took to the center of the Universe (Hawking's Grand Central Station) with
regard to time. He closed with the leading edge of universal real time,
absolute now (absolute zero). Universal Real Time (or URT: or for Einstein,
ERT), real time zero, within the speed of light is sustained maintenance of
a zero balance account of time. "Sustained maintenance" in no way means
'stationary in time' or 'suspension of time' but does mean something like
sum over histories, where every history leads to via a future, the zero
point leading edge of time (URT).
Nothing that exists as matter and/or energy in the whole of an infinity of
Universe is ever "out of space and time." It may not be immediately relative
but there are too many things to list that are not immediately relative,
including other worlds, other universes, other spaces, other times, other
velocities, other gravities (infinitely less than one-g and infinitely
greater than zero-g), etc. Each point in an infinite Universe is also the
dead center of gravity (0 and/or 1) of the infinite Universe.
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "Old Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
15 Jan 2005 08:55:14 PM |
|
|
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Y46Gd.7929$EG1.171@attbi_s53...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:0K6dnWX_7YmVAnXcRVn-ig@prairiewave.com...
"Jim" <uhor3rih@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xpMFd.127554$dP1.458424@newsc.telia.net...
There is no center of universe? But if it is infinite then everything is
a
center!?
Right. Every where appears as the center. The observable
Universe is finite in space and time. The "infinite" part isn't
causal because it resides outside of your light cone. It's out
of space and time.
[Old Man]
The infinite, as well as the infinitesimal, has a relative time horizon
where relativity to the observer collapses. You may be outside the horizon
(position and velocity) you see in the distance, inside this relative
universe (u), but you are also one with it: one with the total that is the
Universe (U). Infinite and infinitesimal are two perfectly balanced poles.
No. That beyond your light cone is non-causal to you,
and you to it. Your (unobservable) light cone defines
the boundary of space and time.
[Old Man]
[ ... snip gibberish ... ]
Brad
.
|
|
|
| User: "glbrad01" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
18 Jan 2005 08:26:41 AM |
|
|
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:q4ydnRhu8M0ISnTcRVn-uQ@prairiewave.com...
"glbrad01" <glbrad01@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:Y46Gd.7929$EG1.171@attbi_s53...
"Old Man" <nomail@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:0K6dnWX_7YmVAnXcRVn-ig@prairiewave.com...
"Jim" <uhor3rih@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xpMFd.127554$dP1.458424@newsc.telia.net...
There is no center of universe? But if it is infinite then everything
is a
center!?
Right. Every where appears as the center. The observable
Universe is finite in space and time. The "infinite" part isn't
causal because it resides outside of your light cone. It's out
of space and time.
[Old Man]
The infinite, as well as the infinitesimal, has a relative time horizon
where relativity to the observer collapses. You may be outside the
horizon (position and velocity) you see in the distance, inside this
relative universe (u), but you are also one with it: one with the total
that is the Universe (U). Infinite and infinitesimal are two perfectly
balanced poles.
No. That beyond your light cone is non-causal to you,
and you to it. Your (unobservable) light cone defines
the boundary of space and time.
[Old Man]
No it does not define the boundary of space and time! I've again and again
described the situation of travelers continuously traveling will extend
themselves in growing distance beyond where any light speed based
transmission of information to some distant observer places them; both as to
their position and concerning their velocity. They won't be outside of space
and time. Another way of looking at it is if they were oncoming toward some
observer at a constant velocity. The closer they get to the observer the
more they would appear to accelerate in velocity rather than be sustaining
any constant of velocity. At a distance they are always ahead of placement
in space and time by an observer. The closer they get to observers the more
the gap closes between reality and relative placement. Relative placement in
space and time accelerates to catch up with reality. If the traveler,
whatever it may be, collides with the observer, only in that specific space
and time does relative placement and reality merge to become one and the
same for anything in motion. Light doesn't travel fast enough for
instantaneous transmission of information at any distance to any observer so
anything in motion either going away from some observer, or oncoming toward
some observer, will be somewhere else in the universe ahead of relative
placement and will be at some other velocity, no matter how slight or great
the difference, than observed. Don't try to tell me that "that beyond your
light cone is non-causal to you, and you to it." Reality is all that is
causal. Relativity, a history and a virtual space, is only causal when it
catches up to space and time reality from behind in time.
Your real space and time horizons stop at your eyeball or at the lens
itself of your telescope or microscope; or dead at the physical sensor of
some other kind of instrumentation. There is no such thing as instantaneous
transmission of information from any distant source whatsoever beyond its
immediate physical contact with the aforementioned or anything like them.
The limitations of the constancy of the velocity of light dictate observers
will always be behind in time, and if in motion behind in space also, of
distant sources no matter how slight the distance. When the distance is such
distances as millions to billions of light years, the observer is the one
millions to billions and more of years in the past of any reality at those
distances. The observer here and now--wherever, whenever, that will be--is
level in space and time with varying pasts at any distance, thus is level
with virtualities of space rather than real, as far as all observation goes.
Even the clarity of light transmitted information doesn't last forever
across increased distances traveled in space and in time. It must become
increasingly chaotic, increasingly smeared, or, as Henri Wilson probably
puts it, tired. At that time, what does an observer observe from it upon
arrival except it itself (a frame at the speed of light revealing the speed
of light (a mirror reflecting its own, so to speak, rather than reflecting
what other information, other than itself, it started upon its journeys
reflecting)). Chaotic, smeared out, tired, whatever, the framing itself will
still arrive to the eyeball or any other kind of instrumentation of the
observer. And that arrived framing alone is itself "distant horizon."
Brad
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
14 Jan 2005 03:53:42 AM |
|
|
Jim wrote:
There is no center of universe?
Yes. Or, alternatively, you could call every single point
the center. The notion of "center" is simply not well-defined
for the universe.
But if it is infinite then everything is a center!?
Even if it is finite.
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
| User: "G=EMC^2 Glazier" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
14 Jan 2005 07:37:51 AM |
|
|
Hi Jim If you woke up and found yourself in a blinding snow storm how
could you tell what snow flakes were in its center. How could you
determine where you are relative to its exterior? We live in a cosmos
made of as many universes as flakes of snow in an endless storm. The
first original snow flake created about a trillion trillion trillion
trillion trillion eons ago. Or snow flake(universe) was created about 22
billion years ago. Are new thinking uses the term "multi-universes."
Nature does not make one of anything. Nature deals only in big numbers.
Making universes is in reality what nature does constantly. By the time
it takes to read this post nature has seeded the cosmos with over 137
billion more universes Universes are wheels within wheels. Nature just
needs spacetime,and the force of gravity,and out pops a
universe.Humankind calls this "pop" A "Big Bang" I call it just
anoher mini-bang Bert
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
15 Jan 2005 11:14:42 PM |
|
|
Its like Nuka Hiva .
in the center of no where ,,yet in the center of evrywhere.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Kish" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
14 Jan 2005 07:57:15 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:53:42 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
Jim wrote:
There is no center of universe?
Yes. Or, alternatively, you could call every single point
the center. The notion of "center" is simply not well-defined
for the universe.
But if it is infinite then everything is a center!?
Even if it is finite.
Bye,
Bjoern
I'm just piping in here, but in my experience, definitions are important.
So one really needs to define what is mean by "center".
Thanks
Jeff Kish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Center of universe |
14 Jan 2005 01:45:54 PM |
|
|
Jeff Kish wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:53:42 +0100, Bjoern Feuerbacher
<feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
Jim wrote:
There is no center of universe?
Yes. Or, alternatively, you could call every single point
the center. The notion of "center" is simply not well-defined
for the universe.
But if it is infinite then everything is a center!?
Even if it is finite.
Bye,
Bjoern
I'm just piping in here, but in my experience, definitions are important.
So one really needs to define what is mean by "center".
Thanks
Jeff Kish
I'll quote Ned
for you from http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
"The Big Bang has no center. It is not an explosion radiating
from a point. ... There is no center because all positions in
the Universe are equivalent. The Universe is homogeneous, which
is part of the cosmological principle."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
