you are not the centre of the universe

drstawl said:
It's way fuzzier than that. The problem has already been broached by those hedging the operant phrase as the "known universe" as opposed to the Universe.
Click to expand...

That's the rub. The observable universe ain't the whole thing. You are always at the center of your own observable space no matter where you are. Unless the universe isn't homogenous and isotropic. There really isn't anything remarkable about being at the center of your own horizons.

But, the balloon analogy shows why trying to locate an actual center (i.e. "Where the Big Bang expansion happened") is a poorly formulated question. Because space is expanding everywhere.
 
nave said:
That's the rub. The observable universe ain't the whole thing. You are always at the center of your own observable space no matter where you are. Unless the universe isn't homogenous and isotropic. There really isn't anything remarkable about being at the center of your own horizons. ..
Click to expand...
Except they are saying.. We can see to the outer edge, and earliest time of that big bang.
Now that idea, seem fairly straight forward.
But they're also saying that there is no other 'part of the universe' nor even time :wtf: beyond (or 'prior' to) that!
The second link I posted FWIW..
 
Time cant exist without the presence of evidence of at least some substance in motion, or the result of the effect of substance moving in relation to another substance or the result of the effect of substance. No change on any level, no time. No change, no time. Time can still pass for the observer but not at the location with no change.
 
CFox said:
Time cant exist without the presence of evidence of at least some substance in motion, or the result of the effect of substance moving in relation to another substance or the result of the effect of substance. No change on any level, no time. No change, no time. Time can still pass for the observer but not at the location with no change.
Click to expand...
So that's sort of the link between, our universe, and time I guess? Also the boundary of space itself?
As if like I can talk about understanding this :) What'a hoot!
I liked my intuitive notion that it would be logical that space would be infinite, and we and all of this was just something else that happened.. 'in it.
 
mixsit said:
Except they are saying.. We can see to the outer edge, and earliest time of that big bang.
Now that idea, seem fairly straight forward.
But they're also saying that there is no other 'part of the universe' nor even time :wtf: beyond (or 'prior' to) that!
The second link I posted FWIW..
Click to expand...

We can see pretty far back. In theory, At least to what is called "the surface of the last scattering," when particles' photons didn't get immediately swallowed up by other particles and plasmic soup only to travel nowhere. That gets you close enough to the Big Bang. But, The objects way out there that we view today are seen as they were a long time ago when they were much closer to us. The same spot that we see as thirteen billion light years away is actually 46 billion light years away from us now. You can't see that shit because the light hasn't had time to reach us from that far away because the universe is only 13 billion +change years old.

As far as what is beyond the observable universe, Whether one posits nothing, the absence of even that, hyperspace or a multiverse where big bangs occur everywhere, all the time, it's all speculation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top