Considering it the center may be useful for some purposes and not for others.
Using it as the center of the solar system sure complicates the math for calculating orbits of the other planets around the sun, for example.
Using earth as the center of the galaxy sure complicates the math for motion of stars that appear to be heavily influenced by black hole mass of what might be considered the geometric or gravitational center of the galaxy.
On the other hand, for the purpose of letting humans think they are the most important thing in the universe, earth can be defined as a center that many people will find to be agreeable.
My navel is the centre of me, it's what I expanded from and I see the whole universe if I gaze into it
There was a paper, article..called Deep Time...I haven't been able to find it since. The paper essentially proposed the universe is essentially backwards from the common conception of time. The idea is that the universe will continue to expand so very much in that, within this so-called "Deep Time, any two Atoms of matter will be so very far apart, some 1X10 100th years....and 1000th, 10M th years, time will essentially cease...because absolutely nothing will occur for an infinity of years... a grain of sand in the whole of "this" current sized Universe...trying to interact with another.
If this is the case, some future civilizations will look up towards the night sky & see absolutely nothing, the remaining stars far far too far away to be seen, by alien eyes, nor telescopes of the best kind. Like an eyedropper drop of liquid in a limitless Ocean.
So, everything happened at the Big-Bang moment, an infinity of events, forward thru star development, on toward a spreading out of matter, gasses, fuel for stars so dissipated, energies exhausted universe wide...spread out to nothingness...the true Zero.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick......
If this is the case, some future civilizations will look up towards the night sky & see absolutely nothing, the remaining stars far far too far away to be seen, by alien eyes, nor telescopes of the best kind. Like an eyedropper drop of liquid in a limitless Ocean.
So, everything happened at the Big-Bang moment, an infinity of events, forward thru star development, on toward a spreading out of matter, gasses, fuel for stars so dissipated, energies exhausted universe wide...spread out to nothingness...the true Zero.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick......
So how could there have been a big bang then? If we're just once around the block, where did matter originate? How did it come into being? Once you declare an end, you have to verify the beginning. End of what?
Imagine if you will a null space (not our "space"), within it you explode a large firecracker, the fury & fire occur rapidly, the gasses & reminents expand within this null space, expanding at an accelerating rate...until there is no sign whatsoever of the firecracker even existing in the first place, the bits & pieces so far spread out, the sound, the energies long since gone, any and all evidence whatsoever of this firecrackers existence, lost in time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.......
------------------------------------------------------------------------Rick.......
Expanding universe theory. It still starts with a big bang, it just doesn't contract or oscillate after that.
The big crunch was an earlier part of cosmology but the discovery of dark matter and dark energy makes a reversal much less likely.
I think it has to do with if the universe is open, closed or flat. The jury still out on that one...
YouTube
//
If the universe started from a singularity which transitioned into the inflationary period, shouldn't the universe expand equally in every direction, and thus have a 'center' from which inflation and expansion took place?
(I suspect this is so from a Newtonian view, but not from a quantum view of which I have very limited knowledge.)
(I suspect this is so from a Newtonian view, but not from a quantum view of which I have very limited knowledge.)
Maybe take a look at this: History of the center of the Universe - Wikipedia
More reading material available here: The Big Bang and the Big Crunch - The Physics of the Universe
No center of the universe has been found, and its not clear that a simple geometric concept ought to apply universe since space-time is curved and may curve right around on itself.
The Euclidian geometry we all learned maybe in junior high school is a human idea, not a perfect representation of physical reality, especially at very large or very small scales. It is a plenty good enough approximation of reality for most everyday purposes of humans, though. Similar thing for relativity. It's always there, but for most everyday purposes we don't need to use it or think about it.
Last edited:
Not since 1998...the expansion is accelerating under the apparent effects of dark energy. It is very difficult to reconcile an expansion that has accelerated for some 5 billion years with a future contraction as the sum of all of the gravitiational energy opposing the expansion lost out to the pressure of dark energy then.
It seemed as in the 2017 vid with the prof. that it was not really 100% certain - thats how I understood it. Didi you watch it?
//
//
🤔
That's a concept which doesn't require dark matter, or constant acceleration.
If all matter is "evaporating", radiating its mass away in heat energy, maybe everything IS shrinking.
In a nearly uniform manner, "shrinkage" like this, without visual reference to the whole universe, might well appear to be expansion.
Since the universe has nothing to expand into, space remains the same, while matter's individual perimeters rapidly recede, star system from star system, galaxy from galaxy...
I see your eyerolls, and raise you a people's eyebrow.😃
All matter will become photons i.e. universe turn dark as there is nothing to reflect on. Then starts the big crush.
//
//
It might be possible someday in the future of either human or another species to collect together various galaxies in our universe and merge them all together close to one another.
This won't mitigate the end of the universe, there may not actually be an end to the universe, it might be forever expanding, but if there is an end to the universe then at least we can stay close together as everything goes dark.
It might even be possible with sufficient acceleration to out run the next big bang but you wouldn't be able to do it forever unless you manage to capture energy from the wave behind you and somehow turn it into energy put into accelerating your universe/universes with a higher return than what you are getting.
This would of course require the breaking of the fundamental physical laws of the universe.
But you could create a "universe inside of a universe".
You would require a massive number of super massive black holes to be surrounding the galaxies which you are trying to protect, from the wave of the expansion of the next big bang and then you would require a lot of very large gas giants inside of the wall of supermassive black holes to provide you with an energy storage source for maintaining the position of the black holes and the structural integrity of the "universe inside of a universe".
That would be the fundamental mechanics of the shielding required.
You might also require a massive wormhole to transfer energy from the center of the new universe which is currently expanding into the old universe within a universe that you are trying to protect, without this wormhole you would be unable to outrun the shockwave of the new merging universe.
And then there is the big crunch which is going to occur before the new big bang occurs, if the new big bang occurs with a big crunch you need to transfer sufficient energy at the same rate as which the big crunch is occuring into the past to prevent your "universe within a universe" from being attracted to/pulled away towards the big crunch.
That last one is a huge issue because you basically need sufficient energy in the past than you do in the future to prevent your universe within a universe from being attracted towards the new big bang in the first place, which is impossible. Or might be impossible.
This won't mitigate the end of the universe, there may not actually be an end to the universe, it might be forever expanding, but if there is an end to the universe then at least we can stay close together as everything goes dark.
It might even be possible with sufficient acceleration to out run the next big bang but you wouldn't be able to do it forever unless you manage to capture energy from the wave behind you and somehow turn it into energy put into accelerating your universe/universes with a higher return than what you are getting.
This would of course require the breaking of the fundamental physical laws of the universe.
But you could create a "universe inside of a universe".
You would require a massive number of super massive black holes to be surrounding the galaxies which you are trying to protect, from the wave of the expansion of the next big bang and then you would require a lot of very large gas giants inside of the wall of supermassive black holes to provide you with an energy storage source for maintaining the position of the black holes and the structural integrity of the "universe inside of a universe".
That would be the fundamental mechanics of the shielding required.
You might also require a massive wormhole to transfer energy from the center of the new universe which is currently expanding into the old universe within a universe that you are trying to protect, without this wormhole you would be unable to outrun the shockwave of the new merging universe.
And then there is the big crunch which is going to occur before the new big bang occurs, if the new big bang occurs with a big crunch you need to transfer sufficient energy at the same rate as which the big crunch is occuring into the past to prevent your "universe within a universe" from being attracted to/pulled away towards the big crunch.
That last one is a huge issue because you basically need sufficient energy in the past than you do in the future to prevent your universe within a universe from being attracted towards the new big bang in the first place, which is impossible. Or might be impossible.
Last edited:
The only thing certain is that the big crunch and the new big bang will only last for a certain while until things settle down and there will be a much more dosile new universe in place, so you can then remove the black holes and integrate your "universe within a universe" into the newly made universe.
So there is a massive crunch which is a collection of energy and a massive release of energy BUT it doesn't last forever. So it is possible to collect sufficient energy to ride out the surge in energy.
The next big crunch and the big bang won't last forever. So that means that there is a measurable amount of energy required to ride out the next big bang and if we can measure it we can control it or protect against it. or run away from it.
So there is a massive crunch which is a collection of energy and a massive release of energy BUT it doesn't last forever. So it is possible to collect sufficient energy to ride out the surge in energy.
The next big crunch and the big bang won't last forever. So that means that there is a measurable amount of energy required to ride out the next big bang and if we can measure it we can control it or protect against it. or run away from it.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.