Can you mark the location of the inner-core-point of this universe ?

[chinu]

There is no inner core to an expanding universe. It doesn't work like a balloon, despite balloons often
being used for analogy. Every point in the universe is the "center."

You say.. Every point in the universe is the "center." ?

 

[columbus]

There's an empty space inside every human head.
Is it possible to investigate that empty space by reversing our seeing-power inward our own head with the help of any meditation ? what do you think ?

No.
But I do think humans quite capable of deluding themselves into believing that they're more insightful and educated than they actually are.

That's the fundamental difference between religion and science. Science has a batch of processes designed to weed out human illusion and delusion. Religion doesn't have any of that, anybody can believe anything and call it their religion.
Tom

 

[chinu]

To have a center, you have to have a boundary as a reference

But, there's nothing wrong in assuming that the empty-space which is right in front of you is the center ? perhaps it may be.
Why this can't be the possibility ?

 

[chinu]

I have no clue what you mean? you can go to a meditative state, but that is purely as a thought experience within your brain. It might give the illusion that it is empty and your thoughts are just floating around. But Im really not sure what you mean.

Try to STOP all thoughts, and then look inside. Perhaps find something new that has never been seen/experienced before.

 

[Onoma]

But, there's nothing wrong in assuming that the empty-space which is right in front of you is the center ? perhaps it may be.
Why this can't be the possibility ?

According to the FLRW metric, expansion is isotropic

 

[chinu]

No.

Okay fine. And just answering NO is more than enough to my question.

But I do think humans quite capable of deluding themselves into believing that they're more insightful and educated than they actually are.
That's the fundamental difference between religion and science. Science has a batch of processes designed to weed out human illusion and delusion. Religion doesn't have any of that, anybody can believe anything and call it their religion.
Tom

But, all this is NO way relevant to my question.

 

[chinu]

According to the FLRW metric, expansion is isotropic

Therefore, this even increases the more possibility.

 

[columbus]

This all is NO way relevant to my question.

I'm quite aware that you prefer not to see this, so you just won't.

But other people might.
Tom

 

[chinu]

I'm quite aware that you prefer not to see this, so you just won't.

But other people might.
Tom

Oh! Sorry I forgot that.
Good job keep on..

 

[Onoma]

Therefore, this even increases the more possibility.

Isotropic means it's expanding from all " points " simultaneously, but if you prefer to think it means something else, feel free

 

[Nakosis]

Considering this universe a "Big-Ball".
And, perhaps there's a possibility that this universe may have began from this inner-core-point and spread all around.

Can you mark the location of the inner-core-point of this universe ?

From what I've read, and I may not completely understand the significance of this. but the center of the universe is where you are right not. the universe started out as a singular point and expanded equally in all directions. so every point in the universe is the center of the universe. So you could travel in any direction as far and as fast as you want and you would always be at the center of the universe.

 

[chinu]

Isotropic means it's expanding from all " points " simultaneously, but if you prefer to think it means something else, feel free

But, expanding means something which is IN-process, NOT the ended process.

 

[viole]

Considering this universe a "Big-Ball".
And, perhaps there's a possibility that this universe may have began from this inner-core-point and spread all around.

Can you mark the location of the inner-core-point of this universe ?

Good question, for a change.
The answer is no. In the same way we cannot locate the time it took place, for the simple reason that they are both relative.

Ciao

- viole

 

[chinu]

From what I've read, and I may not completely understand the significance of this. but the center of the universe is where you are right not. the universe started out as a singular point and expanded equally in all directions. so every point in the universe is the center of the universe. So you could travel in any direction as far and as fast as you want and you would always be at the center of the universe.

Okay, Now consider every place is the center of the universe.
If so, then the empty space which is right in front of your eyes is the center of the universe.

Further, suppose that this empty space has some more layers to uncover before you could see the exact center-point.

Which is best possible way to look this center-point ? (Of course human physical eyes isn't capable going such deep)

 

[Nimos]

Try to STOP all thoughts, and then look inside. Perhaps find something new that has never been seen/experienced before.

Well it's almost impossible, to not think of anything for more than 5-10 seconds or so for me I can concentrate on it and its just all black or there is nothing, but whether that is actually not thinking about anything im not sure of.

You might find this article interesting, its what neuroscientists believe:
Can We Ever Stop Thinking? | Live Science

 

[Nakosis]

Okay, Now consider every place is the center of the universe.
If so, then the empty space which is right in front of your eyes is the center of the universe.

Further, suppose that this empty space has some more layers to uncover before you could see the exact center-point.

Which is best possible way to look this center-point ? (Of course human physical eyes isn't capable going such deep)

I suspect the center point of the universe is an arbitrary designation. You could pick any point and say this is the center of the universe because any point is as good as any other, and at the same time say there is no central point to the universe.

Then again, even if you did designate a central point to the universe there may be nothing there. Again this may be a simplified understanding but the universe exists on energy it borrows from the future. That's how you get something from nothing. So the only thing we might see is the universe paying back the energy it borrowed.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Considering this universe a "Big-Ball".
And, perhaps there's a possibility that this universe may have began from this inner-core-point and spread all around.

Can you mark the location of the inner-core-point of this universe ?

I haven't done the calculation for myself, but here is how it is done. First you consider Hubble's discovery that everything is spreading out. All of the stars are moving away from each other, not just one direction but in all directions. Then you backwards-extrapolate when you think they would have all been in one spot. That's your big bang starting point, and its how you guess at the age of the galaxies. The derived estimate is 13.8 billion human years.

Since we can't see the edges of the universe, its hard to be sure if it has a size, an edge or some limit, however we can take that above age estimate and use it to try to guess at a size. It is a guess which incorporates a little math but is still a guess.

On top of this to do age calculations and distance calculations you have to take into account that space can bend and expand. You and I are part of space, and we have limits as to how fast we can move within space; but the expansion of space does not have the same limitation. It can expand, or so it is thought, faster than light.

So...people have come up with various very good models, still being tweaked and worked on. Some posit an infinite sized universe. Some are based on the big bang. The search for the best model means making models that can be tested, and one of the tests is whether a model can predict things that haven't been observed, yet. If a model predicts something that is later discovered then that model goes up in everyone's estimation, but it may still be wrong about something.

 

[Pipiripi]

Considering this universe a "Big-Ball".
And, perhaps there's a possibility that this universe may have began from this inner-core-point and spread all around.

Can you mark the location of the inner-core-point of this universe ?

Yes, God Jehovah and Jesus Christ.

 

[oldbadger]

Considering this universe a "Big-Ball".
And, perhaps there's a possibility that this universe may have began from this inner-core-point and spread all around.

Can you mark the location of the inner-core-point of this universe ?

No..... I've forgotten which way to look, but the boffins can!
They trained Hubble towards the epicentre of the Big Bang and could see very early light from that direction.

Clever, them boffins.
But me? I can only tell you where the 'Plough', the 'Wheatsheaf' and the 'Hampton Arms' are. As far as I'm concerned they will have to be the centre of the Universe.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Got to think of the universe as an expanding solid not the surface of a balloon.
Everything would seem to be expanding and moving away from everything else.
It would be getting less dense.
I wonder if that is true.
It would have a centre but no way at establishing where it was.
However one could suppose that some very old dead stars and planets that are close to the edge of the sphere . They would have been very young when the universe came into being and contain few elements. They could never have supported life.


Probably the first planets to have a full complement of elements are in comparative terms a similar age as earth. And far from the edge. Probably no life form has ever been able to detect either the centre of the edge of the universe.

Probably the limits of the universe are defined by entropy. And that is the direction of travel for everything.