Where is the center of the universe?

[The Starmaker]

Where is the center of the universe?



Where?

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[David Staup]

in your head

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

The Starmaker wrote:

> Where is the center of the universe?

According to the current standard model of cosmology, everywhere.

This might be helpful: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs#t=495>

> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com

When will you get this fixed?

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/8/15 3:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Where is the center of the universe?
>

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

[HVAC]

On 2/8/2015 4:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Where is the center of the universe?
>
>
>
> Where?

The center of the universe is EXACTLY where I am sitting right now.
And I mean EXACTLY.




--
Cut off one head, two more shall take its place.
HAIL HYDRA!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZcG5UOY224

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El domingo, 8 de febrero de 2015, 19:20:10 (UTC-5), Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió:
> The Starmaker wrote:
>
> > Where is the center of the universe?
>
> According to the current standard model of cosmology, everywhere.
>
> This might be helpful: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs#t=495>
>

According to 1905 Einstein, in the center of mass of the stationary system corresponding to all existing bodies.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/9/15 4:51 AM, HVAC wrote:
> The center of the universe is EXACTLY where I am sitting right now.
> And I mean EXACTLY.

And you would be right, Harlow. However, the center of the universe
is EXACTLY where I am standing right now. Herb is probably going to
claim the same this... IF he is clever enough.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Where is the center of the universe?
>
> Where?

Look, I understand
that yous been told

the center of the
universe is

everywhere...

are you going
to sit around
and wait for
them to tell
yous
'they thought wrong'?


It's very simple..

i take a match
light a
fireworks fuse..
it explodes
it goes bang

the center of the
explosion
is where the bang
occured..

where the fuse is..
where i lit the fuse..
That is Where the center is.

Somewhere in the universe
there are remenants
of the little pieces
of the cherry bomb,
fireworks canister..
maybe even some of the fuse is
somewhere in the universe...
it would have to be at the center.
You cannot have an explosion, a big bang
without..a center.

Regardless of what they tell you...

The center of the universe is located...Where?

Maybe the Earth is the center of the universe...it
is the only part of the universe that doesn't look like
everything thing else.

The Starmaker

[HVAC]

On 2/9/2015 2:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> It's very simple..
>
> i take a match
> light a
> fireworks fuse..
> it explodes
> it goes bang
>
> the center of the
> explosion
> is where the bang
> occured..
>
> where the fuse is..
> where i lit the fuse..
> That is Where the center is.
>
> Somewhere in the universe
> there are remenants
> of the little pieces
> of the cherry bomb,
> fireworks canister..
> maybe even some of the fuse is
> somewhere in the universe...
> it would have to be at the center.
> You cannot have an explosion, a big bang
> without..a center.

Another simple-minded viewpoint. The big bang was NOT an explosion.

How is it that my children understood this concept at age 9-10?

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/9/15 1:23 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> i take a match light a fireworks fuse.. it explodes it goes bang
>
> the center of the explosion is where the bang occured..

Poor analogy -- the big bang is an expansion of space, not an
explosion in space. :-o

[fuller...@hotmail.com]

Why does every one say space is the inverse of time then??

The horizon is every where as it is the interface between space which is everywhere and time which is also everywhere.

http://oi61.tinypic.com/2v9otwh.jpg

[The Starmaker]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/big%20bang

Definition of BIG BANG
: the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe
according to the big bang theory



When my neighbors ask, "What was that big bang???'


They are talking about a large noise they heard caused by an explosion.



In other words, there was a sudden loud noise...

caused by when I lit the fuse of the cherry bomb.



"expansion" is completly something else...



I'm talking about a big noise, coming from the big explosion...a big
bang!

[Bast]

If you want to go with either the big bang, or inflation theories.
The center is everywhere.
Since everythng including space itself started fron a single point /
singularity.


Of course if you go with the theory of an infinitely old and large universe
that was always there.
......The center is two two steps to your right, and six inches forward.


And then again you could believe in the bible and that it was all made in a
week, 2000 years ago.
Then,...the center is up your ass.

[Bast]

Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 2/9/15 4:51 AM, HVAC wrote:
>> The center of the universe is EXACTLY where I am sitting right now.
>> And I mean EXACTLY.

Nope,...no narcissism there.
Go back to emailing yourself valentines letters.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/9/15 4:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Definition of BIG BANG
> : the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe
> according to the big bang theory

Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

> The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the
> birth of the universe.[1][2][3] It states that at some moment all of
> space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has
> been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at
> approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the
> age of the universe.[4] After the initial expansion, the Universe
> cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles,
> and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements
> later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. The Big
> Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial
> conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the
> general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on.

[The Starmaker]

Bast wrote:
>
> The Starmaker wrote:
> > Where is the center of the universe?
> >
> >
> >
> > Where?
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > http://www.avast.com
>
> If you want to go with either the big bang, or inflation theories.
> The center is everywhere.

Where is...everywhere?

[Sam Wormley]

Every point, every observer in an expanding universe looks to be the
center. It's just geometry of expanding space.

[William December Starr]

In article <mba3dg$dro$1...@dont-email.me>,

HVAC <Mr....@gmail.com> said:

> The center of the universe is EXACTLY where I am sitting right now.
> And I mean EXACTLY.

Left butt-cheek or right?

-- wds

[benj]

Sammy, you never disappoint! You still haven't noticed that in
accepting the "no center" theory you must ALSO accept the "Universe has
more dimensions than three not including time" theory as well.

You really could use a science education.

Say did I ever tell you about my BBB theory? I'm very clever. Get the
picture?

--
___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\_:/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
\/__/ \/__/

[The Starmaker]

Most people trust a merriam-webster dictionary more than they would a user-edited website like wikipedia.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/big%20bang

Definition of BIG BANG
: the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe
according to the big bang theory

And why would anyone trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


when the original editor hides his last ip with 3 xxx???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/129.128.137.xxx


cause it's garbage information.

[The Starmaker]

Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> On 2/9/15 6:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Bast wrote:
> >>
> >> The Starmaker wrote:
> >>> Where is the center of the universe?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Where?
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>> http://www.avast.com
> >>
> >> If you want to go with either the big bang, or inflation theories.
> >> The center is everywhere.
> >
> > Where is...everywhere?
> >
>
> Every point,

To say that the center is everywhere is like saying God is everywhere.

[benj]

Sam you need to understand my BBB theory. I am very clever. That is a
given.

[benj]

Certainly you have heard of chickenman?

[Bast]

Not really.
As there is another theory that says everything is just a hologram on the
edge of the universe, and projected inside.

Wouldn't it be a bitch if we ever found out that all we were was a computer
program on a Supreme Being's hard disk drive.
And that all your thoughts and actions were not your own, but just the
result of that Being, moving a joystick.

[The Starmaker]

hologram universe is based on string theory..and string theory is based
on math, not science..
and math is not hidden in any form in the unverse, so hologram uinverse
doesn' exist.


People say God is everywhere just so that don't have to indicate his
location...saying
the center ofthe universe is everywhere is just a ..cop out to hide the
fact they have no
idea where the center is at.

The center of the universe reveals God's location. The place where he
created the heavens and the earth; of
course, their goal is to erase God, so they erase the center.


If you ask God where is the center of the universe, he'll say..."It's
right over there!"


What came first, the earth or the light? And then there was light..

The Earth is the center of the universe...

[HVAC]

Correct.

[HVAC]

On 2/9/2015 8:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Most people trust a merriam-webster dictionary more than they would a user-edited website like wikipedia.
>
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/big%20bang
>
> Definition of BIG BANG
> : the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe
> according to the big bang theory

The dictionary definitions presented here, along with most of you
people, are wrong. Just listen to ME....Then accept my definition as if
it came from the mouth of god almighty himself.

[HVAC]

On 2/9/2015 8:10 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>
> Every point, every observer in an expanding universe looks to be the
> center. It's just geometry of expanding space.

When my children struggled with this concept, as many of the denizens of
this group seem to be (cept my kids were 10 at the time), I used a
simple analogy. I asked where the center was on an infinitely long piece
of string. In a second I saw the lights going on in their 10 year old
heads. Still, many on this group are so firmly entrenched in their
stoic view of physics that education is out of the question.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

The anonymous coward known as @The·Starmaker wrote:
> > Definition of BIG BANG:
> > the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe
> > according to the big bang theory

Quoting https://www.google.com/search?q=define:big+bang ＜＜
Big Bang:

The rapid expansion of matter from a state of
extremely high density and temperature that,
according to current cosmological theories,
marked the origin of the [known] universe. ＞＞

As matter expands, so too does space·time;
because space·time is matter and vice versa.

The Universe is consuming "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ),
same as you, me, and everyone/everything else.

As it does so, entropy increases --
i.e. everything smooths out, becoming less lumpy.

The start of the known Universe, the start of the Big Bang,
is merely our (subjective) cosmic horizon.

There/Then the redshift ( z ) is infinite --
i.e. from our point of view, clocks there/then aren't ticking
and the good ol' yardstick is infinitely long,
so that everything there/then appears to have zero length.

From our point of view.
Locally, it's a different story, of course.

[Justin Thyme]

Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:

> As matter expands, so too does space·time;
> because space·time is matter and vice versa.

I know that it used to be thought be some that "stuff" was just
space-time tightly curved. I.e., the answer to the question arena or
everything? was everything. Are such ideas still entertained?

--
Sorrow in all lands, and grievous omens.
Great anger in the dragon of the hills,
And silent now the earth's green oracles
That will not speak again of innocence.
David Sutton -- Geomancies

[benj]

On 02/10/2015 06:11 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/9/2015 8:10 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>> Every point, every observer in an expanding universe looks to be the
>> center. It's just geometry of expanding space.
>
>
> When my children struggled with this concept, as many of the denizens of
> this group seem to be (cept my kids were 10 at the time), I used a
> simple analogy. I asked where the center was on an infinitely long piece
> of string. In a second I saw the lights going on in their 10 year old
> heads. Still, many on this group are so firmly entrenched in their
> stoic view of physics that education is out of the question.

And of course since all math is fantasy and "infinite" things do not
exist (except for human stupidity, natch, no offense) all you managed to
do is screw up your kid's heads with your disingenuous tradecraft.

Figures.

The idea of the center of the universe being everywhere has nothing to
do with it being infinite. Has to do with it being a multi-dimensional
manifold (which oddly Sammy denies...he's such a denier!).

I pity your kids hardblow. What a handicap they mus live with.

[JRStern]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 13:40:11 +0000, Justin Thyme
<Justi...@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
>> As matter expands, so too does space·time;
>> because space·time is matter and vice versa.
>
>I know that it used to be thought be some that "stuff" was just
>space-time tightly curved. I.e., the answer to the question arena or
>everything? was everything. Are such ideas still entertained?

That's new to me, and I like it!

J.

[JRStern]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2015 05:06:15 -0800 (Seattle), Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:

>The anonymous coward known as @The·Starmaker wrote:
>> > Definition of BIG BANG:
>> > the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe
>> > according to the big bang theory
>

>Quoting https://www.google.com/search?q=define:big+bang ??

> Big Bang:
>
> The rapid expansion of matter from a state of
> extremely high density and temperature that,
> according to current cosmological theories,

> marked the origin of the [known] universe. ??

>
>As matter expands, so too does space·time;
>because space·time is matter and vice versa.
>
>The Universe is consuming "eXergy" ( energy that can do work ),
>same as you, me, and everyone/everything else.
>
>As it does so, entropy increases --
>i.e. everything smooths out, becoming less lumpy.

Well, but everything? I mean, stars, planets, you and me, appear to
be more "lumpy" than an expanding, cooling cloud, not less lumpy.

Is this still just waved at as a statistical oddity, we are all black
swans, and globally entropy is increasing so we should just accept it?

Or can we blame it on "dark matter"?

J.

[HVAC]

On 2/10/2015 10:12 AM, benj wrote:
>
> And of course since all math is fantasy and "infinite" things do not
> exist (except for human stupidity, natch, no offense) all you managed to
> do is screw up your kid's heads with your disingenuous tradecraft.

Well then BJ, riddle me this. As a god believer, when did your god come
into existence? How long ago?

BJ's answer: "God is outside of our universe and therefore doesn't count".

HVAC's reply: "Oh".

> The idea of the center of the universe being everywhere has nothing to
> do with it being infinite. Has to do with it being a multi-dimensional
> manifold (which oddly Sammy denies...he's such a denier!).
>
> I pity your kids hardblow. What a handicap they mus live with.

My children are all out on their own. Each has completed college. My
oldest daughter has her doctorate. Obviously they have overcome this
horrible handicap. You proud of them?'

[benj]

On 02/10/2015 11:09 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/10/2015 10:12 AM, benj wrote:
>>
>> And of course since all math is fantasy and "infinite" things do not
>> exist (except for human stupidity, natch, no offense) all you managed to
>> do is screw up your kid's heads with your disingenuous tradecraft.
>
>
> Well then BJ, riddle me this. As a god believer, when did your god come
> into existence? How long ago?
>
> BJ's answer: "God is outside of our universe and therefore doesn't count".
>
> HVAC's reply: "Oh".

As an ignorant atheist spawn of Satan, Harlow obviously can't handle
thinking about this or even reading what I said.

I said the Universe is defined as "God" but God has no beginning or end
and therefore is outside of TIME, you dummy. Not "the universe". God is
outside of itself? And you atheists wonder why people laugh at your
"logic".

For some odd reason people DEMAND that everything have a beginning and
end because their lives do. But it does not follow that everything must
be like you. (Whew! Was that a scary thought or what?)

Did you ever hear of my BBB theory? (big bang is bullshit) It's quite
well received. That is a given.

>> The idea of the center of the universe being everywhere has nothing to
>> do with it being infinite. Has to do with it being a multi-dimensional
>> manifold (which oddly Sammy denies...he's such a denier!).
>>

>> I pity your kids hardblow. What a handicap they must live with.

>
>
> My children are all out on their own. Each has completed college. My
> oldest daughter has her doctorate. Obviously they have overcome this
> horrible handicap. You proud of them?'

Doctorate? Holy shit! Now she REALLY has a Handicap! I can only hope
she has what it takes to rise above it!

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/9/15 7:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>> On 2/9/15 4:16 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Definition of BIG BANG
>>> : the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe
>>> according to the big bang theory
>>
>> Try: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
>>
>>> The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the
>>> birth of the universe.[1][2][3] It states that at some moment all of
>>> space was contained in a single point from which the Universe has
>>> been expanding ever since. Modern measurements place this moment at
>>> approximately 13.8 billion years ago, which is thus considered the
>>> age of the universe.[4] After the initial expansion, the Universe
>>> cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles,
>>> and later simple atoms. Giant clouds of these primordial elements
>>> later coalesced through gravity to form stars and galaxies. The Big
>>> Bang theory does not provide any explanation for the initial
>>> conditions of the Universe; rather, it describes and explains the
>>> general evolution of the Universe going forward from that point on.
>
>
>
> Most people trust a merriam-webster dictionary more than they would a user-edited website like wikipedia.
>
>

Astronomers rely on observational evidence and testable (falsifiable)
mathematical models.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/10/15 7:06 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> As matter expands, so too does space·time;
> because space·time is matter and vice versa.

Matter is not expanding and is held by the strong and electromagnetic
forces. Space is expanding from the conservation of momentum and
Dark Energy.

[Sam Wormley]

Not really.
Some religions imply a gods and omnipresence, but that's just some
religions.

[Bast]

Are you actually beliving hvac about anything ?
I'll bet if he has kids , his hope is that someday they proudly can
say,....do you want that supersized ?
..And be the envy of the whole family.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/10/15 5:11 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/9/2015 8:10 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>
>> Every point, every observer in an expanding universe looks to be the
>> center. It's just geometry of expanding space.
>
>
> When my children struggled with this concept, as many of the denizens of
> this group seem to be (cept my kids were 10 at the time), I used a
> simple analogy. I asked where the center was on an infinitely long piece
> of string. In a second I saw the lights going on in their 10 year old
> heads. Still, many on this group are so firmly entrenched in their
> stoic view of physics that education is out of the question.
>

I like the argument you made with your kids.

[The Starmaker]

HVAC wrote:
>
> On 2/9/2015 8:50 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >
> > Most people trust a merriam-webster dictionary more than they would a user-edited website like wikipedia.
> >
> >
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/big%20bang
> >
> > Definition of BIG BANG
> > : the cosmic explosion that marked the beginning of the universe
> > according to the big bang theory
>
> The dictionary definitions presented here, along with most of you
> people, are wrong. Just listen to ME....Then accept my definition as if
> it came from the mouth of god almighty himself.
>

there are too many gods almighties among yous...

[The Starmaker]

I understand...
that you all were
given information
that is incorrect..

Maybe I asked the wrong question..

How about if I change the question to...


Is there a center of the universe?


The answer either has to be Yes or No.


In other words, does a "center" exist in the universe?


If you answer No, then you cannot have a center everywhere if no cneter
exist...if there is no center.

If you answer Yes, then there can only be one center...and any other
center you see is illusionary.


Of course the answer is Yes, there is a center....only one center.


But for some reason I cannot explain, yous have been told the answer is
No!


And the explanations given to yous....are Wrong.


I can explain why the answer is Yes...(and I also need to burn all your
textbooks)


The Starmaker

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/10/15 1:06 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Is there a center of the universe?

There is no center.

[hanson]

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3Zednc0UgJXw0UfJ...@giganews.com...

>
> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>> As matter expands, so too does space·time;
>> because space·time is matter and vice versa.
>

"Sam Wormley" wrote:
> Matter is not expanding and is held by the strong and electromagnetic
> forces. Space is expanding from the conservation of momentum and Dark
> Energy.
>

hanson wrote:
Now, that you guys have done your **vocal-yokel**
physics by trumpeting your buzzwords, gimme a
few equations that quantitatively & dimensionally
describe what you've proselytized for.



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[HVAC]

On 2/10/2015 12:01 PM, benj wrote:
>
>> Well then BJ, riddle me this. As a god believer, when did your god come
>> into existence? How long ago?
>>
>> BJ's answer: "God is outside of our universe and therefore doesn't
>> count".
>>
>> HVAC's reply: "Oh".
>
> As an ignorant atheist spawn of Satan, Harlow obviously can't handle
> thinking about this or even reading what I said.
>
> I said the Universe is defined as "God" but God has no beginning or end
> and therefore is outside of TIME, you dummy. Not "the universe". God is
> outside of itself? And you atheists wonder why people laugh at your
> "logic".

So I misparsed some of your words, big fucking deal.
My point was correct. Your 'mind' is stuck on stupid bc of your
absolutely preposterous idea of some mystical creature for which you
have zero evidence.

>>> The idea of the center of the universe being everywhere has nothing to
>>> do with it being infinite. Has to do with it being a multi-dimensional
>>> manifold (which oddly Sammy denies...he's such a denier!).

Again, your predilection towards the preposterous blinds you.
In short, you're a kook. No offense ofc

That is a given.

[Bast]

hanson wrote:
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3Zednc0UgJXw0UfJ...@giganews.com...
>>
>> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> As matter expands, so too does space·time;
>>> because space·time is matter and vice versa.
>>
> "Sam Wormley" wrote:
>> Matter is not expanding and is held by the strong and electromagnetic
>> forces. Space is expanding from the conservation of momentum and Dark
>> Energy.
>>
> hanson wrote:
> Now, that you guys have done your **vocal-yokel**
> physics by trumpeting your buzzwords, gimme a
> few equations that quantitatively & dimensionally
> describe what you've proselytized for.

Here you go. Pick your favorite
http://pixgood.com/complex-math-equation-on-chalkboard.html

[hanson]

"Bast" <fake...@nomail.invalid> wrote>
in message news:mbe7id$qe2$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> hanson wrote:
>> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3Zednc0UgJXw0UfJ...@giganews.com...
>>>
>>> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>>> As matter expands, so too does space·time;
>>>> because space·time is matter and vice versa.
>>>
>> "Sam Wormley" wrote:
>>> Matter is not expanding and is held by the strong and electromagnetic
>>> forces. Space is expanding from the conservation of momentum and Dark
>>> Energy.
>>>
>> hanson wrote:
>> Now, that you guys have done your **vocal-yokel**
>> physics by trumpeting your buzzwords, gimme a
>> few equations that quantitatively & dimensionally
>> describe what you've proselytized for.
>

Sebastian wrote:
> Here you go. Pick your favorite
> http://pixgood.com/complex-math-equation-on-chalkboard.html
>

hanson wrote:
Sebastian, you are showing by you link only your nightmare.
Pity.
>
To boot it will only discombobulate the 2 addressees,
and give them cause to get off the hook, you silly Bastard.
>
BTW, are you one of those mental patients who are
posting from rec.arts.sf.written, and use s.p. as therapy?

[The Starmaker]

Now, the center of the universe is where the big bang occured.

(that was simple, wasn't it?)

But I'll explain what happen after the first two seconds when the big bang
occured so that you can understand what you see today, which appears
to have no center...

Two seconds after the big bang, the big bang created...clones of itself.

Sort of little big bangs...all around the center of the big bang.

Each clone of the big bang appears to look like The Big Bang.


So each clone big bang has it's owns stars...

all the clones appear simlliar..with just a touch of differences..


So, it appears that the big bang occured everywhere, but it didn't...
the big bang made carbon copies of itself through out the universe...but
there is only One Big Bang and only one Center..Only one universe.

No baby universes..just baby big bangs.


The Starmaker

[franci...@gmail.com]

...the BB borns almost 100 years ago with the observation of the far redshifhs and it consolidates with the CBR (dark matter) ...:with the HTS'datas (1998-2002years) it is clear that all the dwarf stars are flying away ...it should be enough
a reflexion about that for stopping all discussions ..( the dwarf stars have a very higth temperature , its are little and near ; its are excaping speedder if hotter and farer ..and .. see www.bbamateur.blogspot.com )

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/11/15 1:44 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Now, the center of the universe is where the big bang occured.

And the big bang occurred everywhere--no exceptions.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

hanson wrote:

> "Sam Wormley" […] wrote […]:

>> Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>>> As matter expands, so too does space·time;
>>> because space·time is matter and vice versa.
>>
> "Sam Wormley" wrote:
>> Matter is not expanding and is held by the strong and electromagnetic
>> forces. Space is expanding from the conservation of momentum and Dark
>> Energy.

ACK.

> Now, that you guys have done your **vocal-yokel**
> physics by trumpeting your buzzwords, gimme a
> few equations that quantitatively & dimensionally
> describe what you've proselytized for.

You would not understand them, therefore not accept them, so what’s the
point?

F'up2 sci.physics

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

benj wrote:

> On 02/09/2015 08:10 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/9/15 6:40 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Bast wrote:
>>>> The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>> Where is the center of the universe?
>>>>>
>>>>> Where?

>>>>> […]

>>>>
>>>> If you want to go with either the big bang, or inflation theories.
>>>> The center is everywhere.
>>>
>>> Where is...everywhere?
>>

>> Every point, every observer in an expanding universe looks to be the
>> center. It's just geometry of expanding space.
>>

>> No Center
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

>> […]
>
> Sammy, you never disappoint! You still haven't noticed that in
> accepting the "no center" theory you must ALSO accept the "Universe has
> more dimensions than three not including time" theory as well.

Nonsense. The first document listed under ”No Center” (one of many others)
shows it can be confirmed even with only *two* spatial dimensions.

> You really could use a science education.

You could.

[Yousuf Khan]

On 08/02/2015 4:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Where is the center of the universe?
>
>
>
> Where?

In the past, at the Big Bang.

Yousuf Khan

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup
dyskusyjnych:cIKdnaBlVpjo9UbJ...@giganews.com...

> Now, the center of the universe is where the big bang occured.
| And the big bang occurred everywhere--no exceptions.

Fortunately, as even some smarter physicists have to admit,
that there is no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/11/15 12:27 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Fortunately, as even some smarter physicists have to admit,
> that there is no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

Nobody has to believe anything.

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
Yousuf·Khan,  

The start of the known Universe ( the Big Bang ) is subjective;
it depends on who's doing the observing, when and where.

Everything rotates, including our Universe;
so the true center is unknown/unknowable.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <Jeff-R...@Feb.11{10.39A.Seattle.2015}>,
Jeff-Relf.Me <@.> wrote:
><PRE><big><big> 

Considering that (AFAIK) the universe is larger than the part of
it we're able to see, the center of the universe is wherever the
observer is.

[HVAC]

Really? Please list the names of these frauds.

[benj]

Sam, my BBB theory is quite well accepted. I may give a lecture on it at
MIT. It's Nobel level thinking.

[Bast]

Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> Uzytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisal w wiadomosci grup

> dyskusyjnych:cIKdnaBlVpjo9UbJ...@giganews.com...
>
>> Now, the center of the universe is where the big bang occured.
>> And the big bang occurred everywhere--no exceptions.
>
> Fortunately, as even some smarter physicists have to admit,
> that there is no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

That's why it's called the, Big Bang THEORY.
And while it's the best (?) one (theory) on the table so far.
It may someday be regarded as laughable, and in the same category that the
Earth is the center of the Universe, and that everything else circles around
it mounted to crystalline spheres.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

benj wrote:

> Sam, my BBB theory is quite well accepted. I may give a lecture on it at
> MIT. It's Nobel level thinking.

It explodes in your face upon closer examination?

[The Starmaker]

Each galaxy is a result of it's own big bang..

While the real big bang was busy exploding...space, it gave birth to baby...big bangs.

The baby big bangs manufactured the stars...


The real big bang was too busy gettin more room for it's babies...


So, to re-cap...
The Big Bang manufactured space, gave birth to baby bangs, and the galaxies were manufactured the little bangs.


It how stars were born.



The Starmaker


And that's that.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Użytkownik "Sam Wormley" napisał w wiadomości grup

dyskusyjnych:AIednSQCcYNfPUbJ...@giganews.com...

On 2/11/15 12:27 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote:
> Fortunately, as even some smarter physicists have to admit,
> that there is no proof for this shit, nobody have to believe it.

| Nobody has to believe anything.

And particularly - nobody has to believe any piece
of shit presented here by You and Your fellow
idiots.
I'm glad we agree about that.

[fuller...@hotmail.com]

Sounds like qubit chapter 7

[fuller...@hotmail.com]

Qubit chapter 7
http://www.randomhouse.com/kvpa/lloyd/SethLloyd.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/12/15 2:35 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Each galaxy is a result of it's own big bang.

Frayed knot

[HVAC]

Sam. Stop being such a hater.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/13/15 9:03 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/13/2015 9:31 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/12/15 2:35 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Each galaxy is a result of it's own big bang.
>>
>> Frayed knot
>
>
> Sam. Stop being such a hater.

Don't you just hate math an physics illiteracy?

[HVAC]

No. Personally *I* don't hate Bert.

[benj]

Sam, have you heard my BBB theory? It's quiet well accepted and Nobel
level thinking. It explains starmaker's theory too!

--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /

\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/

[benj]

On 02/13/2015 10:03 AM, HVAC wrote:
> On 2/13/2015 9:31 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> On 2/12/15 2:35 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Each galaxy is a result of it's own big bang.
>>
>> Frayed knot
>
>
> Sam. Stop being such a hater.

:-)

Aren't you establishment promoters supposed to stick together?

I know. You couldn't help yourself. I understand.

[franci...@gmail.com]

..i don't know your BBB theory..where can i find documentation ?

[The Starmaker]

benj wrote:
>
> On 02/13/2015 09:31 AM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> > On 2/12/15 2:35 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> >> Each galaxy is a result of it's own big bang.
> >
> > Frayed knot
>
> Sam, have you heard my BBB theory? It's quiet well accepted and Nobel
> level thinking. It explains starmaker's theory too!

I don't make theories...


"Each galaxy is a result of it's own big bang." is not a theory, it's a fact.


It is 'how it works', not how it is 'thought to work'.

[franci...@gmail.com]

..observations dont say strictly in that way : like the planetary sistema ..the galaxies are showing akind of equilibrium in itselves.. and untill 80 millions y.l. nothing is expanding regularly...farer it begins the redshift problem and its interpretati on...

[Yousuf Khan]

On 11/02/2015 1:39 PM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> Yousuf·Khan,
>
> The start of the known Universe ( the Big Bang ) is subjective;
> it depends on who's doing the observing, when and where.

Not at all, the center of the universe doesn't exist in any 3
dimensional space. But the universe is a 4 dimensional spacetime, rather
than a simple 3 dimensional space. The center of the universe lies
within the 4 dimensional spacetime. 13.8 billion years in the past.

> Everything rotates, including our Universe;
> so the true center is unknown/unknowable.

Shouldn't make a difference. We know where the Big Bang is, therefore we
know where the center is.

Think of it this way, when somebody asks you where the center of the
Earth's surface is (2D), you would look at them funny, and tell them
there's no such thing, every point on the Earth's surface can be its
center. But if somebody asks you where the center of the Earth's volume
is (3D), then that's a different story, it's deep within the Earth
inside its core.

Think of the universe in the same way, except taken up by one dimension.
There is no center of space (3D) in the universe, but there is a center
of spacetime (4D). So just as it doesn't matter if the Earth is rotating
or not, as you'll still be able to find its center of volume no matter
what. Similarly, it doesn't matter if the universe is rotating, as
you'll still be able to find its center of spacetime, which is always
the Big Bang, no matter where in the universe you are, and no matter if
the universe is rotation.

Yousuf Khan

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
You ( Yousuf·Khan ) told me:
> > The start of the known Universe ( the Big Bang ) is subjective;
> > it depends on who's doing the observing, when and where.
> 
> Not at all, the center of the universe doesn't exist in any 3 
> dimensional space. But the universe is a 4 dimensional spacetime, rather 
> than a simple 3 dimensional space. The center of the universe lies 
> within the 4 dimensional spacetime. 13.8 billion years in the past.

Supposed you lived near ULAS J1120+0641's 
3 giga·solar·mass black hole, 12.9 giga·years ago.

For you, then and there, the start of the big bang
would be somewhere else, somewhen else.

Your light, then/there, would NOT have the 7.085 redshift (z)
that we humans observe here/now, looking at you.

> > Everything rotates, including our Universe;
> > so the true center is unknown/unknowable.
> 
> Shouldn't make a difference. We know where the Big Bang is, 
> therefore we know where the center is.

No, you can't know the center of its ROTATION.

You know it's rotating, because everything does,
but you can't prove it.

> Similarly, it doesn't matter if the universe is rotating, 
> as you'll still be able to find its center of spacetime, 
> which is always the Big Bang, 
> no matter where in the universe you are, 
> and no matter if the universe is rotation.

Wrong.

The start of the big bang is subjective, 
it depends on where you are, when.

The cosmological horizon denpends on your time and place.

[Sam Wormley]

On 2/8/15 3:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Where is the center of the universe?
>
>

Physics FAQ: Where is the centre of the universe?
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

> The cosmological principle
>
> The idea that the universe should be uniform (homogeneous and
> isotropic) over very large scales was introduced as the "cosmological
> principle" by Arthur Milne in 1933. Not long before that, it had
> been argued by some astronomers that the universe consisted of just
> our galaxy, and the centre of the Milky Way would have been the
> centre of the universe. Hubble put an end to that debate in 1924
> when he showed that other galaxies exist outside our own. Despite
> the discovery of a great deal of structure in the distribution of the
> galaxies, most cosmologists still hold to the cosmological principle
> either for philosophical reasons or because it is a useful working
> hypothesis that no observation has yet contradicted. Nevertheless,
> our view of the universe is limited by the speed of light and the
> finite time since the Big Bang. The observable part is very large,
> but it is probably very small compared to the whole universe, which
> may even be infinite. We have no way of knowing what the shape of
> the universe is beyond the observable horizon, and no way of knowing
> whether the cosmological principle has any validity on the largest
> distance scales possible.
>
> In 1927 Georges Lemaître found solutions of Einstein's equations of
> general relativity in which space expands. He went on to propose the
> Big Bang theory with those solutions as a model of the expanding
> universe. The best known class of solutions that Lemaître looked at
> were the homogeneous solutions now known as the
> Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) models. (Friedmann found
> the solutions first but did not think of them as reasonable physical
> models). It is less well known that Lemaître found a more general
> class of solutions that describe a spherically symmetric expanding
> universe. These solutions, now known as Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi (LTB)
> models, describe possible forms for a universe that could have a
> centre. Since the FLWR models are actually a special limiting case
> of the LTB models, we have no sure way of knowing that the LTB models
> are not correct. The FLWR models may just be good approximations
> that work well within the limits of the observable universe but not
> beyond.
>
> Of course there are many other even less uniform shapes the universe
> could have, with or without an identifiable centre. If it turned out
> to have a centre on some scale beyond the observable universe, such a
> centre might turn out to be just one of many "centres" on much larger
> scales, just as the centre of our galaxy did before.
>
> In other words, although the standard Big Bang models describe an
> expanding universe with no centre, and this is consistent with all
> observations, there is still a possibility that these models are not
> accurate on scales larger than we can observe. We still have no real
> answer to the question "Where is the centre of the universe?".


--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated to the discussion
of physics, news from the physics community, and physics-related
social issues.

[William December Starr]

In article <cIKdnaBlVpjo9UbJ...@giganews.com>,

Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> said:

> And the big bang occurred everywhere--no exceptions.

I don't know. Have you ever seen Piscataway, New Jersey?

-- wds

[Brian M. Scott]

On 15 Feb 2015 22:25:46 -0500, William December Starr
<wds...@panix.com> wrote
in<news:mbrnvq$h7u$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
rec.arts.sf.written,alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math:

I thought that the big bang occurred behind the green door.

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Yousuf Khan]

On 15/02/2015 3:14 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
>
> You ( Yousuf·Khan ) told me:
>> > The start of the known Universe ( the Big Bang ) is subjective;
>> > it depends on who's doing the observing, when and where.
>>
>> Not at all, the center of the universe doesn't exist in any 3
>> dimensional space. But the universe is a 4 dimensional spacetime, rather
>> than a simple 3 dimensional space. The center of the universe lies
>> within the 4 dimensional spacetime. 13.8 billion years in the past.
>
> Supposed you lived near ULAS J1120+0641's
> 3 giga·solar·mass black hole, 12.9 giga·years ago.
>
> For you, then and there, the start of the big bang
> would be somewhere else, somewhen else.

Nope, the Big Bang would be exactly where and when it is now. The only
difference is that you're much closer to it.

> Your light, then/there, would NOT have the 7.085 redshift (z)
> that we humans observe here/now, looking at you.

Doesn't matter what its redshift is. It's the same difference as if you
were trying to find the center of the Earth if you were standing on a
mountain vs. down in a seafloor. The Earth's volumetric center never
changes.

>> > Everything rotates, including our Universe;
>> > so the true center is unknown/unknowable.
>>
>> Shouldn't make a difference. We know where the Big Bang is,
>> therefore we know where the center is.
>
> No, you can't know the center of its ROTATION.
>
> You know it's rotating, because everything does,
> but you can't prove it.

Interestingly, in a 4-dimensional space, there can be two planes of
rotation simultaneously, unlike in a 3 dimensional space.

http://youtu.be/tmNXKqeUtJM?t=2m5s

>> Similarly, it doesn't matter if the universe is rotating,
>> as you'll still be able to find its center of spacetime,
>> which is always the Big Bang,
>> no matter where in the universe you are,
>> and no matter if the universe is rotation.
>
> Wrong.
>
> The start of the big bang is subjective,
> it depends on where you are, when.

Never subjective, it is in fact the one thing that all time zones can
agree on with each other. Every time zone started at the Big Bang.

> The cosmological horizon denpends on your time and place.

Yes, but that's not the Big Bang, that's the opposite of the Big Bang.

Yousuf Khan

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

 
You ( Yousuf·Khan ) told me:
> > The cosmological horizon denpends on your time and place.
> 
> Yes, but that's not the Big Bang, 
> that's the opposite of the Big Bang.

As matter dissipates ( per entropy ), 
spacetime expands exponentially ( per General Relativity )
because spacetime is an extension of matter itself.

So your ＜past light cone＞ has a finite size, a beginning.

For those living near ULAS J1120+0641's 
3 giga·solar·mass black hole, 12.9 giga·years ago,
the start of their past light cone ( their big bang )
beging much earlier than the start of HUMANITY's big bang.

There's no way to prove it,
because you can't travel back in time;
still, it's sure to be true.

[Justin Thyme]

Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On 15 Feb 2015 22:25:46 -0500, William December Starr
> <wds...@panix.com> wrote
> in<news:mbrnvq$h7u$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
> rec.arts.sf.written,alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math:
>
>> In article <cIKdnaBlVpjo9UbJ...@giganews.com>,
>> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> said:
>
>>> And the big bang occurred everywhere--no exceptions.
>
>> I don't know. Have you ever seen Piscataway, New Jersey?
>
> I thought that the big bang occurred behind the green door.
>
> Brian

Marilyn Chambers... I wonder what became of her.

--
Sorrow in all lands, and grievous omens.
Great anger in the dragon of the hills,
And silent now the earth's green oracles
That will not speak again of innocence.
David Sutton -- Geomancies

[Tom Roberts]

On 2/15/15 2/15/15 3:14 AM, Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
> You ( Yousuf·Khan ) told me:
>> > The start of the known Universe ( the Big Bang ) is subjective;
>> > it depends on who's doing the observing, when and where.

This is simply not true. In all cosmological models based on FRW manifolds of
GR, the big bang is a singularity deleted from the manifold representing the
universe. The limit points of all non-spacelike geodesics that emerge from it
form a boundary of that manifold, which is a geometrical property of the manifold.

The "dust particles" of the FRW manifold are identified with galaxies, and the
proper time of each galaxy yields a definite value for the time since the big
bang. Taken together, those proper times yield a "cosmological time" that can be
used throughout the universe. Note this assumes each dust particle is of
negligible mass. In the case of the galaxies that is not so, and one must
correct for it. For observers on earth, the correction is minimal and not important.

> Supposed you lived near ULAS J1120+0641's
> 3 giga·solar·mass black hole, 12.9 giga·years ago.
> For you, then and there, the start of the big bang
> would be somewhere else, somewhen else.

No. You would identify the same boundary of spacetime as any other observer
(i.e. the same set of limit points), because that is a GEOMETRICAL property of
the manifold (i.e. is NOT "subjective"). Yes, your elapsed proper time since the
big bang would be different, but that is easily understood and corrected for.
The location in spacetime of the big bang is unaffected.


> [... repetitions of the above error]


Tom Roberts

[Justin Thyme]

Justin Thyme wrote:
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On 15 Feb 2015 22:25:46 -0500, William December Starr
>> <wds...@panix.com> wrote
>> in<news:mbrnvq$h7u$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
>> rec.arts.sf.written,alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math:
>>
>>
>>> In article <cIKdnaBlVpjo9UbJ...@giganews.com>,
>>> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>>>> And the big bang occurred everywhere--no exceptions.
>>
>>> I don't know. Have you ever seen Piscataway, New Jersey?
>>
>> I thought that the big bang occurred behind the green door.
>>
>> Brian
>
> Marilyn Chambers... I wonder what became of her.

She has her own Wikipedia article which reports that she died in 2009.
It may well be, that among the many hundreds of thousands who read these
news groups, I am the only one who didn't know that.

[The Starmaker]

Justin Thyme wrote:
>
> Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > On 15 Feb 2015 22:25:46 -0500, William December Starr
> > <wds...@panix.com> wrote
> > in<news:mbrnvq$h7u$1...@panix2.panix.com> in
> > rec.arts.sf.written,alt.astronomy,sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math:
> >
> >> In article <cIKdnaBlVpjo9UbJ...@giganews.com>,
> >> Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> said:
> >
> >>> And the big bang occurred everywhere--no exceptions.
> >
> >> I don't know. Have you ever seen Piscataway, New Jersey?
> >
> > I thought that the big bang occurred behind the green door.
> >
> > Brian
>
> Marilyn Chambers... I wonder what became of her.

she was the one that got the big bang behind the green door...

[Yousuf Khan]

On 16/02/2015 8:44 AM, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Supposed you lived near ULAS J1120+0641's
>> 3 giga·solar·mass black hole, 12.9 giga·years ago.
>> For you, then and there, the start of the big bang
>> would be somewhere else, somewhen else.
>
> No. You would identify the same boundary of spacetime as any other
> observer (i.e. the same set of limit points), because that is a
> GEOMETRICAL property of the manifold (i.e. is NOT "subjective"). Yes,
> your elapsed proper time since the big bang would be different, but that
> is easily understood and corrected for. The location in spacetime of the
> big bang is unaffected.

Yes, as a matter of fact, the Big Bang is the one point in time and
space that all observers can agree on the location. The location is of
course everywhere, and the time is whatever amount of time that has
passed in since you observed it.

Yousuf Khan

[Erhard Huber]

Yousuf Khan wrote:

>> No. You would identify the same boundary of spacetime as any other
>> observer (i.e. the same set of limit points), because that is a
>> GEOMETRICAL property of the manifold (i.e. is NOT "subjective"). Yes,
>> your elapsed proper time since the big bang would be different, but
>> that is easily understood and corrected for. The location in spacetime
>> of the big bang is unaffected.
>
> Yes, as a matter of fact, the Big Bang is the one point in time and
> space that all observers can agree on the location. The location is of
> course everywhere, and the time is whatever amount of time that has
> passed in since you observed it.

What the hell is time then?

[Yousuf Khan]

On 16/02/2015 4:59 PM, Erhard Huber wrote:
>> Yes, as a matter of fact, the Big Bang is the one point in time and
>> space that all observers can agree on the location. The location is of
>> course everywhere, and the time is whatever amount of time that has
>> passed in since you observed it.
> What the hell is time then?

Time is the 4th dimension of space. It is perceived a little differently
than all other space dimensions because we have no freedom of movement
in it, other than slowing it down a bit.

If you think of the Big Bang as highly focused jet rather than highly
scattered explosion, then the Big Bang occurred mostly in the 4th
direction of space that we now call Time. This set about a momentum in
that direction of space which we now use to measure our progress through
the events of the universe, thus it is now what we call Time.

Why did the universe choose that direction over any other direction of
space? No reason, it just so happened to be randomly oriented in that
direction at the time of its occurrence. It could've been oriented in
any of the other directions, and we would now be calling those
directions as Time instead. Before the Big Bang, no specific direction
was known as Time, but after the Big Bang, one specific direction became
Time.

Yousuf Khan

[Shmuel Metz]

FUP set

In <T4Odne5tLorRaXzJ...@giganews.com>, on 02/16/2015
at 08:44 AM, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> said:

>Newsgroups:
>sci.physics,alt.astronomy,rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics.relativity,sci.math

This does not belong in sci.math; it is a guestion of Physics.

>This is simply not true. In all cosmological models based on FRW
>manifolds of GR, the big bang is a singularity deleted from the
>manifold representing the universe.

The classical big bang theory is dead, in an inflationary model, there
need not be an initial singularity. Of course, once we have a viable
Quantum Gravity theory, the picture may look different.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/16/2015 5:16 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Time is the 4th dimension of space. It is perceived a little differently
> than all other space dimensions because we have no freedom of movement
> in it, other than slowing it down a bit.

I don't think this is quite accurate.
Time has a different sign than the spatial dimensions in the metric.
A light cone is aligned along the time axis and you'll never see two
spacelike separate events lying within each other's light cone.

It's not as ambidextrous as you are trying to make things sound.

[Yousuf Khan]

Well yes, that's the case now, now that the Big Bang has already
happened, but I'm talking about the case just at the Big Bang (or dare I
say it? Before the BB!). My feeling is that all of these dimensions are
completely interchangeable, and randomly re-purposed as time within each
universe. One universe's x, could be another universe's t. Once the
dimension becomes time, it remains time until the end of that universe.

Yousuf Khan

[Odd Bodkin]

On 2/17/2015 1:14 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Well yes, that's the case now, now that the Big Bang has already
> happened, but I'm talking about the case just at the Big Bang (or dare I
> say it? Before the BB!). My feeling is that all of these dimensions are
> completely interchangeable, and randomly re-purposed as time within each
> universe. One universe's x, could be another universe's t. Once the
> dimension becomes time, it remains time until the end of that universe.

No, I don't think that's right either.
Hawking talks about it as imaginary time, which has some mathematical
appeal in a way analogous to talking about a line of longitude having a
terminus without encountering any particularly singular place on the
earth's surface. But not every dimension is imaginary, just time, says
Hawking, and that applies even to the moment of the Big Bang.

[fuller...@hotmail.com]

The speed of light was exceeded and the center of the universe is now the outside.

Hence the (1 / everything) 's everywhere


y = 1/(sqrt( 1 - (v^2 / c^2))

The reason you can't see the event horizon is ...
You are made of the event horizon

And mass (you) is falling through (time = 1/space) @ c

Space = 1/(4pi) meters^2
Time = 1/(4pi) meters^2

11.305^2

Space time = 1 meter ^2

Sqrt 137.03599


http://oi61.tinypic.com/nd79ti.jpg

[Yousuf Khan]

I think Hawking is wrong, and just wait a decade, he'll agree with that
too. He makes complete about-faces about just about everything, and
contradicts himself totally. The father of black hole Hawking Radiation,
now doesn't believe in black holes, etc.

Anyways, an imaginary dimension is just a dimension that can't be
accessed directly. Just because we can't directly access it, doesn't
mean that there isn't something that can't access it in some way.

I'd say the birth of a universe would be one such event that can access
and manipulate imaginary dimensions.

Yousuf Khan

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:

> […] Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn escribió:

>> The Starmaker wrote:
>> > Where is the center of the universe?
>>

>> According to the current standard model of cosmology, everywhere.
>>
>> This might be helpful:
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs#t=495>
>
> According to 1905 Einstein, in the center of mass of the stationary system
> corresponding to all existing bodies.

Nonsense.

--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[Dr. Jai Maharaj]

In article <54D7D8...@ix.netcom.com>,
The Starmaker <star...@ix.netcom.com> posted:
[
[ Where is the center of the universe?
[
[ Where?

Any universe is a center in, of, and by itself.

Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj

[Sam Wormley]

> On 2/8/15 3:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:

> Where is the center of the universe?
>

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

[The Starmaker]

Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> > On 2/8/15 3:44 PM, The Starmaker wrote:
> > Where is the center of the universe?
> >
>
> No Center
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
> Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
>
> WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
>
> WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
> http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

The center of the universe can be found in a number of ways...


The brightest star in the universe is where the center of the
universe...


Is is exactly in the center of the universe. You can draw a line from
top
to bottom and across and you found the exact center...

only problem is the 'scientific community' haven't discovered it yet.


I give them another thousand years...

[Poutnik]

Dne 21/11/2015 v 08:48 The Starmaker napsal(a):

>
> The center of the universe can be found in a number of ways...
>
>
> The brightest star in the universe is where the center of the
> universe...

Bright star life is very short,
few million years at the best,
and there are many billions of very bright stars.

So the centre is here... No - here.. No - here. .....
Then..where ? :-)

>
>
> Is is exactly in the center of the universe. You can draw a line from
> top
> to bottom and across and you found the exact center...

Which directions is the bottom of universe ? :-)

--
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes great men humble, but small men arrogant.

[benj]

On 11/21/2015 04:27 AM, Poutnik wrote:
> Dne 21/11/2015 v 08:48 The Starmaker napsal(a):
>
>>
>> The center of the universe can be found in a number of ways...
>>
>>
>> The brightest star in the universe is where the center of the
>> universe...
>
> Bright star life is very short,
> few million years at the best,
> and there are many billions of very bright stars.
>
> So the centre is here... No - here.. No - here. .....
> Then..where ? :-)

Pooter, just choose two points. Construct normals to those points and
where those lines cross is the center of the universe. Simple geometry.

>> Is is exactly in the center of the universe. You can draw a line from
>> top
>> to bottom and across and you found the exact center...
>
> Which directions is the bottom of universe ? :-)

Universe has no bottom, Pooter. To have a bottom one would have to know
which way is "up'. You don't know this.



--

___ ___ ___ ___
/\ \ /\ \ /\__\ /\ \
/::\ \ /::\ \ /::| | \:\ \
/:/\:\ \ /:/\:\ \ /:|:| | ___ /::\__\
/::\~\:\__\ /::\~\:\ \ /:/|:| |__ /\ /:/\/__/
/:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/ /
\:\~\:\/:/ / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/ / \::/ /
\:\ \::/ / \:\ \:\__\ |:/:/ / \/__/
\:\/:/ / \:\ \/__/ |::/ /
\::/__/ \:\__\ /:/ /
~~ \/__/ \/__/