Center of the Cosmos

[King of Axum]

we know that nature was designed to revolve in a circle. electrons circle around the atom, blood circlates in our body's. The Earth along with all the other celestrial bodies rotate around the sun or suns ( for other solar systems) the sun rotates in the galaxy. What does the Universe revlove around :hmmm:

[David Deas]

A giant hole, apparently.

Currently we think the Universe is shaped like a dohnut.

[Simetrical]

we know that nature was designed to revolve in a circle. electrons circle around the atom, blood circlates in our body's. The Earth along with all the other celestrial bodies rotate around the sun or suns ( for other solar systems) the sun rotates in the galaxy. What does the Universe revlove around :hmmm:

That many things in nature revolve or circulate does not mean that everything does. In particular, nothing exists outside the universe, by definition (or at least that we know of), and therefore it can't revolve around anything. In a theory that involves the universe being embedded in a multidimensional space, of course, it would be possible for it to revolve around something, but no such theory has yet been convincingly demonstrated.

Edit:

A giant hole, apparently.

Currently we think the Universe is shaped like a dohnut.

We do?

[David Deas]

Well. Theoretically the Universe is virtually flat.

The dohnut comment just pertained strictly to his question of what lies at the center. Last I checked, astronomy found a gigantic void in the middle of the Universe. I guess thats the current flavor. But it was a news article I read so I'm not certain the extent of the merit. I didn't detect anything fishy though. And I never bothered folllowing up on the article's claims.

EDIT - Yeup. I Just checked. Spoke too soon because the claim is pretty fishy indeed, turns out. Not suprising I guess. Which is why I used the word "apparently"

[Simetrical]

That's more a hollowed-out ball than a donut, anyway.

[christof139]

Some say the universe is an unfolding flat plain, some say it is shaped like a torus, some say it is shaped like Reiman's (sp?) Bottle/Cup, sma esay it is a sphere, etc.

Chris

[David Deas]

Some say the universe is an unfolding flat plain, some say it is shaped like a torus, some say it is shaped like Reiman's (sp?) Bottle/Cup, sma esay it is a sphere, etc.

Chris

Well. You have three basic models of the Universe; positively curved, negatively curved, and flat. The distinction is based on how you treat Lambda in your equations.

A Universe with net positive curvature expands for a finite amount of time, then recollapses and begins again. A Universe with net negative curvature expands forever at a slowly decreasing rate. A flat Universe is actually what we are very close to, although we do not know for certain where we are exactly in terms of net curvature.

But its all based on how you treat Lambda in your calculations.

[Spurius]

A Universe with net positive curvature expands for a finite amount of time, then recollapses and begins again.

Well, you can strike that one off your list (entropy does not reset, so would be accumulated over versions) unless you happen to believe we're somewhere on the First Round, which would be statistically unlikely.

[David Deas]

Well, you can strike that one off your list (entropy does not reset, so would be accumulated over versions) unless you happen to believe we're somewhere on the First Round, which would be statistically unlikely.

*Shrugs*

I think a lot of things probably don't matter when you start talking about singularities. The Big Crunch, as the positive curvature model is routinely called, is very popular.

[Spurius]

As Sim said: by definition there's nothing to revolve around - the Universe is all there is, AFAWK.

We don't even know its exact shape, could be a Klein Bottle, or a Hausdorfed banana.

I'll settle for a conventional sphere, in my minds eye.

Which has no *center* in the ordinary sense, either btw:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph...GR/centre.html

[christof139]

Go to 'he theory of everything' Yahoo group and talk to Tony Bermanseder, a Theoretical Physicist in Australia, butt he tends to sometimes mix his Gnostic Religous views into his overall theory, he will explain much. There are many sites that explain all the different theories concerning the universe including its shape, and there are many more than 3 theories.

Chris

[Denny Crane!]

How can something that has "nothing" outside of it have a shape. The only thing you can say is how are the galaxies inside the universe shaped.

Surely?

[Amorphos]

how deep is the one dimension? infinitesimally or has a quantum sized depth.

and how wide is that one dimension? what are its dimensions - how wide etc.

what shape is one dimension? a disk, sphere etc?

how is existence connected to it, can we imagine that it is all surfaces of all things and thus formless - in that it has no distinct shape?

[Spurius]

how deep is the one dimension? infinitesimally or has a quantum sized depth.

and how wide is that one dimension? what are its dimensions - how wide etc.

what shape is one dimension? a disk, sphere etc?

how is existence connected to it, can we imagine that it is all surfaces of all things and thus formless - in that it has no distinct shape?

Maybe you should start at the beginning, your question sounds like 'what's the meaning of zero, other than ... zero?'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

[MattErickson]

I'll settle for a shape computer games of the 90's and early 2000's have taught me. 2 dimensional. Wormholes. Interstellar rifts. And robotic aliens bent on domination.

Currently we think the Universe is shaped like a dohnut.

I like doughnuts!
- My vote now goes for this, and here I was thinking that the universe revolved around the inside of my toilet.

[David Deas]

I like doughnuts!
- My vote now goes for this, and here I was thinking that the universe revolved around the inside of my toilet.

I retracted that.

It was a uninformed statement based off my own silly assumption about the truth of a popular science article.

[MattErickson]

I retracted that.

It was a uninformed statement based off my own silly assumption about the truth of a popular science article.

Well then it's back to the toilet bowl theory...

Around and around and around she goes.. where she stops, nobody knows!

..

[Simetrical]

Well, you can strike that one off your list (entropy does not reset, so would be accumulated over versions) unless you happen to believe we're somewhere on the First Round, which would be statistically unlikely.

Or you believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics need not be universally applicable. This has been seriously suggested in the past, I think for one by Stephen Hawking.

How can something that has "nothing" outside of it have a shape. The only thing you can say is how are the galaxies inside the universe shaped.

Surely?

The universe need not have shape, but it has curvature, which is often described by analogies to shapes like spheres and saddles. Curvature is really a local property that can apply to any space, bounded or not. It determines, for instance, how many degrees are in a triangle: in Euclidean (flat) geometry it's 180°, but in elliptic (e.g. spherical) geometry it's more than that, and in hyperbolic (saddle-shaped) geometry it's less. Space is close to Euclidean, on the whole, and so triangles have 180°, but it could be that very, very large triangles, spanning galaxies, and measured out as perfectly straight lines, would have a little more or less. This affects much more than triangles, obviously, so it's of considerably interest.

how deep is the one dimension? infinitesimally or has a quantum sized depth.

and how wide is that one dimension? what are its dimensions - how wide etc.

what shape is one dimension? a disk, sphere etc?

Dimensions are mathematical constructs. Dimensions themselves are not physical objects and cannot be measured or ascribed shapes.

[Spurius]

Or you believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics need not be universally applicable. This has been seriously suggested in the past, I think for one by Stephen Hawking.

"It is true that Hawking did once publish a book in which he claimed that the big-crunch would be a time-reversed version of the big-bang, but he later realized this was a mistake, and went around the US giving talks in which he discussed his big mistake. Your friend may have read Hawking's earlier book without realizing that it all turned out to be a big mistake."

http://www.advancedphysics.org/forum...hp/t-5581.html

[David Deas]

I keep telling him to take that nonsense to Ethos. He's confused about what type of questions are suppose to go in which forums.