[Graybeard]

Guille .... I don't have disagreements with the current cosomoligical science.

I agree with science that the probability of the Universe starting with Hi-entropy and then achieving lo-entropy is so-remotely-unbelievably-fantastically-long odds that it didn't happen ..

We would all have appeared in an instant ... our memories would have to reflect a non-existent history and we would all have to basically agree on this history. And if the Universe was suddenly going to dip into lo-entrophy .... why do it so well ... why a fossil record ...

The big-bang or inflationary theory does not say that the Universe started in a hi-entropy state ... but rather it started in a special lo-entropy state and has drifted towards hi-entrophy ever since.

The fact that we are hi-order carbon based life forms is explained by the fact that our evolution created hi-order life on earth but overall the universe was in a higher state of disorder.

That is, if you make a cake, you have created some order from dis-order, but overall, the heat lost through the stove, the hot water required for washing the utensils, the cleaning products used to wipe down the bench... all these increase the dis-order in the Universe more than the order you created in the cake.

Where did our current hi-order sun come from, it formed from the remains of other stars that supa-nova'd themselves out of existence...these were once even more ordered.. so overall... the Universe is on a path from Order to DisOrder.

"The most refined cosmological theories of the origin of the Universe, tell us that by the time it was a couple of minutes old it was filled with a nearly uniform hot gas, 75% hydrogen, 23% helium, and some deuterium and Lithium... This gas had extraordinarily low entropy.. the big bang started the universe off in a state of low entropy, the current order is a cosmological relic." (brian greene, 2004)

Guille... this is why I believe the Universe started in a hi-order state

Greg

[Dave8679]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Can the Universe have a centre ... A centre would imply that there are other places that are not central .. eventually you would arrive at an edge. Greg

Not necessarily - if you think of the universe has having a space-time visualisation as the surface area of a sphere then you would have a model that has no true centre (every point on the surface could equally be noted as the centre), that can expand and contract and, since it has no boundaries, has no edges. Naturally in reality we're talking about much higher levels of dimensionality but the theory should still hold.

Dave

[Guille]

Your post convinced me,

Originally Posted by Graybeard Guille .... I don't have disagreements with the current cosomoligical science.

I always have to explain. When I type a post, I'm never thinking. I mean, I am thinking, but never thinking in what I'm typing, or maybe yes, but not completely. I am always thinking in another post which is after another post which is after another post which is to come just after the one I'm writting. This is why I right things like cosomoligical. I just beg you for forgiving my errors.

Originally Posted by Dave8679 Not necessarily - if you think of the universe has having a space-time visualisation as the surface area of a sphere then you would have a model that has no true centre (every point on the surface could equally be noted as the centre), that can expand and contract and, since it has no boundaries, has no edges. Naturally in reality we're talking about much higher levels of dimensionality but the theory should still hold. Dave

Very true.

And there is even more to that:

The centre of the universe wouldn't be possible at all, because the universe is constantly growing, it would never be a perfect sphere. Thus, in the hypothetical case that there is such thing as the centre of the universe, then i twill only be the centre for the avarage of the distances of all the edges of the unvierse to it.

[SinJin]

Originally Posted by <<>> Very true. And there is even more to that: The centre of the universe wouldn't be possible at all, because the universe is constantly growing, it would never be a perfect sphere. Thus, in the hypothetical case that there is such thing as the centre of the universe, then i twill only be the centre for the avarage of the distances of all the edges of the unvierse to it.

Just out of curiosity, but how come a growing universe can never be a perfect sphere?

[Graybeard]

I believe the fundamental law dealing with the conservation of angular momentum addresses this issue. Since everything consist of energy in one form or another, then all that exist would have to be in constant motion. Just my thoughts................John

Actually .. I think the above post by FORCE5 is the correct answer to 'does everything move'

Movement is simply one particle moving ........ if it bumps into another particle thats heat.

While there is heat in the Universe there is movement ....

When things are cold ... there is less particle movement.

Zero degrees Kelvin is (minus) -273 degrees centigrade. this is as cold as it gets.
if your air conditioner is running at -273 degrees centigrade and you want it to be colder ... forget it, its not possible..

at minus 273 all movement ceases ... there is no negative movement.

the current temperature of the whole universe is minus -271 degrees centigrade or 2 degrees kelvin ..... its very very cold out there (hi-entropy ??)

until the whole universe is minus 273 or zero kelvin movement in the universe will continue

I think this is what force5 said but in a more scientific way ... ?

[Guille]

Originally Posted by SinJin Just out of curiosity, but how come a growing universe can never be a perfect sphere?

It can't. That is exactly what I was explaining, I'm jsut too bad at explaining.

I meant that if the universe is growing, then the hypothetical centre of the universe isn't exactly the centre, because there is different distances from the "centre" to one end than to another end, for it might have grown more. So, the cent eof the unvierse would only be the avarage centre of the universe for all the distances. But of course, if the universe is growing still, which it is, then the centre of the universe must obligatorilly change, for the ends wont' keep in the same proportions, some will zoom and grow fast, oters will slow, etz.....

[SinJin]

Originally Posted by <<>> It can't. That is exactly what I was explaining, I'm jsut too bad at explaining. I meant that if the universe is growing, then the hypothetical centre of the universe isn't exactly the centre, because there is different distances from the "centre" to one end than to another end, for it might have grown more. So, the cent eof the unvierse would only be the avarage centre of the universe for all the distances. But of course, if the universe is growing still, which it is, then the centre of the universe must obligatorilly change, for the ends wont' keep in the same proportions, some will zoom and grow fast, oters will slow, etz.....

Well if the universe is comparable to a sphere, and there's a center, then if it grows uniformly in all directions, then the distance from one end to another would always be the same, and there would be a center.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by SinJin Well if the universe is comparable to a sphere, and there's a center, then if it grows uniformly in all directions, then the distance from one end to another would always be the same, and there would be a center.

Yes, but don't you see, this theory that you explain impplyes to many "iffs" of whcih none is proven. It's going too far from what we can judge.

What makes the universe grow uniformly?
What makes makes the unvierse be a sphere?
What makes the universe be finite?
And the list of things to be proven goes on and on...

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by SinJin But I do think time is change in general

let's imagine an empty space and place in it only single material point, the size of which strives
to zero and which is of green color. If for some reason it becomes red (let's say because of a
shame), these two conditions makes difference, which can be called change, and difference between
these two conditions is so evident, that you can put even one-hundred-dollar bank-note amidst it
(if you have such bank-note) or one-dollar bank-note (if you haven't), so let's call the "epizode"
that costs one hundred dollar for me and one dollar for somebody else an instant. If we have the
second similar green point, which doesn't change its color and its spacial parameters, anyway it
can't be counted statical (so time affects it anyway, because this secont point changes relatively
towards the first one).

I don't think that change itself is time but the latter is the attribute of former, i.e time itself
is the attribute of change, if it makes any difference...

Resently I've read the thread about entities and measurements. I think that everything that exists
can be measured, even space and time, mass, energy etc. because to measure means to compare
something with any standart, any model which is chosen by us for theoretical or practical purposes,
and we all know that the measurement never is precise, but only relative, approximate. An instant
is the measurement of time and costs differently for different substances and creatures in the
universe:

Even if you hurry up on food, you’ll get to the point of destination quicker than usual, so it will
take you less time, but if you have a vehicle, you will get there quicker, but your speeding up
will not reflect on the speed of spinning universe and if you have a perfect vehicle, you’ll cover
infinitely far distance almost in no time, with the speed of “intention”…

Everything that exists, is changing with different speed, so to say figuratively everything is
moving.

Only Nothing can exist transcendentally, beyond the bounds of time...

[SinJin]

Originally Posted by <<>> Yes, but don't you see, this theory that you explain impplyes to many "iffs" of whcih none is proven. It's going too far from what we can judge. What makes the universe grow uniformly? What makes makes the unvierse be a sphere? What makes the universe be finite? And the list of things to be proven goes on and on...

Fair enough. I know that there is data leaning towards a "flat" universe. Do you know if there is any data collected yet about the expansion of the universe and if it is expanding at the same rate in all directions or at different rates in different directions? My guess, if the expansion is related to distribution of mass, is that the rate of expansion at different locations wouldn't be the same, so there wouldn't be a center.