[michellemfry]

I don't understsand why gravity is said to be the attraction of matter for all other matter when the observed situation is all matter moving away from all other matter.

[harmonygirl]

I think that matter is simply energy at a lower speed or frequency, but your point is a valid one, unless the expansion is not an expansion into nothingness (and hence away from thingness) but a becoming, the One expanding...

[dleviwing]

A center infers that there is a point that everything can be referenced to as being from that point. This is the concept that would depict an explosion. The universe is expanding and thus it is more indicative of a swelling that occurred throughout the volume. Though we can define a location as being the center of the universe (provided we know the diameter of it), this cannot be interpreted as the starting point of expansion. The universe is like a substance of an explosion that has not yet been expelled in all direction from the source. Thus the whole universe is the central point of existence of an explosion that has not yet completed (the open universe concept).

[baudrunner]

Originally Posted by dleviwing A center infers that there is a point that everything can be referenced to as being from that point. This is the concept that would depict an explosion. The universe is expanding and thus it is more indicative of a swelling that occurred throughout the volume. Though we can define a location as being the center of the universe (provided we know the diameter of it), this cannot be interpreted as the starting point of expansion. The universe is like a substance of an explosion that has not yet been expelled in all direction from the source. Thus the whole universe is the central point of existence of an explosion that has not yet completed (the open universe concept).

In a recent lecture Stephen Hawking gave (don't know the URL offhand but it's an easy search) he more or less agreed that all the assimmilated and correlated data of decades old projects including the cosmic microwave background radiation experiments that are just now bearing fruit, more or less point to the isotropic nature of this Universe, with some negligible exceptions - ie. the distribution of space and matter is fairly homogeneous no matter where one places oneself within the cosmos and that it will always look pretty much the same in character. This conclusion, along with those negligible exceptions, are entirely supportive of the model that I presented in my personal TOE theory posts, where the creation of matter and space-time are an ongoing process at the periphery. Dr. Hawking as much concludes that the Universe is therefore closed and infinitely expanding in volume, but acknowledges with some excitement the possible extrapolation of a small cosmological constant therefrom. Not at all surprising, because I see too that the overall ratio between matter and space-time must have some consistency. I also said that the Universe can only be observed from within, and he as much implies this without saying it outright by virtue of his description of it as being a closed Universe. Naturally the Universe had a beginning and that beginning was a singularity for the briefest instant in time, therefore we may presume that there is or at least was a center but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that center has shifted, stretched, and distributed itself throughout a very large spatial identity, given the warped nature of gravity over space-time and their influence over these 13.7 billion years or so of existence.

[dleviwing]

The best place to hide something is in plane sight for those who are looking for what they believe to be hidden, only find hiding places. The answers are quite simple and thus are boring uneconomical concepts that cannot promote wealth for the academic temples. They must be given mystery and a touch of theatrical flare to draw the interest and finances of eager students. Just like it is not economical to find a curer for major diseases, it is not economical to find the solutions to the GUT or TOE. We find treatments for diseases, and we find treatments for theoretical physics, but ignore solutions.

Those who occupy the settee of theoretical physics can also be wrong; just not as often as the rest of us.

[baudrunner]

Just like it is not economical to find a curer for major diseases, it is not economical to find the solutions to the GUT or TOE. We find treatments for diseases, and we find treatments for theoretical physics, but ignore solutions.

That, in a nutshell, pretty much parallels my thinking on the subject of scientific philosophy and pure math-based theory versus practical science. We find greater interest in the bizarre than in the simple truth.

No doubt we shall always have a theoretical physics so long as there lives a humanity to postulate the stuff of it.

[thomas cuny]

The universe has a center, but it does not have spatial dimensions.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by thomas cuny The universe has a center, but it does not have spatial dimensions.

So we are all dimensionless points?

[thomas cuny]

Fundamental particles do not have spatial dimensions. How could a collection
of fundamental particles have spatial dimensions? Spatial dimensions must
be an illusion.

[Mohan.C]

Hi Thomas cuny welcome to the TOE,
When you say universe has a center and no spatial dimensions, then I should like you to know that center also implies a origin just like a graph sheet with X and Y planes. I hope you get the point.