[dipayankar]

I searched the tip of my nose, didnt find any. I agess with Fedrick that the Universe should have some kind of a center..

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; Good to see you posting here again. As far as I know the universe doesn't have a geometric center, or a center of gravity and that is why physicist put the center of gravity at the tip Of Dipayankar's nose. I would imagine our Milky Way Galaxy revolves around it's own center of gravity. Now here is a question for you. I guess those farthest away galaxies are receding from our galaxy at near light speed; or is our galaxy receding away from them at near light speed? Best to you, Pat

[Profpat]

And I agree with you and Frederick, that it should have one. If you find it please let me know. My personal center of gravity is somewhere around my navel, but I don't know where the universe's navel is located.

Best,

Pat

[Profpat]

Where is the center of the Universe?
Here, there, and everywhere.
by Paul Doherty, Exploratorium Teacher Institute

When astronomers look at distant galaxies to determine how fast they're moving, it looks like they're all moving away from us. Does that mean we're at the center of the universe? Well, no. It turns out that every point in the universe sees itself as the center!

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Instead of more dimensions as string theorists propose, it is important to discover the flaw in 3D (handy as the concept may otherwise be). Flaw: there is no such thing a 1D, each direction can only take place in either 2D (picture, movie) or 3D (reality), and cannot exist independently. I wrote about this in post http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...html#post52739 Once you get the picture, 2 field dimensions are easy to understand, but you have to see 3D and 2D+ as English and Chinese describing the same reality, but in two slightly different ways. In this case, Only 2D+ captures the full range of aspects of reality.

Hi Frederick;

You may be correct about " Flaw: there is no such thing a 1D,.."

But in mathematics and string theory there is:

Unified theory of the universe postulating that fundamental ingredients of nature are not zero-dimensional point particles but tiny one-dimensional filaments called strings. String theory harmoniously unites quantum mechanics and general relativity the previously known laws of the small and the large, that are otherwise incompatible. Often short for superstring theory

Best,

Pat

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Fredrick; You may be correct about "Flaw: there is no such thing as 1D." But in mathematics and string theory there is.

That's the whole point, Pat.

The specialists you refer to, or even the entire planet as a whole for that matter, can agree on something as truly existing. But if that something we all agree on is in reality not there, but simply a misconception, then we are believers instead of scientists. I hope you understand the implication, Pat (you seem to take this rather lightly), because working with incorrect concepts is an easy way to not-finding the toe.

The toe can only be found when using the correct concepts. 3D is fantastic in daily use, just like words are fantastic in daily use. But just like you cannot eat the word bread, scientists won't find the toe if they do not comprehend their religious behavior in regards to the dimensional concept they are holding on to. Just like I can paint an dragon on canvas, that doesn't mean I actually delivered the evidence that there are dragons. Scientifically stating something to be one-dimensional is easy, but believing a statement does not make a good scientist (because there is no scientific evidence).

It took the Catholic church a long time to accept Galileo's view. The concept of the sun in the middle and not the earth was so simple, and yet they could not or were stubbornly unwilling to accept it. Are scientists similar in this respect? Will they hold on to 3D simply because they cannot imagine or are unwilling to admit it contains a vital flaw in respect to understanding the whole?

[Profpat]

Pat (you seem to take this rather lightly),

I'm sorry Frederick, but after 3 heart attacks and having chronic heart failure, I take life rather lightly.

I still however think my An Idea is correct. It may require an interdimensional process, going from the 1st dimension of strings, to the 2nd dimension of quarks, to the 3rd spatial dimension of the proton/neutron, and finally adding the 4th dimension of time allowing for dynamic movement, but I believe it is right.

Also by including the 8 inner dimensions of the octant gives our particle and therefore our reality all we need to explain the human condition.

I find it to be simple and understandable and will stand behind it until proven incorrect.

It's funny how they use to think the Earth was flat and the center of the cosmos. Now we find out that the universe is flat and that the Earth is the center of our cosmos.

Isn't life strange?

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

If the Universe has a geometic shape, then in all probability there would be centre...

Originally Posted by Profpat And I agree with you and Frederick, that it should have one. If you find it please let me know. My personal center of gravity is somewhere around my navel, but I don't know where the universe's navel is located. Best, Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Originally Posted by Profpat My personal center of gravity is somewhere around my navel, but I don't know where the universe's navel is located.

Dear all

Once again we revert to the thinking that there has to be a single centre for all of creation based on the BB. This is akin to saying that the human race was all born at the same place and time. IMHO each and every galaxy has its own navel which means that we don't have to keep looking for something that doesn't exist and amending expansion/BB theory each time we find it doesn't fit.

Felix

[Profpat]

Sorry Dipayankar but it appears Felix the Cat is right.
Where is the centre of the universe?

There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion. It is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space. The whole universe itself is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell.

Actually there is something metaphysically pleasing about me being the center of my universe. Something I always egotisically believed.

Best to all,

Pat

[dipayankar]

Do we know what is the exact nature of Big Bang?

Originally Posted by Profpat Sorry Dipayankar but it appears Felix the Cat is right. Where is the centre of the universe? There is no centre of the universe! According to the standard theories of cosmology, the universe started with a "Big Bang" about 14 billion years ago and has been expanding ever since. Yet there is no centre to the expansion. It is the same everywhere. The Big Bang should not be visualised as an ordinary explosion. The universe is not expanding out from a centre into space. The whole universe itself is expanding and it is doing so equally at all places, as far as we can tell. Actually there is something metaphysically pleasing about me being the center of my universe. Something I always egotisically believed. Best to all, Pat