Re: Center of Mass of the Universe?

From: TomGee (lvlus_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/05/04 

Date: 4 Nov 2004 23:41:19 -0800

"Jack Martinelli" <jack@martinelli.org> wrote in message news:<00bid.16288$KJ6.10439@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "Mike Hanson" <hanson_mike@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:11d49fef.0411022116.79e3c43b@posting.google.com...
> > jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote in message
> > news:<1oSdncJNY4Kl8hrcRVn-pQ@rcn.net>...
> >> In article <41868ADB.434BAEF7@hate.spam.net>,
> >> Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote:
> >> >Jack Martinelli wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> >> If you calculate the center of mass of the universe, where is it?
> >> >
> >> >At every point.
> >>
> >> This is so hard for me to visualize. Part of my brain knows that
> >> the light I see called stars was emitted a long time ago and
> >> that it doesn't matter if I stand here or 3 feet to the right
> >> I'll still see the same light. All of my living experience with
> >> physical straight lines says no, but I'm wrong. Even when I watch
> >> that trick of a balloon blown up, something in my brain doesn't seem to
> >> comprehend the two dots moving away.

I think it is hard for you to see it because it is not only
counter-intuitive but the concept that the center of mass of the
universe is "at every point" is based on the fact that we cannot from
our viewpoint ever tell where the center might be. That does not mean
there is no center; only that we cannot ever know where it is. If one
believes in the Big Bang, one believes the universe began as an
explosion which will indeed develop boundaries but which since then
may have also been shaped by factors other than just the fact that it
began as an explosion.

Being isotropic simply means that on the average, the universe is the
same everywhere we look. Everywhere we look, there is space and there
is matter, and that qualifies the u. as being isotropic. Being
homogeneous just means that the same basic elements exist throughout
the universe. Neither of these observations preclude the u. actually
having a center of mass.

The balloon trick is also just that - a trick. We do not live on the
surface of the universe - we live in it. But to see the meaning of
it, if it's hard to visualize, do the experiment and by observation
you will be able to see it occur, no kidding. But that is only an
illustration of the process of the expansion of the universe and not
of the shape of it. Once you get that, there are more brainbusters
waiting for you: Is space expanding, or matter, or just the distance
between objects? Did space come out of the BB or was it here for the
u. to empty into it? Someone said there is nothing beyond our u., but
how could anyone know that? We can't, so their belief is based on
faith. Same person said the u. can have no boundaries, but that's a
guess too. Personally, I think that if something had a beginning, it
must have an end, or at least, edges.

It may be that there is no center of mass, as when an explosion ends,
all of its mass has been output and none of it is left at the source
of the bang. As someone has noted in this thread, recent news is that
the expansion process is in a state of acceleration, and so if the
explosion is still going on, there may still be a center of mass left.
 I am not sure we care about the center of mass; I would like to know
if there ever was a center_point_ from where the u. began. Then I
could more easily accept the Big Bang Theory.
TomGee 110504

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Big Bang
    ... Learn some basic science before you ask silly questions. ... Please be kind enough to explain how the Big Bang can be explained by ... because the Universe as we know it today, ... explosion in the Mythbusters sense. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Re: Big Bang
    ... Learn some basic science before you ask silly questions. ... Please be kind enough to explain how the Big Bang can be explained by ... because the Universe as we know it today, ... explosion in the Mythbusters sense. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Big Bang
    ... Please be kind enough to explain how the Big Bang can be explained by any form of "basic science", given that the physical laws that permeate the Universe today were not applicable during the Big Bang, simply because the Universe as we know it today, didn't exist. ... And, of course, the Big Bang was not an explosion in the Mythbusters sense. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists & Skeptics - Whats wrong with the Big Bang?
    ... >>> existed before the mythical 'big bang' occurred. ... >> rearranged the mass and energy which was already there. ... >> mass and energy in the universe and transform them into an expanding ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Atheists & Skeptics - Whats wrong with the Big Bang?
    ... >>> existed before the mythical 'big bang' occurred. ... >> rearranged the mass and energy which was already there. ... >> mass and energy in the universe and transform them into an expanding ...
    (talk.origins)