How can we see the center of *** universe?

Slam62 · 12 Jul 2007 at 18:25

well they havent got a clue have they

LizardKing · 12 Jul 2007 at 18:43

Back on topic now

So if we traveled to the far ends of space faster than the speed of light (should it ever become possible) for however long it would take to "overtake" the light created by the big bang, would it then be possible to see the center of our universe?
All theoretical of course.

FreeStream · 12 Jul 2007 at 18:50

Slam62 said:
well they havent got a clue have they

Better than this "God Made it" rubbish....

LizardKing said:
Back on topic now
So if we traveled to the far ends of space faster than the speed of light (should it ever become possible) for however long it would take to "overtake" the light created by the big bang, would it then be possible to see the center of our universe?
All theoretical of course.

Yes, because the light hasn't reached us yet, so if we overtake it and wait for it to catch up we could see from the start of light, if there wasn't any before? :confused:

Speed of Light = roughly is 2.97x10^8 meters per second.

Traveling quicker than the speed of light is E=mc^2, c being a constant I believe?

So atm its not actually possible to travel quicker than light, but if we could behind us we wouldn't see anything (because light can't catch up) and people directly in front wouldn't see anything (due to us overtaking the light before its even moved), if you get what I mean!?

Light to the side of us, hmm, probably be distorted as one eye gets one ray the other gets a different one

THMRK · 12 Jul 2007 at 18:52

Concorde Rules said:
Better than this "God Made it" rubbish....

Not really. Physics understands how thing work. Not why we're here (for which God would be an answer) but how we got here and how we manage to exist here.

But each to their own. I remain firmly agnostic on the matter of God.

FreeStream · 12 Jul 2007 at 18:53

Woody__ said:
Not really. Physics understands how thing work. Not how or why we got here.

But each to their own. I remain firmly agnostic on the matter of God.

Exactly! Physics has worked a lot out, in time we will work out how the universe is created as we worked out electricity and magnetism etc etc etc....

THMRK · 12 Jul 2007 at 18:56

Concorde Rules said:
Exactly! Physics has worked a lot out, in time we will work out how the universe is created as we worked out electricity and magnetism etc etc etc....

I rephrased my original post slightly. But physics will never answer "why". Science is there to figure out "how". It need not bother with philosophical or metaphysical questions like "why are we here?" or "Is there a God?" because, quite frankly, science works with or without it. It's indiffrent to the idea.

I don't know if we can ever finally figure out how it all started. It's not something we can test in a lab. We just use the things around us to come to a possible conclusion, which at the moment is the big bang theory. I don't think we'll ever figure out "the first cause" and I guess beliving it was started by a supernatural being is as good as any explaination.

Trusty · 12 Jul 2007 at 19:41

Woody__ said:
The big bang wasn't an explsion in stuff. It was an explosion of stuff. There is no "before the big bang" and the question is basically irrelvent.

It's definatley not irrelvent as such, its understanding our universe and the origins of where we came from.

I'm fascinated with space and endless possibilites that it has to offer! There are so many questions and theories possible that it boggles the average human brain too much to even start trying to understand it. Its a vicious cycle of not been able to understand and very little research!

iCraig · 12 Jul 2007 at 19:51

Concorde Rules said:
Exactly! Physics has worked a lot out, in time we will work out how the universe is created as we worked out electricity and magnetism etc etc etc....

It hasn't worked it out. That would imply it's figured it all out and we have full knowledge of the subject. That rarely happens in science. I don't think we've ever put a lid on anything like that and announced that "we've worked it out."

The scientific models of magnetism and electricity are very accurate. The mechanism of predicting and measuring data is very refined, but scientists could easily discover another element to the mechanism that was previously unheard of that has the power to change the theory. We already have a theory of the universe's creation. The big bang model is the simplest explanation to fit the data, the only way we can ever say we *know* we've got it right is if we create the perfect model for *all* the data, but that's pretty hard to do. Especially when you consider that there's data out there undoubtedly attributable to the big bang model, but we have no means to measure it.

mauron · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:15

Maybe God was so bored with nothing to do He shoved all matter together & created the big bang. And regretted it ever since.........................

Trusty · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:17

iCraig said:
but we have no means to measure it.

....and probably never will unfortunatley! Methods of new telescope research will never be able to catch up on our ever expanding universe!

lemonkettaz · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:21

I love this type of thinking.

Its so huge, its seems like you can think of it.. but you cant think around it.. its just a huge wall in your mind that you can see but cant get over....

If we look up at a star.. we are seeing the light from that star from however far away it is.. this might even mean the star isnt there anymore.. ...

Its almost a form of time travel.. you can see the past when you look up at the stars

malfunkshun · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:22

Woody__ said:
The big bang wasn't an explsion in stuff. It was an explosion of stuff. There is no "before the big bang" and the question is basically irrelvent.

By saying 'an explosion of stuff' you are implying that there was stuff to explode, therby indicating that there was something 'before the big bang'.
If there was no before the big bang, then there was nothing at all and hence nothing to go bang.

lemonkettaz · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:25

I reckon it was all here before the big band.. its on infinite loop.. in a stone on a planet that is on infinite loop.. and round and round and round etc.

THMRK · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:28

malfunkshun said:
By saying 'an explosion of stuff' you are implying that there was stuff to explode, therby indicating that there was something 'before the big bang'.
If there was no before the big bang, then there was nothing at all and hence nothing to go bang.

I'm implying that there was an explosion of stuff from nothing. There was clearly some kind of catalyst to cause space and time to exist. We went from nothing to something.

Trusty · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:31

We're all obviously athiest then!

malfunkshun · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:36

lemonkettaz said:
I reckon it was all here before the big band.. its on infinite loop.. in a stone on a planet that is on infinite loop.. and round and round and round etc.

Big Crunch>big bang and loop? would appear to make sense. Except that there would still have to have been a start point, something to fuel and trigger the event. As a result I dont subscribe to the idea that the universe will continue to expand for ever. Since no energy is created or destroyed, it must be finite and there would logically be a point where whatever has caused the universe to expand at an, apparently, increasing rate would eventually be exhausted. Gravitational bodies would be gradually drawn together, also at an increasing rate until a single massive body exists, and maybe explodes again.

malfunkshun · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:37

Woody__ said:
I'm implying that there was an explosion of stuff from nothing. There was clearly some kind of catalyst to cause space and time to exist. We went from nothing to something.

Cannot be the case within the bounds of current thinking since no energy is ever created or destroyed, only converted/transformed. Possibly there was an explosion of stuff from nothing that we would/could recognise.

THMRK · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:39

malfunkshun said:
Big Crunch>big bang and loop? would appear to make sense. Except that there would still have to have been a start point, something to fuel and trigger the event. As a result I dont subscribe to the idea that the universe will continue to expand for ever. Since no energy is created or destroyed, it must be finite and there would logically be a point where whatever has caused the universe to expand at an, apparently, increasing rate would eventually be exhausted. Gravitational bodies would be gradually drawn together, also at an increasing rate until a single massive body exists, and maybe explodes again.

Hasn't this idea fallen out of favour due to the fact that our universe is expanding at a much faster rate than it should be for that model to work?

Clinkz · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:39

Jaffa_Cake said:
Center? The Universe is infinite!

The universe is not infinite. We are already at the point of being able to observe right to the edge of the known universe. Past that, there is nothing. If the universe was infinite, when you look up at the night sky all you would see was white.

THMRK · 12 Jul 2007 at 20:40

malfunkshun said:
Cannot be the case within the bounds of current thinking since no energy is ever created or destroyed, only converted/transformed. Possibly there was an explosion of stuff from nothing that we would/could recognise.

But if the catalyst existed outside of space and time, and thus outside of laws of physics, why shouldn't it be possible to create energy out of nothing in a place where our laws of physics surely wouldn't apply?