From: laura@nospam.me   
      
   "personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk"  wrote in message   
   news:41f473fe$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...   
   > "Laura"  wrote in message   
   > news:ct1ngf$n19$10@news.cybercity.dk...   
   > > It's no surprise that quasars are only found at immense distances,   
   > > since what you effectively see at such distances is a much younger   
   > > universe,   
   > > which is much denser and hotter than now.   
   > > The direction to the center of the universe is back in time. We can look   
   > > towards the center because light has a speed.   
   > > The center of the universe IS the big bang. Not, as commonly   
   > > misunderstood,   
   > > the location where the big bang WAS - that just doesn't make sense.   
   >   
   > what you're espousing is tantamount to creationism:  that the world was   
   made   
   > in 7 days, etc.   
      
   Eh? Not at all. I can't even imagine what makes you say that.   
   I am not implicating some sort of omnipotent creator.   
      
   >   
   > The BB was 14 (billion?) years ago, give or take a few billions.  That   
   > center *inflated* to nearly current size, and has been inflating and   
   cooling   
   > ever since.   
      
   Yes, but the center doesn't exist, except to say that the center of the   
   universe IS the entire universe. It's not a place one could potentially   
   visit. Even if one were to go back in time to the moment right after the big   
   bang, one would still be inside the universe, and therefore unable to find   
   the center in 3D space.   
      
   >  So it's thought.  Here's the part I like:   
   >   
   > Assume the universe is ballshaped:   
      
   If it is, it's not a 3D ball, but a 4D ball. The ball example is useful only   
   to illustrate what the universe would be like for 2D observers in a 3D   
   ball-shaped universe. Those observers would be limited to the skin of the   
   ball, unable to perceive anything but the skin. Their universe would appear   
   to them as one without any border, They would be unable to move off the   
   surface, and they would be just as unable to dive inside the ball to go to   
   the center of it.   
   We are not 2D beings, of course, so this thought experiment only applies to   
   us as an analogy. We perceive everything in 3D, but we cannot define the   
   center of the universe in 3D terms. To do so, we must use 4D, which we are   
   unable to perceive or make use of as a spatial dimension - to us it is time.   
   We are unable to leave the 3D "skin" of our universe, so we can never go to   
   the center or beyond the edge.   
      
   The universe, even at one nanosecond after the big bang, is *all there is*.   
   There can be no observing it from the outside, because there IS no outside.   
      
   > Assume you're near the edge of the ball, ON the INSIDE.   
   > Assume you have a flashlight, and shine it upon that wall.   
   > Assume there is no border to block *or reflect* that light.   
      
   >   
   > The light from that flashlight will travel outwards at the speed of light.   
   > Thus, it's reasonable to assume that the edge of the universe is expanding   
   > outwards (by virtue of suns / stars near its outer edge) at the speed of   
   > light.   
      
   Ok... I'll try to explain it thoroughly.  I don't blame you for   
   misunderstanding - it's very hard to grasp, since it is so utterly abstract.   
   I only recently did - once I, too, thought of the big bang as a 3D point in   
   space. It is common sense. But common sense does not apply when distances   
   and speeds become so great that relativistic effects become noticeable. At   
   that point, all we have is mathematics.   
   Please try to fully understand my reasoning in the following before   
   dismissing it. It took quite a bit of effort to write the following :-)   
      
   The greater the distance to an observed object, the faster it appears to be   
   receding from us (and we from it).   
   So, the rate at which it moves away is greater the greater the distance to   
   it is.   
   This can be expressed as roughly 70 km/s/Mpc, and is called the Hubble   
   constant (70 kilometers per second per megaparsec distance from the   
   observer). It's actually 71 +4/-3 km/s/Mpc. Between 68 and 75.   
   1 megaParsec = 3.08568025 × 10^22 meters   
   1 lightyear = 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters   
   As you can see, a megaparsec is many lightyears. 3,261,636 lightyears, to be   
   exact (rounded off).   
   Something 3,261,636 lightyears away appears to recede at a mere 70km/s.   
   The big bang was 14 billion years ago, as that is the oldest light we can   
   see.   
   So, we divide that into megaparsec segments, expressed in lightyears.   
   14,000,000,000 / 3,261,636 = 4292,325 (rounded off)   
   Then we multiply that with the hubble constant.   
   4292,325 * 70 km/s = 300462,75 km/s   
   That is just about the speed of light :-) That is why it's 14 billion   
   years - if it was any more, we wouldn't be able to see it, as objects would   
   be receding at more than the speed of light (and they could, since it's not   
   motion of the objects themselves, but expansion of space). They would be   
   redshifted completely out of view.   
   But this is observed the same no matter in what direction you're looking.   
   It only makes sense for it to be so if you're looking straight at the point   
   of origin of the big bang, though, but it does hold true no matter where you   
   look.   
   Ergo, the center of the universe is in every direction at a distance of   
   roughly 14 billion lightyears.   
   What we're seeing at a distance of 14 billion lightyears is 14 billion years   
   old, since that is how long it has taken the light to get here, so we see   
   the big bang itself (not really - but we do see a very young universe).   
      
   Now, you talk of the center as if it were a point in 3D space, but if we see   
   the center no matter in which direction we look (and we do), the center   
   can't be a point in 3D space.   
   The only "coordinate" that makes any sense when pinpointing the point of   
   origin is one of time.   
   Time is the only line extending from us to the center of the universe.   
   If we could move backwards along it, we could go to the center, but not   
   otherwise.   
   In terms of the ball analogy, the center is inwards on a vector   
   perpendicular to the surface. If the 2D beings on that surface could somehow   
   move inwards along that line, they could get to the center, and since they   
   are by definition incapable of leaving the surface, that could only happen   
   in one way: By shrinking (deflating) the ball. Everything in their   
   ball-surface universe would be closer together, but still without borders.   
   But the ball isn't shrinking.   
   Neither is the universe, so the distance (in time, mind you, since we're 3D   
   beings) to the center is growing.   
   To move closer to the center, we'd need time to run in reverse. The universe   
   would have to be doing the opposite of what it is doing.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)