You know, they make fun of the ones who claimed earth was the center of the uiniverse. It is. It was, and it will be.
31 comments
You fail at life, no question, but more importantly you fail at the Internet.
Please, for the good of mankind, die in a fire, and take your misbegotten ilk with you.
Papabear, CousinTed: WHAT MIND? No, seriously, what mind? This guy is too stupid to actually have anything other than lint in there.
Actually, Julian, according to present models the universe is infinite and has no center. The expansion means that all spatial distances increase and so the average density of matter decreases with time, not that there is a "total size" which is getting bigger. The Big Bang is not a point in space -it is shorthand for the moment in the past at which density becomes infinite, so we hit a singularity. But this occurs "everywhere at once".
Space is homogeneous in the average at large scales. It obviously is not at all scales, as there are galaxies and clusters of galaxies, but going to larger and larger scales you begin to see roughly the same amount of galaxies in every very large same-sized region.
The inhomogeneities (or more precisely, anisotropies) measured by WMAP are in the microwave radiation background originated shortly after the Big Bang. They are small, about only 1 part in 100,000. This means that shortly after the BB the universe was essentially homogenous with very slight inhomogeneities (probably due ultimately to quantum fluctuations) of that order. It was these inhomogeneities that eventually beacame "seeds" for galaxies and other structures, as gravitation increased the inhomogeneities making more matter go to the already denser parts.
But all this concerns homogenity/inhomogeneity, which is a separate matter from finiteness/infiniteness. Space is thought to be infinite because its global curvature (averaging over the local gravitational fields of galaxies and such) seems to be 0. This means that it is "flat", like a 3D analogue of a plane instead of a sphere. But even if it turned out to be like a (higher dimensional) sphere, it would still have no center because the correct analogy is to the surface of the sphere. Its center is not a point in the space. Perhaps it could have a center of mass, although not if it were homogeneous. And if it is infinite as currently thought instead of closed as a sphere, it definitely has no center of mass.
Hope this made sense!
Okay, that's it. He's not just stupid, overly imaginative, and desperately, willfully ignorant; he's crazy as a bedbug! Either that, or he's the most amazingly dedicated and convincing troll I have ever read.
~David D.G.
Vaguelyish - My calculations for the centre of the universe were quite crude, and made a teeny mistake where I forgot my units were visible universes not light years, and should've come up with 400 billion, trillion light years. Ooops. (Hell I was even too lazy to check if it was homogenous or homologous)
I always thought the flatness referred to the surface of a sphere. Where's Sierra when you need her.
Also, everything with mass must have a centre of mass, it's just a case of where.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.