# Center of the Universe

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [February 10, 2003, 1:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089 "2003-02-10T13:29:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 8\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Morpheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ce73a5/32.png) [@Morpheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morpheus)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089/21 "2003-02-11T05:58:25Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by MonkeyMensch \*  
> \*\*I could be wrong about this but as far as I know the curvature of our Universe does not depend on it being embedded in a higher dimensional space. Space, or any geometry, can be curved in and of itself.
> 
> The bowling ball in a rubber sheet model is a good one, as far as it goes, but there is no other “additional” dimension to make sense of the gravity of the situation, if you’ll forgive the pun. \*\*

That’s what I find hard to accept - basically, I don’t agree with your first statement. What does it mean to be curved in and of itself? Curvature must be relative to something, an additional dimension. Otherwise, “curvature” is the wrong term.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Yumblie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/76d3ee/32.png) [@Yumblie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yumblie)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089/22 "2003-02-11T06:00:20Z")

</div>

There has been some research on other universes, but of course it’s mostly theoretical and pretty much impossible to prove. With quantum particles popping in and out of existence, they could effectively be popping in and out of different universes. There’s also the theory that there exists an infinite amount of universes like our own except for one simple difference. Like with time travel, if you go back and kill your grandmother, you’ll be transported to the universe in which your grandmpther was killed by you instead of giving birth to your parents. There could be universes completely identical except for one particle having a different charge. Of course if you want to be picky you could say that they’re all the same universe, just with minor changes. But what about realities that fork near the Big Bang? Maybe different elements form instead of hyrodgen and helium, or something minorly different happens at the beginning that completely alters the future universe.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Morpheus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ce73a5/32.png) [@Morpheus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morpheus)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089/23 "2003-02-11T06:17:57Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by JasonFin \*  
> \*\ ***Morpheus** , the expansion of space itself, not in relation to anything in particular, need not be meaningless. There are many physical constants that contain units of length. If the length terms in those constants were to shrink at a uniform rate, the measurable effects would be the same as if the universe were expanding. In addition, the expansion of space has testable consequences. One finds, for instance, that the wavelength of photons should increase over time because they are stretched by the universal expansion. For this reason light emitted from distant galaxies appears redder. If instead the light were redshifted because distant galaxies were simply moving away from us through static space, the dependence of redshift on distance would have a different functional form for high redshifts. \*\*

Well regarding your first point, if you call such shrinkage expansion of space then you’re applying a concept (expansion) that makes it possible to understand the measurements but evading the consequences of the concept, which is that expansion must (IMHO) be in relation to something. Regarding your second point, I assume you are referring to the fact that redshift increases with distance. Well certainly I’m not arguing with that, just that if you say it’s due to space expanding that you need a higher dimension. Also, there’s an alternative to the geometrical interpretation - all the observations that are explainable by curved/expanding space can equally be explained by the action of forces over large scales. For example one idea in vogue is that there’s a very large scale “anti-gravity” force that increases with distance, explaining the increasing acceleration of galaxies away from each other over time. (Sorry that was more long winded than I indended.)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bongmaster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Bongmaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bongmaster)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089/24 "2003-02-11T16:10:00Z")

</div>

I’ve always believed that our existence makes up a _very_ small part of another, larger one in the same way that atoms and sub-atomic particles make up ours. Now \*thats[/] infinity for you.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bryanmcc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eada6e/32.png) [@bryanmcc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bryanmcc)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089/25 "2003-02-11T22:33:41Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Bongmaster \*  
> \*\*I’ve always believed that our existence makes up a _very_ small part of another, larger one in the same way that atoms and sub-atomic particles make up ours. Now \*thats[/] infinity for you. \*\*

No, that’s _not_ infinity for you. In fact, that unimaginably huge whatever-it-is is by definition precisely as far from infinity as one is.

And by the way, what reason do you have for believing that? Do you have some evidence to back it up?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![man779977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/59ef9b/32.png) [@man779977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/man779977)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089/26 "2003-02-11T23:06:29Z")

</div>

wont the dots on the balloon expand just as fast as the balloon itself?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089/27 "2003-02-11T23:11:40Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by antechinus \*  
> \*\*Isn’t Earth at the centre of the universe? Seriously.
> 
> Isn’t the edge of the universe equal distance from earth in all directions, the speed of light times the age of the universe. Nothing ‘exists’ beyond this point because no information can reach us from there.
> 
> Of course, then every other observer in the universe is also at the centre of their universe. \*\*

This is the only ‘correct’ answer although there very well may be something beyond our ‘horizon’ (so to speak). It is true nothing beyond that horizon can affect us in any way so as to be essentially not there but that doesn’t mean there really is nothing there.

This is especially likely if Inflationary Theory is correct (and it seemed to get a confirmation fromt he MAP data linked to above).

So again, in an arguable sense, every single person (or point) is at the center of the Universe no matter where in the Universe they are.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/bb73d2/32.png) [@MC\_Master\_of\_Ceremonies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MC_Master_of_Ceremonies)\
**Post date:** [February 11, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089/28 "2003-02-11T23:39:45Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by man779977 \*  
> \*\*wont the dots on the balloon expand just as fast as the balloon itself? \*\*

obviously the analogy isn’t perfect, all analogies breakdown at some point, but think of the dots as stickers (I know, they’d fall off then) rather than dots done with matrker pens.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/center-of-the-universe/154089.md?page=1)
