Can you handle the Truth?

Started by TRH432 pages

I do not belive that earth is the center of the Universe.

Originally posted by TRH
I do not belive that earth is the center of the Universe.

So, it's the tea pot that orbits between Mars and Jupiter that is the center of the universe. 😉

Truth doesn't really exist.

"Truth" is based on the person, and very few people express what they think is "true".

Yeah, yeah, the stupid balloon/raising bread analogy. Don't think that I don't understand that the Big Bang theory does not involve an actual explosion--I do. However, I cannot actually picture a universe without a center...therefore, it must be wrong 😉.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yeah, yeah, the stupid balloon/raising bread analogy. Don't think that I don't understand that the Big Bang theory does not involve an actual explosion--I do. However, I cannot actually picture a universe without a center...therefore, it must be wrong 😉.

Oh! because you cannot see a universe without a center, therefore, it must have a center? So, were is this center?

You missed it. Anyway, just because something is expanding outward in all directions doesn't mean it can't have a center...I think. Considering I'm not an astrophysicist and all.

If we have two bodies: O-O

The hyphen between them is an abitrary distance and the center in this example. Let's say that their universe expands by two hyphens. (Remember, it's all the space in the universe, which leads to enormous cluster****ery without simplification.)

--O--_--O--

I changed the center to an underscore to demonstrate my point--there's still a center there. However, from the viewpoint of a person on one body, it looks like the other body is rushing away. A person on the other body sees the same thing.

Really, the entire thing is too confusing for me to visualize any other way.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
You missed it. Anyway, just because something is expanding outward in all directions doesn't mean it can't have a center...I think. Considering I'm not an astrophysicist and all.

If we have two bodies: O-O

The hyphen between them is an abitrary distance and the center in this example. Let's say that their universe expands by two hyphens. (Remember, it's all the space in the universe, which leads to enormous cluster****ery without simplification.)

--O--_--O--

I changed the center to an underscore to demonstrate my point--there's still a center there. However, from the viewpoint of a person on one body, it looks like the other body is rushing away. A person on the other body sees the same thing.

Really, the entire thing is too confusing for me to visualize any other way.

The center of the universe is relative. It will always seem to be right were you are.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The center of the universe is relative. It will always seem to be right were you are.

not really. i mean sure if your really conceded your the center of the universe, but otherwise not so much. the center is relative to how far it expands which side expands farther than the other etc. thats what it depends on really

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The center of the universe is relative. It will always seem to be right were you are.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an actual center.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yes, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an actual center.

It doesn't mean there is an actual center. Although the last thing I read that addressed the whole "center of the universe" issue made the claim that the center would be an inacessable 4D point.

Possibly, although I still can't picture how, exactly, the universe can't have a center.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
not really. i mean sure if your really conceded your the center of the universe, but otherwise not so much. the center is relative to how far it expands which side expands farther than the other etc. thats what it depends on really

If I gave you a ball and a felt marker, could you mark the center of the surface of the ball? Any mark you make could be considered the center of the surface. Therefore it would make more sense to say that the surface of the ball had no center.

The universe is like a ball. The surface is the 3 dimensional would we live in, but these three dimensions of space are curved into a expanding ball of time. The center of the ball would be in the dimension of time.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Possibly, although I still can't picture how, exactly, the universe can't have a center.

I've heard you don't like the balloon analogy and I don't really know any other ones srug

The raising bread analogy makes sense, but there's still a center there.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I gave you a ball and a felt marker, could you mark the center of the surface of the ball? Any mark you make could be considered the center of the surface. Therefore it would make more sense to say that the surface of the ball had no center.

The universe is like a ball. The surface is the 3 dimensional would we live in, but these three dimensions of space are curved into a expanding ball of time. The center of the ball would be in the dimension of time.


Kind of like a torus, I'd imagine.

Anything can be described as the center of the universe relative to one point. There are infinite "centers" of the universe...nobody can prove that any point isn't the center.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Anything can be described as the center of the universe relative to one point. There are infinite "centers" of the universe...nobody can prove that any point isn't the center.

Then saying that any point is the center of the universe is pointless. It is kind of like having a music jam with nothing but harmonica players. 😆

Yeah, or posting on KMC about how pointless it is to worry about the center of the universe.

I'm going to rethink my life now. 😮

Yes, it really is. You have made the lamest attack on professionalism I have ever ever heard in my life.
says more about your version of professionalism I ever heard, so wanna be pshyco evaluator take a hike you petite excuse of so called aid, YOU AINT NO REAL JUST A WANNA BE, A REAL ONE WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT, A FALSE ONE ARGUES IT......****ing fake jerkoff

Originally posted by anaconda
says more about your version of professionalism I ever heard, so wanna be pshyco evaluator take a hike you petite excuse of so called aid, YOU AINT NO REAL JUST A WANNA BE, A REAL ONE WOULD HAVE TAKEN IT, A FALSE ONE ARGUES IT......****ing fake jerkoff
If you believe that to be true, you have fooled only yourself.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The raising bread analogy makes sense, but there's still a center there.

Kind of like a torus, I'd imagine.

More like something we cannot imagine.