caharris

That's what I get for only being halfway done with his book, eh?

I might be able to answer this, actually. (And if not, I have Guth's book, so I could look it up upon further inquiry.) The universe would have started in a false vacuum in the Higgs field, which is where it got the negative pressure, and thus repulsive gravity. After a certain point, though, the Higgs field would have changed values (to the current energy density, that of the vacuum), and so inflation wouldn't occur again. Of course, I could have just explained that terribly, so who knows if that makes any sense to you.

Yes I think it was a glitch. I was unaware that two threads were created, sorry for the inconvenience. As for everyone else, thank you for the explanations, and I will let you know how any further explanation goes.

Well I think the way that he is picturing the universe is like we were inside of a sphere or something. He thinks that because the universe may be finite, that this means the universe has a center, or middle, like a sphere has a radius. I don't know how much it will help to use the balloon analogy, because he thinks the expansion of the universe is irrelevant to whether there's a center, sort of like if you lengthen the radius of a sphere there is still a center.

I consider myself to be fairly up-to-date when it comes to astronomy and cosmology, given that I've never taken an official class on either subjects. I read the popular science books, and I have a few text books about it. So the basic concepts of how the universe works are things that I decently understand. I was having a conversation with a person the other day about the center of the universe. I tried to explain how the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, and how we observe space expanding, and how this suggests that there is no center or middle of the universe. However, he insisted that the expansion of the universe and how the things inside it have nothing to do with whether there is a center of the universe or not. He said that when he means center, he is not talking about a source or origin, but 'middle.' I've used the balloon analogy, I've used FAQs from Sean Carroll and Ned Wright, I used part of a lecture from Lawrence Krauss... Yet, either something isn't clicking with this guy, or I just completely misunderstand the question. So I thought I'd ask you guys (and gals). I'm thinking the reason he might not understand is he is thinking of the universe as if it were some shape and we just live inside of it (e.g. fish living in water). So the question is, What does it mean when physicists say there is no center of the universe? Thank you for your time, caharris

I consider myself to be fairly up-to-date when it comes to astronomy and cosmology, given that I've never taken an official class on either subjects. I read the popular science books, and I have a few text books about it. So the basic concepts of how the universe works are things that I decently understand. I was having a conversation with a person the other day about the center of the universe. I tried to explain how the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, and how we observe space expanding, and how this suggests that there is no center or middle of the universe. However, he insisted that the expansion of the universe and how the things inside it have nothing to do with whether there is a center of the universe or not. He said that when he means center, he is not talking about a source or origin, but 'middle.' I've used the balloon analogy, I've used FAQs from Sean Carroll and Ned Wright, I used part of a lecture from Lawrence Krauss... Yet, either something isn't clicking with this guy, or I just completely misunderstand the question. So I thought I'd ask you guys (and gals). I'm thinking the reason he might not understand is he is thinking of the universe as if it were some shape and we just live inside of it (e.g. fish living in water). So the question is, What does it mean when physicists say there is no center of the universe? Thank you for your time, caharris

Sorry, I just never check wiki I figured I would ask here since I can get the formula (reliably) and ask questions about it if I don't get something.

This should be a relatively simple question (pun intended): is there a single formula combining the time dilation from both gravity and velocity? Or is there a series of equations to combine them? (And what is it/are they?)

By the way, does the figure we get, 13.7 billion, take into account the different accelerations?

Thank you for clearing everything up, I do appreciate it. I'm getting ready to start my first year of college this fall (majoring in physics, of course ), so even though your recommended books may be over my head, I can always google it

So it's measured by an object that moves with the expansion of the universe (so it looks like it isn't moving)? Also, what is a good book/website that explains this in a more in-depth/mathematical detail?

No agenda, I still state that the universe is 13.7 billion years old and came from natural causes. I just thought it would be wiser to put it in 'Speculations' since it could lead to speculations (For example, if we get 13.7 billion years old from our sense of time (from our gravity and speed) couldn't we say that the universe is only a second old from another perspective, and still be factually correct?) But if you think it should be moved, by all means, let's get it moved

I've probably misunderstood something, so if you could help me understand I would appreciate it. If time is relative, how can we actually say how old the universe is? It may be 13.7 billion years old for us, but couldn't it be different somewhere else? These are the questions that haunt me

Well, if we can't tell the difference, why not just apply Occam's Razor and say it's just real?

If we can dismiss what atheists say as long as they don't have a grad degree in math or physics, does that mean we can dismiss religious people as long as they don't have a grad degree in math or physics? O'Rielly, and in fact most religious people (that I know, at least) don't have a firm background in math or science, should we henceforth ignore absolutely everything they has to say?