We are tricked by our brains

[Bufofrog]

3 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

It seems I have disturbed many 'scientists' here. My apologies. I'll quit

Oh thank god, you had all our scientific dogma was circling the drain...

[pzkpfw]

3 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

It seems I have disturbed many 'scientists' here. My apologies. I'll quit

That's also how you ended your last thread on this topic.

Nobody is disturbed.

I remember many many years ago at school, sitting on the step of a building watching someone about 150m away bouncing a basketball on the footpath. Thanks to the brick wall of the building they were outside, I was also hearing the ball hit the concrete.

They stopped bouncing the ball. And I heard one more bounce. Slightly jarring at first.

The distance was such that (like watching a movie where they sync up visuals and sound and ignore reality) I was seeing and hearing the bounce at the "same time", but of course the sound of each bounce was getting to me later than the sight.

None of this is new.

[Mordred]

20 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

It seems I have disturbed many 'scientists' here. My apologies. I'll quit

How are you possibly disturbing and scientist here ???. Every scientist is well aware of the speed limit of information exchange or that it takes time for our brains to process information. It's absolutely nothing new. 

 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

My point is that we will never observe simultaneity

Rookie mistake.
There is no such thing.

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

It seems I have disturbed many 'scientists' here. My apologies. I'll quit

I think it’s “perturbed” and it’s from pointing to issues that we already know about and account for as if they are unknown, and somehow a problem. 

You might be befuddled by the ramifications of a finite speed of light but I assure you that others are not.

[Phi for All]

5 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

It seems I have disturbed many 'scientists' here. My apologies. I'll quit

It's disturbing that scientists have been accumulating human knowledge for quite some time now, but you refuse to take advantage of that, and prefer filling the gaps in your own knowledge with guesswork and jumped-to conclusions.

[Mordred]

14 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

I am trying to understand ( my humble opinion is that  Big Bang theory is a nonsense) if someone smarter than me could explain if our universe was infinite all the time or was finite or wasn't at all  13.8 billions years ago . After that explanation I have other ask

Quite easily done but that's off topic in this thread. If you really want to understand Cosmology I will be more than glad to help but in a more suitable thread. However put simply our Observable universe will always be finite and we do not know beyond our Observable portion. It is equally possible being finite or infinite. The current datasets both are possible. 

Edited April 14 by Mordred

[Time Traveler]

In case the Universe is finite, I can't understand how there is no center

Can someone smart and well informed+ well-meaning , give me light and tell me if the Universe is the place (vacuum) where all existing ( matter, energy, fields, dark energy , dark matter ) +  all who are inside the vacuum . If that is then the vacuum is infinite and all from inside could be finite or infinite ? In this case ,all from inside the vacuum at beginning of Big Bang had a place in infinite , like point 0 or place near point 0 on the intersection of the axes OX-OY-OZ . After time 0 when Big Bang happened was inflation ....That point 0 is then the center of all existing in the vacuum
If I am wrong I wait arguments against

 

[exchemist]

39 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

In case the Universe is finite, I can't understand how there is no center

Can someone smart and well informed+ well-meaning , give me light and tell me if the Universe is the place (vacuum) where all existing ( matter, energy, fields, dark energy , dark matter ) +  all who are inside the vacuum . If that is then the vacuum is infinite and all from inside could be finite or infinite ? In this case ,all from inside the vacuum at beginning of Big Bang had a place in infinite , like point 0 or place near point 0 on the intersection of the axes OX-OY-OZ . After time 0 when Big Bang happened was inflation ....That point 0 is then the center of all existing in the vacuum
If I am wrong I wait arguments against

 

I've already given a link to read about that, earlier in the thread. Have you read it? If not, why not? 

But if you want to pursue this subject I suggest you need to start a new thread about it, as it is a quite different topic from the title of this one. 

[dimreepr]

1 hour ago, Time Traveler said:

In case the Universe is finite, I can't understand how there is no center

Can someone smart and well informed+ well-meaning , give me light and tell me if the Universe is the place (vacuum) where all existing ( matter, energy, fields, dark energy , dark matter ) +  all who are inside the vacuum . If that is then the vacuum is infinite and all from inside could be finite or infinite ? In this case ,all from inside the vacuum at beginning of Big Bang had a place in infinite , like point 0 or place near point 0 on the intersection of the axes OX-OY-OZ . After time 0 when Big Bang happened was inflation ....That point 0 is then the center of all existing in the vacuum
If I am wrong I wait arguments against

 

If you stand in the middle of a salt flat, your horizon or how far you can see, is about three miles in every direction, from that perspective 'you' are always at the center of 'your' universe.

IOW the big bang is the salt flat and we're in the middle of it. And it doesn't matter what's outside of what we can see bc if we can't see it... 😉

IOW the middle just got bigger...

BTW we're all time travellers it's just another direction that we can't see, beyond 3 miles...😉

Edited April 14 by dimreepr

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Time Traveler said:

I can't understand how there is no center

Fun fact: The universe is under no obligation to make sense to uninformed human minds 

[dimreepr]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

Fun fact: The universe is under no obligation to make sense to uninformed human minds 

Indeed, but we are under the obligation to teach the children, how to tell the difference...

[MigL]

I don't like Dimreepr's analogy, but I'll try to use it.

Picture yourself living on that salt flat, which is level as far as the eye can see, and seems to go on forever.
You start walking in one direction ( at a great speed ) and eventually you lose sight of the salt flat, and run into mountains and forests.
Even cities and bodies of water that you have to swim across ( again at great speed ) until eventually ( after quite a while ) you come back to the same exact spot on the salt flat. But from the opposite direction.
Clearly the surface of the world is finite; but there is no boundary.

So where is the center of the world's surface ???

Now ( and this is a big step ) extend your thinking to 4 dimensional intrinsically curved space-time.

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't like Dimreepr's analogy, but I'll try to use it.

Picture yourself living on that salt flat, which is level as far as the eye can see, and seems to go on forever.
You start walking in one direction ( at a great speed ) and eventually you lose sight of the salt flat, and run into mountains and forests.
Even cities and bodies of water that you have to swim across ( again at great speed ) until eventually ( after quite a while ) you come back to the same exact spot on the salt flat. But from the opposite direction.
Clearly the surface of the world is finite; but there is no boundary.

So where is the center of the world's surface ???

Now ( and this is a big step ) extend your thinking to 4 dimensional intrinsically curved space-time.

TBH I just thought a 2 dimensional model was more appropriate, in this case... 🤔

Edited April 15 by dimreepr

[Time Traveler]

On 4/14/2024 at 11:02 PM, MigL said:

I don't like Dimreepr's analogy, but I'll try to use it.

Picture yourself living on that salt flat, which is level as far as the eye can see, and seems to go on forever.
You start walking in one direction ( at a great speed ) and eventually you lose sight of the salt flat, and run into mountains and forests.
Even cities and bodies of water that you have to swim across ( again at great speed ) until eventually ( after quite a while ) you come back to the same exact spot on the salt flat. But from the opposite direction.
Clearly the surface of the world is finite; but there is no boundary.

So where is the center of the world's surface ???

Now ( and this is a big step ) extend your thinking to 4 dimensional intrinsically curved space-time.

Surface is not volume ...a finite volume has a center ...if I accept to extend my thinking  from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional , not 4 dimensional who is a wrong interpretation of our Universe, then You should admit the Zeno paradox is true ....Achilles and the Tortoise ...In a race, the fastest runner can never overtake the slowest, because the pursuer must first reach the point where the pursued started, so the slowest must always have the advantage.

[sethoflagos]

44 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

Surface is not volume ...a finite volume has a center ...

If all spatial dimensions loop back on themselves seamlessly, so that whichever direction you travel in, after n light years you are back where you started, then what does 'centre' even mean?

It's definitely finite with a volume oto (n light years)³. But there is no point more remote from the boundary than any other because there is no boundary. All points within the space are geometrically exactly equivalent.

[Time Traveler]

23 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

If all spatial dimensions loop back on themselves seamlessly, so that whichever direction you travel in, after n light years you are back where you started, then what does 'centre' even mean?

It's definitely finite with a volume oto (n light years)³. But there is no point more remote from the boundary than any other because there is no boundary. All points within the space are geometrically exactly equivalent.

I am thinking at volume of space occupied of all atoms from our Universe... there is a center of mass of all atoms

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

I am thinking at volume of space occupied of all atoms from our Universe

No, you’re not 

31 minutes ago, Time Traveler said:

there is a center of mass of all atoms

No, there isn’t 

 

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to our tiny ape minds, and it will continue operating exactly as it does and always has regardless of your personal inability to comprehend those operations accurately. 

While your username suggests travel across time, your basic stance here suggests time can stop. As it doesn’t, never has, and never will, your basic stance is absurd. 

[Time Traveler]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, you’re not 

No, there isn’t 

 

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to our tiny ape minds, and it will continue operating exactly as it does and always has regardless of your personal inability to comprehend those operations accurately. 

I agree with you with correction "...regardless of our collective inability.."

[MigL]

On 4/19/2024 at 2:27 PM, Time Traveler said:

Surface is not volume ...a finite volume has a center ...if I accept to extend my thinking  from 2 dimensional to 3 dimensional , not 4 dimensional

The reason you can 'picture' the 2dimensional surface of the sphere/world is because you ;ive in three dimensions.
To see a volume loop back on itself, you would need to live in 4 dimensions. The volume is effectively embedded in a higher dimensional manifold.
You cannot picture it, however, you can demonstrate it mathematically.

Space-time is a 4dimensional manifold, however, we have no need ( nor can they have any effect ) for embedding dimensions, so we call any topological curvature intrinsic, whereas an embedded topology would be extrinsic.

I think you've hit the nail on the head; failure to elevate your thinking is leading to your confusion.