Center of the Universe Located by Triangulation of NASA Data

[Charles Sven]

Center of the Universe Located by Triangulation of NASA Data 9/25/10 Abstract:

 

 

 

The Very Well Scrubbed NASA's seven year accumulation of CMB Data is not homogeneous, but has a unique geography. NASA's overall results have remained the same noting that every CMB point is unchanging; the composite study is like a unique fingerprint. As a result of this work, each point on the CMB sphere can be catalogued; characteristics and coordinates noted. With this information in hand one may use these points in locating earth vis-à-vis the technique of triangulation.

 

 

 

Expanded treatment of this study is available at my web site:

 

http://www.allnewuniverse.com/Center-by-Triangulation.pdf and references:

 

http://www.allnewuniverse.com/DemoOfDarkEnergy.pdf

 

!

Moderator Note

Talks schedule deleted. Advertising is not permitted

 

Unsupported postulates made by Willem de Sitter, Alexander A Friedmann, Georges Lemaître, and Edward A. Milne that set today's cosmology standard model exposed at my web site: "Everything you wanted to know about the Big Bang but were afraid to ask BECAUSE nothing before reported till now made any sense;" Section 1, page 3: http://www.allnewuniverse.com/Section1-NON-SENSE-Exposed.pdf

[steevey]

I don't get why it would take so long to find the center of the universe. All they would have to do is find the *direction* that galaxies are moving, and then move everything in the opposite of that direction until all the galaxies or directions intersect at the same point. Just like when you inflate a beach and its surface gets big from a point in the center, so can it deflate.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I don't get why it would take so long to find the center of the universe. All they would have to do is find the *direction* that galaxies are moving, and then move everything in the opposite of that direction until all the galaxies or directions intersect at the same point. Just like when you inflate a beach and its surface gets big from a point in the center, so can it deflate.

There isn't one general direction. The galaxies move away from each other uniformly; space itself is expanding, rather than galaxies rushing away from a center point.

[steevey]

There isn't one general direction. The galaxies move away from each other uniformly; space itself is expanding, rather than galaxies rushing away from a center point.

 

It's true some galaxies are interacting with each other, but if there wasn't anything before the universe, then by Newton's simple laws, nothing should have changed the direction of the more outer layers of matter. Just imagine shooting 100 bullets radially from one gun in space. Maybe a few would run into something like a planet or the sun, but overall, there isn't much to stop them from their direction. I think it's just more of a problem that space programs and telescope didn't think to look for this sort of phenomena in every galaxy in the night sky> If they did, they should have found with at least some either very old or very young galaxies that they would intersect at a point if moved in the opposite direction.

 

Now that I think about it, if the universe is over twice as big as we thought it was before, doesn't there not need to be dark energy? All it would be is just that the universe has been around for longer than we thought, it wasn't actually speeding up past the speed of light or anything like that. That would be perfectly legitimate for why we see old galaxies so far out into space.

Edited November 29, 2010 by steevey

[D H]

Newton's laws do not describe the universe.

[steevey]

Newton's laws do not describe the universe.

 

 

But they do describe motion, and unless there was an object to stop a large portion of matter from expanding in a straight line, which by definition of the universe there can't be anything outside of it, then there still to this day has to be things going in a straight line from the center of the universe. Gravity only travels at the speed of light, and the universe was light years big before there was anything massive enough to change the course of that developing matter. "An object in motion will stay in motion unless a force acts on it" is exactly what I had in mind.

Edited November 30, 2010 by steevey

[md65536]

I don't get why it would take so long to find the center of the universe. All they would have to do is find the *direction* that galaxies are moving, and then move everything in the opposite of that direction until all the galaxies or directions intersect at the same point. Just like when you inflate a beach and its surface gets big from a point in the center, so can it deflate.

 

 

Around 9:30 to 11:06 in the video is a good demonstration of how an expanding universe would make different locations seem "like the center".

 

If you inflate a beach ball and you know exactly where its surface is then you can find the center. We don't know where the surface (or edge) of the universe is, or what its shape is.

[Sisyphus]

But they do describe motion,

 

The expansion of the universe is not motion. It is an "increase in distances." Newtonian physics has no way of describing it. There is no "origin point" of the universe, because the origin is everywhere.

[Spyman]

CMB Anomaly

•The Axis of Evil

•Should not exist per the standard model of cosmology

•But is the Best evidence supporting my study

Was the Universe created by Stephen Hawking since his initials "SH" is imprinted on the Cosmos?

 

Since the day the first Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) data were released, in 2003, all manner of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anomalies have been reported; there’s been the cold spot that might be a window into a parallel universe, the “Axis of Evil”, pawprints of local interstellar neutral hydrogen, and much, much more.

 

But do the WMAP data really, truly, absolutely contain evidence of anomalies, things that just do not fit within the six-parameters-and-a-model the WMAP team recently reported?

 

In a word, no.

http://www.universetoday.com/55200/seven-year-wmap-results-no-theyre-not-anomalies/

 

 

Galaxy Zoo: The large-scale spin statistics of spiral galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey

We re-examine the evidence for a violation of large-scale statistical isotropy in the distribution of projected spin vectors of spiral galaxies. We have a sample of $\sim 37,000$ spiral galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, with their line of sight spin direction confidently classified by members of the public through the online project Galaxy Zoo. After establishing and correcting for a certain level of bias in our handedness results we find the winding sense of the galaxies to be consistent with statistical isotropy. In particular we find no significant dipole signal, and thus no evidence for overall preferred handedness of the Universe. We compare this result to those of other authors and conclude that these may also be affected and explained by a bias effect.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3247

[rigney]

Everything I rationalize about science is an accumulation of other sources. So everything I bring to this thread is a consensus of brilliant minds, not mine. But yes, I too believe there is a central core to our universe. All I can do is give you the data and it is your decision to believe it or not. Our universe is under constant change. Can anyone disagree? Some refer to it as entropy. Others as homology. I can't classify it as either since I have no idea. After reading everything I could possibly absorb these past few months, I believe our universe is an endless cycle, balanced somewhere?, in a continuum that is "absolute". The link will give you many different routes in which to look.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

Edited December 1, 2010 by rigney

[jackson33]

The expansion of the universe is not motion. It is an "increase in distances." Newtonian physics has no way of describing it. There is no "origin point" of the universe, because the origin is everywhere. [/Quote]

 

 

 

Using Sisyphus's explanation as an example of the imaginary "singularity", what became the Universe under "Big Bang Theory", would not logically have a center. Said another way, the Universe formed well after expansion began, forming the current state simultaneously as temperatures cooled (all point in the U) to the point, matter (hydrogen) could form. As complex matter formed, it formed in all places, at the same time and reasonably near the same place it now exist. I like to explain it this way; Under BBT, what was the center of the original singularity, would be indistinguishable in today's universe. To explain the expansion then, all matter regardless it's construct at any point in time was the center, the expansion simply an event with IMO still an unexplained cause.

 

Since I'm stuck in my own age group and have never accepted BBT, over some form of Steady State or an eternal existence of matter (in some manner, homogeneous) and short of an infinite (with out end) Universe, there must be a geographical center, certainly not determinable with today's technology.

Edited November 30, 2010 by jackson33

[rigney]

Using Sisyphus's explanation as an example of the imaginary "singularity", what became the Universe under "Big Bang Theory", would not logically have a center. Said another way, the Universe formed well after expansion began, forming the current state simultaneously as temperatures cooled (all point in the U) to the point, matter (hydrogen) could form. As complex matter formed, it formed in all places, at the same time and reasonably near the same place it now exist. I like to explain it this way; Under BBT, what was the center of the original singularity, would be indistinguishable in today's universe. To explain the expansion then, all matter regardless it's construct at any point in time was the center, the expansion simply an event with IMO still an unexplained cause.

 

Since I'm stuck in my own age group and have never accepted BBT, over some form of Steady State or an eternal existence of matter (in some manner, homogeneous) and short of an infinite (with out end) Universe, there must be a geographical center, certainly not determinable with today's technology.

You're not stuck in any age group Jackson! Like me, you have concepts that disagree with the overall finds of some great mathematicians that I can barely comprehend, if at all. A physical reality, not math; is the only way I can rationalize something. Take a simple firecracker, or better yet, a nice round cherry bomb and detonate it on a clean, flat surface. You will immediately see a distinct pattern of the explosion. Of cource it will only be in width, height and time. Depth is the dimention you can't see because it dissipates into an atmosphere. When the BB happened, it did so in a pristine continuum of enviormental "nutrality", demanding it be spherically. A more perfect scenario could never have been designed. But, where did the BB come from? It is only a part of the continuing cycle. Edited November 30, 2010 by rigney

[steevey]

The expansion of the universe is not motion. It is an "increase in distances." Newtonian physics has no way of describing it. There is no "origin point" of the universe, because the origin is everywhere.

 

I hope you realize that scientists have no actual way of measuring the fabric of space-time itself. They don't know for a fact that the fabric of space time is expanding and getting thinner as it expands, that's just an inference. The more likely scenario is that matter is simply moving outward. The origin can't be everywhere anyway otherwise the entire universe couldn't be uniform-ally expanding anyway. If the origin actually was "everywhere", then some parts of the fabric of space-time would be growing into each other, leaving giant holes already in some other parts, much like the tectonic plates on Earth. Magma cools and moves at every point below the surface.

If the universe began after the big-bang, then that means there was nothing before that, which means there's nothing to stop matter from moving outward from the explosion. There's matter to this day which is still moving in the same direction from the center of the universe. And doesn't this data prove there's only one area where the universe originated?

Edited November 30, 2010 by steevey

[Sisyphus]

I hope you realize that scientists have no actual way of measuring the fabric of space-time itself. They don't know for a fact that the fabric of space time is expanding and getting thinner as it expands, that's just an inference.

 

It fits the observational data, though, and an explosion outwards from an origin point does not.

 

The more likely scenario is that matter is simply moving outward.

 

According to whom?

 

The origin can't be everywhere anyway otherwise the entire universe couldn't be uniform-ally expanding anyway. If the origin actually was "everywhere", then some parts of the fabric of space-time would be growing into each other, leaving giant holes already in some other parts, much like the tectonic plates on Earth. Magma cools and moves at every point below the surface.

 

Spacetime is not really a "fabric" analogous to tectonic plates. What is increasing is simply the sum of the distances between objects. Alternatively, you could say that the density of the universe is decreasing. I don't know what you mean by parts growing into each other or leaving holes.

 

If the universe began after the big-bang, then that means there was nothing before that, which means there's nothing to stop matter from moving outward from the explosion.

 

The big bang is not an explosion, and was never conceived as such except in popular misconception.

 

There's matter to this day which is still moving in the same direction from the center of the universe. And doesn't this data prove there's only one area where the universe originated?

 

What data is that?

[jackson33]

It fits the observational data, though, and an explosion outwards from an origin point does not....

 

The big bang is not an explosion, and was never conceived as such except in popular misconception.[/Quote]

 

 

Sisyphus; I'd suggest the "explosion" concept was made famous by Fred Hoyle around 1954, when nick naming the theory the "Big Bang", if in fact not Lemaitre himself.

 

In 1931, Lemaître proposed in his "hypothèse de l'atome primitif" (hypothesis of the primeval atom) that the universe began with the "explosion" of the "primeval atom" —what was later called the Big Bang.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

 

Whether an expansion, which logically would have and remains faster/quicker than any imaginable explosion, has required a good many revisions to maintain interest to those in Astronomy/Astrophysics.

 

According to whom?[/Quote]

 

To get involved with a BBT vs. SSU discussion would be about my 1000th time and I have no intention of doing so, but out of curiosity is it even possible that wave length colors, as our outer limits perceive them (Red/Blue) would not change for any number of reasons, not excluding refraction off small particles of matter over great distances?

 

Spacetime is not really a "fabric" analogous to tectonic plates. What is increasing is simply the sum of the distances between objects. Alternatively, you could say that the density of the universe is decreasing. I don't know what you mean by parts growing into each other or leaving holes.[/Quote]

 

Geographic Center; OK, let take the earth analogy and that's about 13k miles from any point on earths service. The Universe must have a center however shaped, while not necessarily precise without some serious math, the center is certainly not the entire Universe. Does this help to understand how us laymen perceive the BBT....

 

 

 

steevey; No theory I know of suggest matter is moving any different than it does around us. What BBT is suggesting is that the container Universal matter exist in is an expansion of that container (more involved space). The further away, presumably the faster the expansion was during the time period we visualize the event. Keep in mind all we see, is what was from the closest star 8-9 Light minutes ago to 13.5 BILLION Light years ago. A light second being 186,200 miles. To emphasize the distance we're talking about, what we see as 13.5 BLY's away is actually guessed to be 150 BLY's away now (some say 250). In reality looking out into space would probably look near the same if planet earth, with our technology was in any of the suggested 2 B Galaxies anyplace.

[steevey]

It fits the observational data, though, and an explosion outwards from an origin point does not.

 

It only fits the observational data of galaxies and clusters of matter which have their original course disturbed the the interaction of some other galaxies. It doesn't prove that there can't be a central point, it just proves galaxies and galactic super-clusters are interacting with each other and disturb each other's course.

 

Spacetime is not really a "fabric" analogous to tectonic plates. What is increasing is simply the sum of the distances between objects. Alternatively, you could say that the density of the universe is decreasing. I don't know what you mean by parts growing into each other or leaving holes.

 

What the seeming acceleration of the universe' expansion usually leads to is something called the "Big Rip" which is basically just when somehow for some weird reason some scientists think the "fabric" will get so stretched out so much that it will just rip. However, the fabric itself doesn't need to change, especially if the universe is infinite, all that needs to happen is that matter is moving more or continuing to move. It also sort of leads into the string theory idea where the strings that make up elementary particles are "attached" to the membrane of the universe. So, if that expanded, the distance between the strings would too.

 

 

The big bang is not an explosion, and was never conceived as such except in popular misconception.

 

Explosion might be an exaggeration, but the force generated by the big bang pushed matter outwards obviously, and since there was nothing outside the unvierse to stop that matter, there's still some going.

 

 

What data is that?

 

Why it would have to be the data that NASA captured of course, about all the Hubble ultra-deep fields and lack of matter in certain places. What is probable to have been observed already, is matter which is still moving in the same direction as it was during the first few seconds of the big bang. However, because they look at such limited amounts of data out of all the data in the universe, there are so many different directions they don't know which one it is.

 

 

[rigney]

Sisyphus; I'd suggest the "explosion" concept was made famous by Fred Hoyle around 1954, when nick naming the theory the "Big Bang", if in fact not Lemaitre himself.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Big_Bang_theory

 

Whether an expansion, which logically would have and remains faster/quicker than any imaginable explosion, has required a good many revisions to maintain interest to those in Astronomy/Astrophysics.

 

 

 

To get involved with a BBT vs. SSU discussion would be about my 1000th time and I have no intention of doing so, but out of curiosity is it even possible that wave length colors, as our outer limits perceive them (Red/Blue) would not change for any number of reasons, not excluding refraction off small particles of matter over great distances?

 

 

 

Geographic Center; OK, let take the earth analogy and that's about 13k miles from any point on earths service. The Universe must have a center however shaped, while not necessarily precise without some serious math, the center is certainly not the entire Universe. Does this help to understand how us laymen perceive the BBT....

 

 

 

steevey; No theory I know of suggest matter is moving any different than it does around us. What BBT is suggesting is that the container Universal matter exist in is an expansion of that container (more involved space). The further away, presumably the faster the expansion was during the time period we visualize the event. Keep in mind all we see, is what was from the closest star 8-9 Light minutes ago to 13.5 BILLION Light years ago. A light second being 186,200 miles. To emphasize the distance we're talking about, what we see as 13.5 BLY's away is actually guessed to be 150 BLY's away now (some say 250). In reality looking out into space would probably look near the same if planet earth, with our technology was in any of the suggested 2 B Galaxies anyplace.

Not to be discordant, but my thought is that our universe breathes much as we do. The difference is, where we respire at something like 12 to 20 times a minute, the universe takes a multiple of billions, if not trillions of years to take one breath. Our universe isn't something that will slow to a stop and start falling back into a new BB. It's something that has continuesly happened since the beginning and will continue to do so for many more billions of years. Edited December 1, 2010 by rigney

[steevey]

Not to be discordant, but my thought is that our universe breathes much as we do. The difference is, where we respire at something like 12 to 20 times a minute, the universe takes a multiple of billions, if not trillions of years to take one breath. Our universe isn't something that will slow to a stop and start falling back into a new BB. It's something that has continuesly happened since the beginning and will continue to do so for many more billions of years.

 

So if according to you it breathes but never collapses and then never re-expands, there's infinite matter and energy because new big bangs keep getting created even though there is still matter before that particular big bang from the last big bang in existence? Seems a little suspicious if there isn't anything else to cause those big bangs like maybe the universe collapsing again.

[rigney]

So if according to you it breathes but never collapses and then never re-expands, there's infinite matter and energy because new big bangs keep getting created even though there is still matter before that particular big bang from the last big bang in existence? Seems a little suspicious if there isn't anything else to cause those big bangs like maybe the universe collapsing again.

That really wasn't a very good explanation. And since this is strictly hypothetical on my part, you needn't believe a word of it. But with the anti energy puzzle not yet solved, I believe it has a lot to do with a cyclic effect on our universe. When we breathe, good air is taken into our lungs and distributed as needed throughout our blood vessels to maintain body function. Bad air is exhaled and the process starts again. When a BB occurs, it's similar to breathing. A new universe rushes out into a void, perhaps taking billions, if not trillions of years to do so? During this time, what had almost instantly become matter; gradually exhausts itself through osmosis to eventually return to the core of the universe as anti energy. It's a continuing process that began moments after the BB and will continue until the last bit of matter has gone through this process and extracted from the continuum. Only then will the next BB occur. "Wild? Crazy"? Perhaps. This ball of yarn can't even be considered hypothetical theory because I can't substantiate one word of it. Just something to think abou? Edited December 2, 2010 by rigney

[steevey]

That really wasn't a very good explanation. And since this is strictly hypothetical on my part, you needn't believe a word of it. But with the anti energy puzzle not yet solved, I believe it has a lot to do with a cyclic effect on our universe. When we breathe, good air is taken into our lungs and distributed as needed throughout our blood vessels to maintain body function. Bad air is exhaled and the process starts again. When a BB occurs, it's similar to breathing. A new universe rushes out into a void, perhaps taking billions, if not trillions of years to do so? During this time, what had almost instantly become matter; gradually exhausts itself through gradual osmosis and eventually returns to the core of the universe as anti energy. It's a continuous process that began moments after the BB and will continue until the last bit of matter has gone through this process and extracted from the continuum. Only then will the next BB occur. "Wild? Crazy"? Perhaps. This ball of yarn can't even be considered hypothetical theory because I can't substantiate one word of it. Just something to think abou?

 

Well according to thermodynamics, everything will eventually just become entropy, and then that's it. Perhaps everything will first get devoured by black holes, or most of everything, and then if Stephen Hawking is right, those black holes will "evaporate", leaving behind only entropy.

Edited December 2, 2010 by steevey

[lemur]

I don't even see why the expansion of the universe even has to be thought of in terms of volume-increase. Why can't it just be that the universe as it existed at the moment of the big bang is degenerating from dense and dominant nuclear force into dense and dominant gravitation/electromagnetism peppered with clusters of atomic nuclei? Spacetime can be seen as a function of force-intensity, no?

[rigney]

Well according to thermodynamics, everything will eventually just become entropy, and then that's it. Perhaps everything will first get devoured by black holes, or most of everything, and then if Stephen Hawking is right, those black holes will "evaporate", leaving behind only entropy.

Somewhere in the near future, I hope people like you can look back at Mr. Hawking as a brilliant physicist, prognosticator: and say, "WOW, I'm sure glad he was wrong on this one". Edited December 2, 2010 by rigney

[jackson33]

Not to be discordant, but my thought is that our universe breathes much as we do. The difference is, where we respire at something like 12 to 20 times a minute, the universe takes a multiple of billions, if not trillions of years to take one breath. Our universe isn't something that will slow to a stop and start falling back into a new BB. It's something that has continuously happened since the beginning and will continue to do so for many more billions of years.[/Quote]

 

rigney; Yes I know we have different ideas on how an eternal Universe might have come about. It's just my opinion, that in some manner all that is now the Universe, its content (elements), has always existed, probably finite (defined area of all space) and will go on for eternity. A cyclical Universe, probably first thought of under Hindu Mythology about 1500 years ago (passed down through something like a prayer) and the following article give you some information.

 

A cyclic model is any of several cosmological models in which the universe follows infinite, self-sustaining cycles. For example, the oscillating universe theory briefly considered by Albert Einstein in 1930 theorized a universe following an eternal series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch; in the interim, the universe would expand for a period of time before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a bounce.[/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

 

Somewhere in the near future, I hope people like you can look back at Mr. Hawking as a brilliant physicist, prognosticator: and say, "WOW, I'm sure glad he was wrong on this one". [/Quote]

 

Well it won't be the near future, that I feel safe in saying. Surely the Earth or certainly humanity, will be long gone before BH's have any major influence on what's naturally going on in all the 2B Galaxy. Frankly, I have as many problems with the definition of a BH, as I do BB as theory or for that matter entropy, but then (as said before) my education was based more on reality/logic and not from some advocate telling was empirically correct, I've been out of that box way to long...

[lemur]

rigney; Yes I know we have different ideas on how an eternal Universe might have come about. It's just my opinion, that in some manner all that is now the Universe, its content (elements), has always existed, probably finite (defined area of all space) and will go on for eternity.

I think the answer lies in whether gravitation defines spacetime expansion or whether gravitation can dissipate completely without the residual EM energy re-collecting itself due to its own gravity.

 

 

 

[rigney]

I think the answer lies in whether gravitation defines spacetime expansion or whether gravitation can dissipate completely without the residual EM energy re-collecting itself due to its own gravity.

I will probably get into trouble, but I'd like to explain my thoughts through a simple mechanical function. Take a piece of wood and begin stroking it with a rasp. The fillings will begin falling and piling up on the floor. May take you a few hours to get the job done, but eventually there will be nothing left of the wood, other than the dust on the floor. Time will eventually determine the entropy of all matter. Like the dust, matter will still be a part of the universe, but in its alternate state, anti energy. I believe each BB begins with the total accumulation of matter at the core of creation as "anti energy". Don't shoot! I'm just a messenger.