the location has no center

[3bob]

The location has no center because there is nowhere that the location is not,

or is it...

 

 

Edited February 16, 2015 by 3bob

[Michael Sternbach]

Every location is the center. Let's consider this statement.

 

Every location on the surface of the Earth can be looked at as its center because our planet is a sphere whose surface is unlimited, yet finite. (I.e. in Japan, I saw a world map on which Japan was the center.)

 

If we go from 2d to 3d and look at the Earth as a whole, the center of the Earth is defined as being in the middle of her core.

 

Likewise, the Theory of Relativity says that every location in the Universe is central as viewed from there. That's why most galaxies are moving away from us as space is expanding. The Big Bang happened everywhere - including I your living room! So the center of the Universe is everywhere.

 

But again, 3d space can be thought of as the surface of a four-dimensional hypersphere that is unlimited, yet finite (we are talking about four spatial dimensions here and ignore time for the time being - pun intended). In this expanded sense, the center of the Universe is outside of it, in four-dimensional space.

[Michael Sternbach]

In my previous post we saw that the center of the surface of the Earth is to be set at the location of the observer. As the observer moves on the surface, so will the center.

 

We also saw that there is a center of a higher order which we located in the center of our planet. Every observer on the surface gravitates toward that center.

 

But if we expand our perspective, we realize that the center of the Earth again has no fixed location, as the Earth is constantly moving around the Sun. The Sun is the gravitational center of the Solar System: The center of the super-system that the Earth system is a part of.

 

But this is not the end of the story. The Sun orbits around a yet higher center which is Sagittarius A* or the Black Hole in the middle of our galaxy...

 

We could extend this scheme to the totality of the Universe as we know it, if not beyond. Starting from the observer, we could also go in the other direction and consider that they consist of organs, cells, molecules, atoms, and so on.

 

In summary, there is a (perhaps infinite) order of systems, one contained in the other, from the smallest to the biggest, and each with their individual centers.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Michael Sternbach]

So, while the Universe as we know seems to be finite, it may in fact exist in a larger, even infinite space, along with many other Universes. We can call this the Multiverse.

 

The circumference of an infinite sphere is not tangible, so it is nowhere. Therefore its centers are everywhere.

 

Rigorously, any such center is dimensionless, a mere point without the slightest extension, infinitely small as opposed to the infinite extension of the periphery.

 

Both the infinitely small and the infinitely big are intangible; they are transcendent or metaphysical. They are called Sulphur and Mercury in the symbolical language of Alchemy.

[Marblehead]

From my perspective, I am the center of the universe.  From your perspective you are the center of the universe.

 

Can we both be right and wrong at the same time?

 

If there was a beginning then that beginning position is the center.  Does it matter that there might not now be an identifiable center?

[Michael Sternbach]

From my perspective, I am the center of the universe.  From your perspective you are the center of the universe.

 

Can we both be right and wrong at the same time?

 

No, we are both right at the same time. Every being is the center of its world.

 

If there was a beginning then that beginning position is the center.  Does it matter that there might not now be an identifiable center?

 

Where would you locate that beginning position?

[Marblehead]

Where would you locate that beginning position?

Hehehe.  I have no idea.  I have seen models of "the baby universe" that have been created to show the universe when it was very young (I forget the age they suggested).

 

But really, if the universe is expanding then one could reverse the flow and eventually find that beginning position.  Yes, this would require some serious computer modelling.

 

However, if the Big Bang theory is valid then it must be that Singularity had a (non)location.  (That's because space did not yet exist.)  Interesting thought(?) - Singularity existed within Absolute Nothingness.  But then, the manifest universe still exists within Absolute Nothingness.  That begs the question:  Is Tao then Absolute Nothingness and One is Singularity?

[3bob]

So, while the Universe as we know seems to be finite, it may in fact exist in a larger, even infinite space, along with many other Universes. We can call this the Multiverse.

 

The circumference of an infinite sphere is not tangible, so it is nowhere. Therefore its centers are everywhere.

 

Rigorously, any such center is dimensionless, a mere point without the slightest extension, infinitely small as opposed to the infinite extension of the periphery.

 

Both the infinitely small and the infinitely big are intangible; they are transcendent or metaphysical. They are called Sulphur and Mercury in the symbolical language of Alchemy.

 

Thanks Michael, my head hurts,   further how would you say an un-dividable or indivisible 'one' could implode into itself? (or did you already allude to that?)

Edited February 16, 2015 by 3bob

[3bob]

Hehehe.  I have no idea.  I have seen models of "the baby universe" that have been created to show the universe when it was very young (I forget the age they suggested).

 

But really, if the universe is expanding then one could reverse the flow and eventually find that beginning position.  Yes, this would require some serious computer modelling.

 

However, if the Big Bang theory is valid then it must be that Singularity had a (non)location.  (That's because space did not yet exist.)  Interesting thought(?) - Singularity existed within Absolute Nothingness.  But then, the manifest universe still exists within Absolute Nothingness.  That begs the question:  Is Tao then Absolute Nothingness and One is Singularity?

Then again and considering the manifest there can be no absolute nothingness per-se, it has to be absolute being-ness if one wants to pursue or make use of conceptual mind benders or blowers.

Edited February 16, 2015 by 3bob

[GrandmasterP]

This location has no 'center'.

We have 'centre'.

Edited February 16, 2015 by GrandmasterP

[Daeluin]

However, if the Big Bang theory is valid then it must be that Singularity had a (non)location.  (That's because space did not yet exist.) 

 

I feel resonance with this. Therefore that singularity would exist everywhere all at once after space came to exist, just covered up by the new layer of space.

 

Interesting thought(?) - Singularity existed within Absolute Nothingness. 

 

Past tense? I think that source is still there. It is our root and we may connect to it if we peel away the layers that cover it... peeling away layers requires harmonizing the polarities they consist of.

 

But then, the manifest universe still exists within Absolute Nothingness. 

 

In the same fashion, I think that Absolute Nothingness became covered by the layer of Infinite Nothingness. Nothingness and Somethingness dancing, adding layers to creation as a little something pushes into nothing, as a little nothing draws forth something, in the end no longer the original something or nothing, yet still connected to both.

 

That begs the question:  Is Tao then Absolute Nothingness and One is Singularity?

 

One = Yang,

Absolute Nothingness = Yin.

Before they polarized... how do we define that?

Nonconceptual non-somethingness that is absolutely non-created from the internal perspective we are limited to? Implying the existence of something beyond comprehension. Tao.

[Daeluin]

1 plus 0 equals 1, and yet 1 zero times equals 0: both 0 and 1 simultaneously. One doesn't have ground to stand on to be seen until it distinguishes itself from 0 by using some of itself to show itself, even as Zero cannot be fathomed until it trades part of itself with 1 and together they birth perspective, even as they hide their true natures.

Edited February 16, 2015 by Daeluin

[Marblehead]

Then again and considering the manifest there can be no absolute nothingness per-se, it has to be absolute being-ness if one wants to pursue or make use of conceptual mind benders or blowers.

So the universe is expanding.  What is it expanding into?  The only possibility I see is Absolute Nothingness.

 

True that "empty space" is the distance between two objects "in space".  But once you get beyond all objects in the universe and you look for the distance between it and an object further out there is nothing to be found.  There is no distance.

 

But I agree, "within" the universe there is no Absolute Nothingness.  Beingness lies within the universe.

[Marblehead]

This location has no 'center'.

We have 'centre'.

Yeah, you folks spell a lot of words strange.  Left-overs from when y"all were French, I guess.  If that word were spoken as y'all spell it you would have "sentry".

[Marblehead]

Very nice and interesting response.

I feel resonance with this. Therefore that singularity would exist everywhere all at once after space came to exist, just covered up by the new layer of space.

I have never considered that possibility.  But there is absolutely nothing for me to respond with.

 

Past tense? I think that source is still there. It is our root and we may connect to it if we peel away the layers that cover it... peeling away layers requires harmonizing the polarities they consist of.

And that too is a valid consideration.  Supposedly the first two aspects of the universe to come into being after the Big Bang were hydrogen and gravity.  They still exist.

 

In the same fashion, I think that Absolute Nothingness became covered by the layer of Infinite Nothingness. Nothingness and Somethingness dancing, adding layers to creation as a little something pushes into nothing, as a little nothing draws forth something, in the end no longer the original something or nothing, yet still connected to both.

That could even be a Buddhist thought, could it not?  I don't talk about layers but I understand what you are saying.

 

One = Yang,

Absolute Nothingness = Yin.

Before they polarized... how do we define that?

Nonconceptual non-somethingness that is absolutely non-created from the internal perspective we are limited to? Implying the existence of something beyond comprehension. Tao.

Before they polarized they were one.  They still are one.

 

Yes, the Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

 

And as the universe has an age it cannot be eternal and therefore cannot be Tao.  Perhaps Tao is as you presented; One AND Absolute Nothingness?  Yin/Yang.

[Marblehead]

1 plus 0 equals 1, and yet 1 zero times equals 0: both 0 and 1 simultaneously. One doesn't have ground to stand on to be seen until it distinguishes itself from 0 by using some of itself to show itself, even as Zero cannot be fathomed until it trades part of itself with 1 and together they birth perspective, even as they hide their true natures.

Good example.  Again, this could be a Buddhist thought as well.  And really, we always need zero to compare one against it.  But if we say we have a bunch of zeros we still have only zero.

 

"Nothing ain't worth nothing but its free."

 

We can talk all day about those things we don't have.

[Michael Sternbach]

Hehehe.  I have no idea.  I have seen models of "the baby universe" that have been created to show the universe when it was very young (I forget the age they suggested).

 

But really, if the universe is expanding then one could reverse the flow and eventually find that beginning position.  Yes, this would require some serious computer modelling.

And you would find that the Big Bang happened right inside your smoking brain. No, I'm not kidding...

 

The thing is that the Big Bang didn't happen in a space in which you could locate it. It created space in the first place (pun totally unintended).

 

Please imagine that you are an ant sitting on a balloon. Unless you were a really smart ant, you would think that you are on a flat plane. Notwithstanding that the plane has a curvature in the third dimension (we smart humans understand that the balloon is a 3d object, of course).

 

Let's upgrade all this by one dimension: The whole balloon is now four-dimensional, its surface a three-dimensional space. However, it's infinitely small in the beginning. As it expands, you (no matter where you are positioned on its surface) will find the 3d space around you expanding in all directions.

 

You can think of the "beginning position" either as everywhere on the surface of the balloon (which was infinitely compact initially), or not in 3d space at all but in the center of our four-dimensional balloon.

 

Now, not all cosmologists think of the Universe as curved in a 4d space, but the particular model I presented has the advantage that a smart ant can draw nearer to an understanding.

 

However, if the Big Bang theory is valid then it must be that Singularity had a (non)location.  (That's because space did not yet exist.)

Yes! You're on the right track!

 

Interesting thought(?) - Singularity existed within Absolute Nothingness.  But then, the manifest universe still exists within Absolute Nothingness.  That begs the question:  Is Tao then Absolute Nothingness and One is Singularity?

It may seem to be a nuance, but I would say that the Big Bang occurred as a singularity in an infinite 4d space rather than in absolute nothingness.

[Marblehead]

And you would find that the Big Bang happened right inside your smoking brain. No, I'm not kidding...

 

The thing is that the Big Bang didn't happen in a space in which you could locate it. It created space in the first place (pun totally unintended).

I accept that even though I'm not sure I even accept my own thoughts on this.

 

Yes, It could be said that the Big Bang happened everywhere at the same time.

 

Please imagine that you are an ant sitting on a balloon. Unless you were a really smart ant, you would think that you are on a flat plane. Notwithstanding that the plane has a curvature in the third dimension (we smart humans understand that the balloon is a 3d object, of course).

 

Let's upgrade all this by one dimension: The whole balloon is now four-dimensional, its surface a three-dimensional space. However, it's infinitely small in the beginning. As it expands, you (no matter where you are positioned on its surface) will find the 3d space around you expanding in all directions.

 

You can think of the "beginning position" either as everywhere on the surface of the balloon (which was infinitely compact initially), or not in 3d space at all but in the center of our four-dimensional balloon.

The ant is going to have a very long journey.

 

Now, not all cosmologists think of the Universe as curved in a 4d space, but the particular model I presented has the advantage that a smart ant can draw nearer to an understanding.

Yes, I have heard some of the other theories but this is still the most logical in my brain.

 

It may seem to be a nuance, but I would say that the Big Bang occurred as a singularity in an infinite 4d space rather than in absolute nothingness.

Yeah, I know, but I do like the concept of Absolute Nothingness.

[Michael Sternbach]

Thanks Michael, my head hurts,   further how would you say an un-dividable or indivisible 'one' could implode into itself? (or did you already allude to that?)

 

I am not sure what implosion you are talking about. Are you referring to the Big Crunch theory?

[3bob]

sure, it will do in pinch. 

[Nungali]

The location has no center because there is nowhere that the location is not,

or is it...

 

genewilder11.jpg

 

The location   or   a  location.  or maybe even every location ? 

 

Ah , what the heck ... I will play anyway.   it does have a centre but the centre is everywhere.  Butt hat is only one 'phase'. The other is; if it has a centre it must have a boundary .... otherwise there is no centre ....  the boundary is a circle with  an infinite circumference. 

 

(Thats my 2 bobs worth )

[Nungali]

Every location is the center. Let's consider this statement.

 

Every location on the surface of the Earth can be looked at as its center because our planet is a sphere whose surface is unlimited, yet finite. (I.e. in Japan, I saw a world map on which Japan was the center.)

 

If we go from 2d to 3d and look at the Earth as a whole, the center of the Earth is defined as being in the middle of her core.

 

Likewise, the Theory of Relativity says that every location in the Universe is central as viewed from there. That's why most galaxies are moving away from us as space is expanding. The Big Bang happened everywhere - including I your living room! So the center of the Universe is everywhere.

 

But again, 3d space can be thought of as the surface of a four-dimensional hypersphere that is unlimited, yet finite (we are talking about four spatial dimensions here and ignore time for the time being - pun intended). In this expanded sense, the center of the Universe is outside of it, in four-dimensional space.

 

 

No ... sorry, the big bang did not happen in 3bob's living room.  The potential of 3bob's living room happened inside the primal singularity, not the other way around.

 

(You will have to excuse me to day ... for some stupid reason I watched another of those 'science' tv shows last night where they tried to explain the multi-universe theory .... that a complete load of rubbish!   By 'dumbing it down' - if that is what they were trying to do-  they just made it ridiculous. - I gotta stop watching them ... and yelling at the tv.        )

[Nungali]

So, while the Universe as we know seems to be finite, it may in fact exist in a larger, even infinite space, along with many other Universes. We can call this the Multiverse.

 

Right !  That's it!   Now you've done it !

 

 

 

The circumference of an infinite sphere is not tangible, so it is nowhere. Therefore its centers are everywhere.

 

Ohh !  (he he )   well .... that's better   

 

 

 

 

Rigorously, any such center is dimensionless, a mere point without the slightest extension, infinitely small as opposed to the infinite extension of the periphery.

 

Both the infinitely small and the infinitely big are intangible; they are transcendent or metaphysical. They are called Sulphur and Mercury in the symbolical language of Alchemy.

 

They are?   I haven;t heard that one before.  

 

Not sure if I read some of the above right?  It seemed  as if you are saying the 'small' (do you mean 'sub-atomic'  ? ) world  and the large ' .....  

 

{hmmm ... stuck for a name here .... }

 

 ....  ' world are different  'Universes'  and the 'multiverses'  fit inside each other like Russian dolls ? 

[Michael Sternbach]

I feel resonance with this. Therefore that singularity would exist everywhere all at once after space came to exist, just covered up by the new layer of space.

That's an interesting definition!

 

Past tense? I think that source is still there. It is our root and we may connect to it if we peel away the layers that cover it... peeling away layers requires harmonizing the polarities they consist of.

I also believe that Source is still, has always been and will always be there. According to the common Big Bang theories, it is not supposed to be, that is the main problem I have with them. But I think there are ways to reconcile the differing views. For example, our Universe might exist in an infinite 4d space. Moreover, outside our Universe, "before" and "after" might actually be quite meaningless.

 

In the same fashion, I think that Absolute Nothingness became covered by the layer of Infinite Nothingness.

An analogy to the infinitely small and the infinitely big that I talked about earlier, perhaps.

 

Nothingness and Somethingness dancing, adding layers to creation as a little something pushes into nothing, as a little nothing draws forth something, in the end no longer the original something or nothing, yet still connected to both.

Virtual particles popping in and out of the manifested Universe come to mind... But your explanation is more poetic.

 

One = Yang,

Absolute Nothingness = Yin.

Before they polarized... how do we define that?

Nonconceptual non-somethingness that is absolutely non-created from the internal perspective we are limited to? Implying the existence of something beyond comprehension. Tao.

Beautiful.

[Nungali]

1 plus 0 equals 1, and yet 1 zero times equals 0: both 0 and 1 simultaneously. One doesn't have ground to stand on to be seen until it distinguishes itself from 0 by using some of itself to show itself, even as Zero cannot be fathomed until it trades part of itself with 1 and together they birth perspective, even as they hide their true natures.

 

And 1 has no ground to stand on either until it distinguishes itself from itself by using some of itself to show itself ... even if it is a 'mirror', it still then creates 2 ( the image and the one perceiving the image ) ... then it gets a better or new picture of itself, which makes a new 3rd thing, which forms a sorta  'new tripartite singularity' which gives a new 4th view

 

 

 

 

 

which starts the same above process into 4. 5 . 6. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now there is no stopping it ....   7  ............ ......  8 ........   9 .... 10....11..