Has science found the center of the universe?

this is something that i cannot fully get my head around, but ill try.

imagine the universe is all on the surface of a balloon, which is expanding. so its all on a flat plane, so there is no centre. there is no centre point on the curved surface of a balloon:

The Famous Balloon Analogy

A good way to help visualise the expanding universe is to compare space with the surface of an expanding balloon. This analogy was used by Arthur Eddington as early as 1933 in his book The Expanding Universe. It was also used by Fred Hoyle in the 1960 edition of his popular book The Nature of the Universe. Hoyle wrote "My non-mathematical friends often tell me that they find it difficult to picture this expansion. Short of using a lot of mathematics I cannot do better than use the analogy of a balloon with a large number of dots marked on its surface. If the balloon is blown up the distances between the dots increase in the same way as the distances between the galaxies."

The balloon analogy is very good but needs to be understood properly—otherwise it can cause more confusion. As Hoyle said, "There are several important respects in which it is definitely misleading." It is important to appreciate that three-dimensional space is to be compared with the two-dimensional surface of the balloon. The surface is homogeneous with no point that should be picked out as the centre. The centre of the balloon itself is not on the surface, and should not be thought of as the centre of the universe. If it helps, you can think of the radial direction in the balloon as time. This was what Hoyle suggested, but it can also be confusing. It is better to regard points off the surface as not being part of the universe at all. As Gauss discovered at the beginning of the 19th century, properties of space such as curvature can be described in terms of intrinsic quantities that can be measured without needing to think about what it is curving in. So space can be curved without there being any other dimensions "outside". Gauss even tried to determine the curvature of space by measuring the angles of a large triangle between three hill tops.

When thinking about the balloon analogy you must remember that. . .

The 2-dimensional surface of the balloon is analogous to the 3 dimensions of space.

The 3-dimensional space in which the balloon is embedded is not analogous to any higher dimensional physical space.

The centre of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.

The universe may be finite in size and growing like the surface of an expanding balloon, but it could also be infinite.

Galaxies move apart like points on the expanding balloon, but the galaxies themselves do not expand because they are gravitationally bound.

... but if the Big Bang was an explosion

In a conventional explosion, material expands out from a central point. A short moment after the explosion starts, the centre will be the hottest point. Later there will be a spherical shell of material expanding away from the centre until gravity brings it back down to Earth. The Big Bang—as far as we understand it—was not an explosion like that at all. It was an explosion of space, not an explosion in space. According to the standard models there was no space and time before the Big Bang. There was not even a "before" to speak of. So, the Big Bang was very different from any explosion we are accustomed to and it does not need to have a central point.

If the Big Bang were an ordinary explosion in an already existing space, we would be able to look out and see the expanding edge of the explosion with empty space beyond. Instead, we see back towards the Big Bang itself and detect a faint background glow from the hot primordial gases of the early universe. This "cosmic microwave background radiation" is uniform in all directions. This tells us that it is not matter that is expanding outwards from a point, but rather it is space itself that expands evenly.

It is important to stress that other observations support the view that there is no centre to the universe, at least insofar as observations can reach. The fact that the universe is expanding uniformly would not rule out the possibility that there is some denser, hotter place that might be called the centre, but careful studies of the distribution and motion of galaxies confirm that it is homogeneous on the largest scales we can see, with no sign of a special point to call the centre.

In a sense, each of us is the center of the Universe. You don't say where you live, but let's suppose you live in Paris France. Surrounding you is YOUR Universe, just as mine surrounds me in USA. The difference between our two positions on a cosmic scale is of course too small to measure. Even if we were separated by a much larger distance and you were here on Earth and I was in the Andromeda Galaxy, on the scale of the Universe, we could be standing together. Because we believe the Big Bang Theory is correct, we know there cannot be a center of the Universe. The expansion of the Universe is the same in all directions and does not radiate outwards from a central point. In fact, locally, gravity overcomes this outward expansion and holds groups of galaxies together as is the case with the fifty or so galaxies including our own that make up the Local Group. To sum up, the Big Bang was not the start of the Universe, but is it's history since. In a very real sense, the Big Bang is everywhere, and is still happening all around us. The only place where a point may exist where the Universe began would be outside our Universe in a region we call the Multiverse, where 2 'branes collided. However, even those of us who are working on ideas such as M Theory do not hold out any hope of ever being able to say where that might be.

I think you misunderstand the basic notions of the Big Bang. The Big Bang was not an explosion of IN space; it was an explosion OF space. There was no pre-existing space for the ripples to be traced backwards. Imagine there's NO space and NO time. There's not even a "before." Then the Big Bang happens. We have the birth of space and time for the first time. There's no "center" since in a universe of billions of galaxies EVERYONE will seem to be accelerating AWAY from wherever you are. In that sense the "center" is anywhere and everywhere because SPACE and TIME didn't exist "before."

Not quite that simple....

What you are saying would hold true IF the universe were simply three-dimensional. However, we are certain that it is not that simple. While we MAY be fifteen billion years away from the Big Bang, the universe is NOT 15 billion years wide, not even 30 billion years wide. It's NOT like a balloon or ripples in a fat surface.

You're talking about "entirety" but you just know about "individuality". You understand what I mean? Big Bang(i don't believe in this "theory") tries to explain how this known universe came into being. It doesn't talk about the universe in its entirety. Big bang refers to one huge explosion between two heavenly bodies but i don't think that only one big bang took place. Might be countless big bangs resulting in countless universes. The universes which are submerged or diffused into each other. The rivers do have some sort of shapes but when they fall into the sea they become shapeless. The universe in this "entirety" is just like this shapeless sea which is ever expanding. Universes keep falling into the single infinite or finite universe. The glaciers are dark energies in this case. We'll may be able to do something to know how this known single universe looks like but never the universe in this entirety. It's not possible.

I think Patrick gave one of the better answers, but like Mitch where is the "center" of the ballon therory? I mean we have computers that can make 3-D images and track how the galaxy's are expanding and in which direction... take multiple galaxies and just kinda trace their orgin backwards to a center spot.

we've a photograph of the internal 80% of the universe, in spite of the undeniable fact that it fairly is rather in basic terms a thermal photograph. yet we can see the middle of the universe. it rather is how we can actually look into the previous. the reason we can do it fairly is thru finding on the middle of the universe. notwithstanding you spot, you're finding into the previous, yet in basic terms by using like a nanosecond. yet gentle travels at a undeniable speed, case in point, the gentle you spot from the sunlight is 9 minutes previous. so which you're seeing the sunlight because it became 9 minutes in the past. And it fairly is an identical with the middle of the universe. We see the gentle from hundreds of thousands years in the past, subsequently, we can see the universe hundreds of thousands of years in the past. additionally, i choose you to look up the 'MultiVerse', it fairly is rather attractive. extra useful yet, watch an episode of "contained in the direction of the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman", episode: "Is there rather an area to the universe?". And sure, the universe is expandind, it fairly is defined interior the multiverse theory. and additionally it fairly isn't any longer endless. all of us recognize this, even however we gained't see the very limits. yet we can see the outer area yet finding into the internal center, attractive, isn't it? ~~~ additionally, before the huge bang occurred, the universe became a spec, with reference to the size of a marble. in basic terms, it exploded and stronger, and took hundreds of thousands of years to type. yet, it continues to be increasing... nonetheless becoming, getting larger.

Well some researchers such as Tifft, Guthrie, Napier, et al have found that redshifts are quantized in specific jumps of speed or concentric shells which seem to indicate that Earth ...or at least our galaxy... is the center of the universe. Discordant redshifts have also been found by Halton Arp and others. Others assert that interferometry experiments dating back to the 1800's also indicate that Earth is the center.

"Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show"

http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-th...

"These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own."

Davies, P.C.W.; "Cosmic Heresy?" Nature, 273:336, 1978.

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf004/sf004p04.ht...

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf080/sf080a04.ht...

Dr's Sungenis and Bennet on interferometry measurements....geocentrism

http://galileowaswrong.blogspot.com/p/books.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo&feature...

Arp's findings...

http://haltonarp.com/articles

In addition, we do not know for sure that the universe is currently expanding....that is an inference from redshifts which could be interpreted in other ways....some have suggested that dark flow is giving us the illusion of an expanding universe whereas in reality, our galaxy is moving through space.

"There is another theory that suggests that the accelerating expansion of the universe is an illusion called "Dark Flow". We perceive it as accelerating because of the way our region in the cosmos drifts through the rest of space. This according to Christos Tsagas, a cosmologist at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in Greece. According to his theory, our relative motion makes it seem as if the universe as a whole is expanding faster and faster, when in reality its slowing down, which is what we would expect of gravity.

This theory would get rid of the issue of dark energy and avoid the other theory of the Big Rip. Instead of the universe being ripped apart, this theory would have it come to a stop and then begin shrinking. According to Tsagas, the acceleration of the universe in our area is caused by its motion alone. The universe beyond our domain isn't accelerating outward, but rolling to a stop.

Tsagas' explanation of things builds on a recent discovery by Alexander Kashlinsky, a cosmologist at NASA. Over several years, Kashlinsky and his colleagues have shown that our region of space-time, an area of around 2.5 billion light years across, is moving relative to the rest of the universe, fast."

http://www.tech-stew.com/post/2012/04/23/Predictin...

uniontera number 9 for spin

hope it helps

/Uniontera Ja

ps. In my opinion, spin is a center in itself.

yes.