It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is the center of the universe barren? Could it be the same as beyond the edge? An absence of space?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 04:48 PM
If there was a big bang, or as others say a little bang followed by a big bang, nothing would be immobile at that point in space. It would all be speeding away from that center point.
Sort like the waves rolling away from the place where a pebble is dropped in water.

Is there an ever-expanding void at the center of our universe? If so, would it simply be empty space or would some type of anomly be there caused by the huge expanse of energy released in the big bang?

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:29 PM
The expanding universe popular analogy is that the galaxies and galaxy clusters are like raisins in raisin bread dough which is baking/rising/expanding. How far that analogy holds true is anybody's guess but in response to your question, what we are able to measure of the universe so far indicates that it was pretty accurate at the time of the big bang.

The universe was so homogeneous right after the big bang (like well blended raisin bread dough with the raisins evenly distributed), that's why "inflation theory" was invented, to explain how it can be so homogeneous.

So unless you have a big void in your raisin bread, there probably was no void where the big bang occurred. Instead we have lots of little voids ( the spaces between galaxies, like the yeast-induced air spaces in bread), since the whole thing is expanding.

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

The raisin bread model doesn't work for me. It would mean there are still stars, planted, etc. that didn't get pushed away by the big bang. Why would some things stay stationary in the center while others get pushed away at FTL speed?

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by dlifesjrny

It's complicated but we know it happens because we see that supernovas leave parts behind at the source of the explosion:

Star with initial masses of more than about eight solar masses end their lives in a most spectacular way, by exploding with enormous violence in something called a supernova. This explosion leaves behind a very different remnant - either a neutron star or a black hole.

So even in the case of a supernova, there's not a void left after the explosion, there's a neutron star or a black hole.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 02:24 AM
if you believe the "big-bang" theory, there should logicaly be a huge and expanding void and emptiness in the center of our universe.

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:37 AM
There is no center of the universe, or it is better to say that the center is everywhere. Big bang was not like an explosion. It was an expansion of space. Balloon analogy explains it best:

[edit on 13-7-2010 by Maslo]

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 12:34 PM
If you buy into the Big Bang as being a solid, respectable theory - then, well, there's not much that can be done for you.

In any case - no one can really claim to tell you what happened at the beginning, or even begin to wrap their brain around "expansion." Math goes out the window as we cannot assume modern precedents applied during that time - so you can't really listen to a mathematician talk about the Big Bang and give it any more credit than "interesting idea."

There's nothing to indicate the "big bang" has stopped - or that it was a single, isolated event (I'm more of the opinion that the "bang" was more of a "rip" or "wave" that released energy over time to create the fibrous distribution of galaxies and clusters we see today).

However, making several large predictions, the point where everything came into being and sped away at faster-than-light speeds as the fundamental forces came into existing, would either exist as a perfectly 'flat' region of space - all gravitational fields canceling each other out, or not really exist at all.

If you accept the idea that the fundamental forces had yet to really come into existence - and space is 'created' by mass/gravity - then the space we inhabit did not really exist until long after the initial release of energy. There would, then, have to be two events. The "bang" - which created its own concept of existence, before 'dropping' into our universe after losing energy to some other process.

Of course - remember what I said earlier - you can't put much weight behind any theory of the "big bang." I still entertain the notion - but I believe it is indicative of people attempting to make science fill the roles of religion. We want to try and answer the question "Where did we come from" so badly as to forsake responsible scientific practices and guard a poorly-constructed model of the answer to that question with a religious fervor, elevating it to the status of a deity in and of itself.

I look forward to the day we try and explain to extra-terrestrials the origin of the universe (as the Big Bang) in the belief they came to the same conclusion - only to be laughed out of the room (or, whatever they do as a response to something they find humorous).

new topics

top topics


log in