A) just because the universe appears to be isotropic says nothing as to it not having a 'center'. It would obviously, with these properties be harder to detect, but why would this preclude it's existence. The 'lumpiness' of the cosmic background radiation proves the universe isn't purley homogenous [and i think that this may hold a clue as to what i'm on about].

B) I still say if you can determine a 'when' you should be able to determine a 'where'. Failing that then IMO actually all your saying is that the universe and the singularity are one in the same- the universe is the center of itself and the [now much maligned] singularity has become the universe but is still just nothing that's nowhere. The only thing i can possibly think of that even approachs this would be some kind of multidimensional toriodal structure where the 'center' actually wouldn't be in any of the dimensions so would be beyond detection.

I obviously don't put much 'faith' in the scientific 'esoterica'. For one thing, what was this singularity and where did it come from? They haven't proven [and there probably isn't any way to prove] that what we call the universe is all there actually is and there is nothing apart from this. Basically all their mumbo-jumbo boils down to is there is this dimensionless nothing that suddenly and with no explicable reason exploded into everything we see [and more that we don't see]. Sorry- 'scientifically' that just doesn't cut it with me.

I've spent countless minutes on the john pondering this one:
"Where, exactly, IS the universe"?

If i find it i'll make you one of those little maps with the 'you are here' arrow and post it for you.

• Where... - kc4ixa - August 21, 2002 - 12:32 UTC
  • actually, i'm not trying to persuade... - slamhound - August 21, 2002 - 14:18 UTC
  • Off-topic - kc2gwx - September 6, 2002 - 04:07 UTC
    • Hi Sam. - kc4ixa - September 6, 2002 - 12:44 UTC
      • Yup. - kc2gwx - September 6, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
• The UNIVERSE - treborm - October 16, 2003 - 19:18 UTC