Parallel Lines #2

[rigney]

Why go back to the parallell line way of thinking you ask? I don't know? But as we look around the universe, line of sight is likely the optimum way of viewing this miracle. Using parallel lines to convey the starting point of my earlier thought was probably the worst choice of words. So, let me try again, "Lineal Vectoring", which will probably be frowned on as well, since the Big Bang was supposidly anisotropic. In a word, if you don't know where the center is, it simply doesn't exist. And if there's no center, there can be no radii? No radius?, No Vectors?. But, since this vectoring thing will likely get me in hot water also, I may as well have some fun with it. When we look out into the universe, we see only that portion which is visable through our most modern telescopes, both optical and radio. What we observe from our position here on earth looking in any direction may be thought of as a central point? Hey!, fourteen billion light years may only be a drop in the bucket and one sided at that? Is there more to the universe? I'd like to think there is, though I really don't know. But, what if we find that our universe has a meta-center and is not anisotropic as thought? And what if the universe is still moving away at a vectorial constant from that central point of creation while pushing along ancient galaxies formed during that millinia of travel and using their circular patterns along these lines to confuse us? I know, we have crack ups ever now and then, but not often. Our Milky Way for example is calculated to be rotating at some 600,000 mile per hr.(2009), with our planetary system circumventing a path around this galaxy in accordance to it's placement. Meanwhile, our solar system orbits the sun, with our earth speeding around it at 65,000 mph., in its annual journey. Plus, we have a daily axial rotational speed of 1,000 mph. With all of this going on, the entire universe is zipping along at some unknown speed and we haven't hit anything yet? Ok!, I've worked up a sweat and was wondering if someone would toss me a paper towel. This is only an idea folks and some questions that I ask. Theory, I'll leave to the theorist. And someone actually came up with the term, "Lobachevskian"?

Edited June 3, 2010 by rigney

[Mr Skeptic]

OK, so where on a spherical surface is the center?

[rigney]

Mr Skeptic (iDon't-Believe-You) OK, so where on a spherical surface is the center?

 

But, are we on the same page Mr. S?

[Mr Skeptic]

Mr Skeptic (iDon't-Believe-You) OK, so where on a spherical surface is the center?

 

On the surface, there is no center. Every point on the surface looks as central as any other point. The center of the sphere is within the sphere, but off the surface.

 

But, are we on the same page Mr. S?

 

I'm not sure. What exactly is your meta-center?

[rigney]

But, are you absolutely certain that we are on the outside of this envelope rather than being a part of the content? The metacenter thing? It's the only method I can think of to describe the axial core of our universe.