Summations Only

I think the problem is one of exclusivity.If every point appears to be the center of the universe then the Milky Way and the Earth in particular are not any more significant than any other point in the universe.If the Earth is not significant then the life on the Earth is not significant.It all goes back to wanting to be God's special little favorites.

Yes. And of course it is exactly that argument that I find unpersuasive. Even given the need to be God's favorite, it does not follow that God created a cosmos that even has a physical center.Why wouldn't that same reasoning require a flat earth with the Middle East in the center?

Until fairly recently it did; in fact with Jerusalem in the very center.

Like others have mentioned, you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Dark matter and dark energy are names given to observations. They are definitely not inventions.Let's start with dark matter. It was observed that that the motion of galaxies didn't match up with the estimated visible mass. Therefore, there had to be mass that wasn't luminous. Further observations have have used gravitational lensing to detect this matter that does not absorb or emit light, and apparently does not interact that much with luminous matter. One of the more observations was a collision between between two star clusters seen below: SLAC | Bold People. Visionary Science. Real Impact.The red represents the luminous matter and the blue represents the dark matter. They were able to show how the luminous matter interacts while the dark matter continues along the same path without interacting with the luminous matter.So to sum it up, we are now able to map dark matter in the universe so I would hardly call it an invention.As for dark energy, it is much like gravity. Gravity is the name of a force. Dark energy is no different. It is the name of the force that is accelerating the expansion of the universe. This acceleration is an observation, not something that is made up. Dark energy is not an invention either. I would vote for Quantum Mechanics as the most bazaar, but to each their own. When you blow up a balloon, where is the center of expansion on the surface of the balloon?

As I am not a bigot I have no problem with dark energy or dark matter.I still can not get my head around the idea that the Universe has no center. I have no reason to think that the center is anywhere near me but it seems that it should have one.If the universe is infinite in all directions then I can see how every point could be considered the center. If there was a point somewhere in the past when the universe was not infinite in extent then there must have been a center. If it started as a dot then what happened to that spot? I realize that this is an analogy but the center is the same place it was before you inflated it. I do not understand where we make the jump from Euclidean to non Euclidean geometry

There is no center on the surface of the balloon, or rather there is no point that is more of the center than anywhere else. You may be mistakenly using the point in the center of the balloon instead of limiting yourself to the surface of the balloon.If I understand it correctly, if you travel in a straight line in this universe you will end up where you started just as you would if you were walking on the surface of a sphere. Our universe has no center, just as the surface of a sphere has no center.

It's likely I'm wrong, but the dot became the whole universe, so the whole universe is the center. The Big Bang was not a whole bunch of stuff flying out from the center, it is the center getting a LOT bigger.Or maybe I don't know anything.

This is what I mean by switching geometries. From what I can tell, you need at least 3 dimensions to have a surface that is not flat. You cant have the surface of the balloon without the inside. I know, I know 2-spheres and 3-spheres but are these not theoretical entities? Beside that, the universe certainly appears to have some depth. How is that like a surface?

I dont have a problem with the idea of expansion until you remove the idea of a center. Even if it is not expanding into anything it is still bigger than it was before. All the points are further away from any previous position.

Just as you can have a 2-dimensional sphere (just the surface) in 3-space, you can have a 3-dimensional sphere in 4-space, and a 4-dimensional space-time as a surface in some higher dimensional space.

I think this is just wrong. A 2-sphere is a two dimensional surface. It is mathematically the surface of a sphere, but it represents a curved, 2 dimension space.Let's not buz up the physics.

Yes, but people who are not familiar with the mathematics have difficulty conceptualizing unless it is embedded in a higher dimensional space.

True, but at some point we must help those people understand that a 2-sphere is not really a ball. Otherwise we are just adding to their difficulty in conceptualizing.In this case, Dogmafood is already dealing with an error in understanding this point, and I didn't want to confirm his misconception.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Let me explain why I am using the term bizarre. If you look at both dark energy and dark matter, you are actually looking at antigravity and invisibility. Both of which are admittedly beyond the current ability in science to actually find them (all efforts have failed to date). Only indirect evidence of both is observable but they carry labels of very tangible principles; I refer to mass and energy.I am open to any deeper understanding; if some one can maybe cast some light on these two proposals.

Say what?Sorry but both Dark matter and Dark energy are observed the same way that Gravity is observed. They have nothing to do with either anti-gravity or invisibility.