<p>the expansion of the universe is relative to where it is being observed from. Much like dots on a balloon. Its easy to point to the center of the balloon (like what the picture shows) because it is only a 3d object. But for higher dimensions we don't have the spacial awareness to understand where than center of the universe is (if there even is one)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-05T21:16:38.727Z
The Universe (meaning all of space) is also  "only" a 3D object. Spacetime is 4D; space is 3D.
D. Halsey
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-06T02:08:58.377Z
Well planets curving space time bend 3d space into 4d, and its plausible that the universe exists in a higher order of dimensions (like if we travel indefinitely in one direction we will come back to the starting point, much like a 2d figure would on a spherical object
jrima12
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-05T18:21:41.133Z
2020-10-05T18:21:41.133Z
jrima12
<p>That diagram does not depict the entire universe. At most, it depicts the history of what is now our <em>observable</em> universe (specifically, a 2D slice through it), with us at the center only because we're observing it. Someone at the furthest reaches of that portion of the universe would see <em>us</em> at the furthest reaches of <em>their</em> observable universe, and themselves at the center.</p>
<p>And like us, they would observe the universe to be expanding away from <em>them</em>, and doing so equally in all directions. This, as far as we can determine, is true for anywhere within the observable universe. The simplest assumption is that it continues to do so outside it as well, and there is no evidence that it does anything else.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-05T10:41:41.073Z
Upvoted. I would add the observable universe is even just a slice of it, in the diagram. By experience, many neglect that one axis is time otherwise we would need concentric spheres.
Alchimista
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-04T23:06:46.860Z
2020-10-05T15:40:59.730Z
2020-10-05T15:40:59.730Z
Christopher James Huff
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/VvSiwl.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/VvSiwl.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>This question is not about whether <a href="https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/12952/why-does-it-make-sense-to-say-the-universe-has-no-centre">it makes sense to have a centre of the universe or not</a> instead, it's about the inflation graph we used to see while describing the Big Bang. From the inflation graph (drawn above), it's clear that the universe is supposed to have a centre at somewhere around &quot;The yellow point&quot;. Still why do we say that the universe has no centre or universe has it's centre at each point of it.</p>
<p><strong>What's the problem with the figure or my understanding?</strong></p>

<cosmology><big-bang-theory><observable-universe><cosmological-inflation>
Why can't we point the centre of the universe from inflation graph we see?
Sazzad Hissain Khan
# Why can't we point the centre of the universe from inflation graph we see?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-10-04)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/VvSiwl.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/VvSiwl.png)

This question is not about whether [it makes sense to have a centre of the universe or not](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/12952/why-does-it-make-sense-to-say-the-universe-has-no-centre) instead, it's about the inflation graph we used to see while describing the Big Bang. From the inflation graph (drawn above), it's clear that the universe is supposed to have a centre at somewhere around "The yellow point". Still why do we say that the universe has no centre or universe has it's centre at each point of it.

**What's the problem with the figure or my understanding?**

**Tags:** cosmology, big-bang-theory, observable-universe, cosmological-inflation

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-10-04. Score: 9 | Accepted answer

That diagram does not depict the entire universe. At most, it depicts the history of what is now our *observable* universe (specifically, a 2D slice through it), with us at the center only because we're observing it. Someone at the furthest reaches of that portion of the universe would see *us* at the furthest reaches of *their* observable universe, and themselves at the center.

And like us, they would observe the universe to be expanding away from *them*, and doing so equally in all directions. This, as far as we can determine, is true for anywhere within the observable universe. The simplest assumption is that it continues to do so outside it as well, and there is no evidence that it does anything else.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Upvoted. I would add the observable universe is even just a slice of it, in the diagram. By experience, many neglect that one axis is time otherwise we would need concentric spheres.  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-10-05. Score: 2

the expansion of the universe is relative to where it is being observed from. Much like dots on a balloon. Its easy to point to the center of the balloon (like what the picture shows) because it is only a 3d object. But for higher dimensions we don't have the spacial awareness to understand where than center of the universe is (if there even is one)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: The Universe (meaning all of space) is also  "only" a 3D object. Spacetime is 4D; space is 3D.  
> **username_1**: Well planets curving space time bend 3d space into 4d, and its plausible that the universe exists in a higher order of dimensions (like if we travel indefinitely in one direction we will come back to the starting point, much like a 2d figure would on a spherical object  

---

