(I am not sure I am posting this to the correct place.)

I have seen images of the center of our galaxy and images of object on the other side of our Universe. I have not seen an image of the center of our Universe, or at least the best effort at an image of the center of our Universe.

Also, I am not sure what the shape is of our Universe. Is our Universe a disc like galaxies and solar systems? Or is it round, as would be expected from a Big Bang that explodes in relatively equal directions?

Yes its interesting if universe expands, in which
direction? Direction oposite is to center of universe.

There is an episode on the Science Channel that maps out the known Universe and it is more like a weave of strands like a crazy strand of DNA. I like to believe that where ever you physically are at the moment is the center of the universe. YOU are the center because it expands in all directions endlessly. Lakota Philosophy I think.

I think you are confusing the center of the universe with the episode on string theory.

Thank you, kenwin1.

I agree that the composition of the Univers is not the same as the geometry of it.

I have since found:

Ellipsoidal Universe
http://www.aip.org/pnu/2006/split/794-2.html

Which I think says the Universe is nearly spherical, but the dictonary definition of ellipsoid indicates that an ellipsoid can be either two-dimensional or three-dimensional.

there are so many theorys...

by the way, has anybody heard about research on the universe expantion speed, does it increase or decrease.

You have to remember, that what you see is not what "is" . As you look further away , you also see further back in time; and what you see is distorted through relativistic effects (red shift of light, stretching of physical dimensions in the direction viewed).
The latest "explanation of everything" is string theory.
[url=http://www.mkaku.org/]http://www.mkaku.org/[/url]

Basically in addition to the four dimensions we encounter every day (time, length , width , depth) there are seven more (a total of eleven dimensions ) in our universe. These are so small that we do not see them. In fact, in at least one of them the universe is still a point (allowing information to coordinate between two particles no matter how much they separate in our three dimensional space.).
Just as Einstein pointed out that you could view gravitation as deforming three dimensional space; this theory carries it a bit further. Not only is matter attractive to other matter, but empty space itself is repulsive.
The theory is basically that all of what occurs in our eleven dimensions, including the resultant expansion of three dimensional space and time is the result of the collision of two point "M branes" in an even higher dimension. All the matter and energy of our universe is the resultant vibrations within our M brane from that collision. Everything is the result of combinations of vibrating "strings" tiny loops of vibration within the fabric of space. But the nature of space is to spread this vibration out and thus expand .

oshwyn5, nothing that you said is relevant to the question. I would appreciate it if you would edit your message and delete everything. Your comments are useful for other threads that have relevant subjects, but in this thread it is merely pollution. It has already been said that the composition of the Universe is not relevant, yet you intentionally post a huge non-relevant message anyway.

I know about red shift and all that. That is nothing new. Do you have something relevant to tell us that I don't know? If so, then you can replace your message with something that is relevant.

However is interesting the thread question, I don't understand a few basic things, I want to retake the question: Is possible to calculate where the big bang occurs? why the galaxies can collide, if the explosion disperse the energy/matter in all directions why we have collisions?, actual maps of the universe don't look like an explosion, we don't have a big space in the center with galaxies around... why? I'm sure i don't understand some basic point, can some one explain to me the basics.

osh: I read about the theory of the two particles, why we can't create a "faster than light" communication device usign that principle of "communication" between particles doesn't matter the distance? why this principle can't produce this practical result rigth now?

As far as I know, the big bang occurred at the center of the Universe.

oldpider, you speak of the center of the Universe as if you have seen it. Have you seen images of the center of the Universe?

I think there is no answer to this question because nobody has discovered one.

It certainly seems logical that there should be a space in the middle of all of the galaxies which are moving apart because of the big-bang theory but maybe we can't see the space because we are soo far away from the centre and all that we see is between us and the edge of the space which we believe to be there?!

I think you are being logical, jdots. It is very possible that we can't actually see the center of the Universe. I am interested in seeing an image of whatever can be seen at the location that is the center.

Yes, samhobbs, it certainly would be interesting to see the hole in the middle where the big bang occurred or at least an explanation or description of what is thought to be there. From what little I have been able to find out it is not that simple as space does not appear to be as we think it is. Take a look at this site: http://www.teresi.us/html/writing/big_bang.html
If you can wade through it all I think you'll have a clue, like me, that we should try to work something else out!

How authoritative is Scott Teresi? I only glanced at that, but I am very skeptical of it's accuracy. I get the impression that in that page, theories are stated as fact.

If that page is confusing about the center of the Universe, it could be that the author is confused. That does not prove that the center of the Universe is confusing.

Well, try this website then, it explains it all, I think:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm

If you find this a bit tricky to understand (and I gave up very soon after starting) you might try emailing Professor Wright and asking him if he as an answer to your question as he seems to know a lot about the principles involved.

I am just one person and my knowledge is limited. It would be a waste of Professor Wright's time to explain it all to me. It would be better if the Science Channel were to make a show explaining things, perhaps with Professor Wright's assistance. That is essentially what I am asking for. I am actually not asking for an answer for just myself.

If you want to, you can send Professor Wright a message asking if he has something to offer for a show such as this, but I am not going to disturb the person.

As for that Teresi guy in your previous reply, that guy is a web designer. He is far from an expert in this area and does not deserve a mention here.

Well samhobbs, I think that your idea of Science Channel making a programme to explain this is a great idea and hope that it happens. I have now become interested in trying to find the answer and have tried quite a few sites but still find no 'hole at the centre of everything'.

I have no problem in disturbing Professor Wright and will let you know if he replies to my email.

As for Scott Teresi, he may only be a web designer, but, in order to write the paper on that website he had to read an awful lot about the subject and be interested. He certainly knows a lot more than you or me.

OK samhobbs, I changed the words used in my search and, bingo! Go look at:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

This website definitely answers the question.

One of the programs I saw recently told of how, at the center of every galaxy we can see, there is a supermassive black hole. Therefore, it wouldn't be too crazy to believe there is an even more massive black hole at the center of the universe.
I like to believe in a theory I read in one of Isaac Asimov's books, The Collapsing Universe, about an oscilating universe. The Big Bang would have generated, obviously, an immense and probably unconprehensable amount of energy. Theory even states that the galaxies began to slowly lose speed after being blasted from the middle, maybe because the gravity of the black hole began to affect them, and eventually they will stop moving and begin to be pulled back in, crash into everything in the center, causing yet again another big bang, immense black hole, galaxies, and such.
As the the shape of the universe, if this is true it would have the basic disc shape like the galaxies, kind of like a convex lens on it's side. Sadly, that's all I've learned in my 15 years, so I'll get back to you in about 20.
Jeremy

If you talked to a person from before that whole “world is round” idea got started, and you told him that if you pick a direction and just go and go and go and go, that eventually you will be back where you started, that concept would have been beyond his understanding. What if you got in a space ship and picked a direction and just go and go and go and go and go, will you end up back at your starting point?