Why isn't there a central point in the universe where all stars would collapse due to their gravity?

Question

In the past, scientists believed that the universe was infinite with an infinite set of stars, and therefore there would be no central point that would cause the stars to fall into each other, but in the course of time they realized we have to consider that the universe is finite with a finite set of stars. If that is true, how come there is no point in the universe where the gravital forces of a set of stars outweight those around them and cause all other stars to collapse with each other?

Answer 1

The universe is far bigger than anyone realizes, as well as older. The known universe is about 26 billion light years in diameter, but this is from our point of view which always tends to put humanity in the center.

;-D Look at it like this: anywhere you are is the center of the universe!

Answer 2

As it was noted already - in the current paradigm the Universe is expanding (this is simply the most probable explanation of red shift that we see in distant stars' light). It is quite obvious that static Universe should be infinite or all the stars would eventually collapse as you said. All locations in such infinite Universe would be equal as there is no center or each point is a center if you want. The only point many people missing is that there is no center in dynamic Universe either.
It might seem there must be one particular point in space where at the time=0 all the matter and energy appeared and perhaps where it will all fall back into. This is not exactly true. The space itself was born at the T=0 and at that time it was quite small but already boundless. How can the space be finite and boundless at the same time?
In short the answer is - the space is warped. This is better to describe by example. Think of some creature that lives in 2-dimensional universe on the surface of the bubble. For this creature its universe seems like having no bounds, yet it is finite. The creature can travel as far as it wants but it will newer see the edge of its world. At the same time the surface of the sphere can be measured and we, as 3D creatures (perhaps we are gods of 2D world) can paint only limited number of 2D "stars" on it. The universe expansion as we know it is very similar to what 2D creature sees when you blow the bubble up. All points on its surface become farther from each other but there is no center of expansion or if you want it each point on the surface is the center. If you let the air go off the bubble all the "stars" would get closer to each other. The universe becomes smaller but there is no center of contraption on the suffice of the sphere. As the bubble collapses distances between all its points shrink to 0.

Answer 3

The issue is not "what scientists believe", it's what the observations and experiments show.

The finite size of the observable universe is entirely the result of its finite age. The word "observable" is important here, because the universe is certainly larger than the part of it we can see. We cannot see further than about 20 billion lightyears away, because the big bang occurred about 13.7 billion years ago. Everything seems to be expanding away from us, but that is true about everyplace in the universe---everywhere, everything is expanding away.

At the time of the big bang, everything was much closer together. The size of the big bang may be finite---the volume in which physics is like our physics may be finite. But it is certainly much, much larger than the 20 billion lightyears we can see today. What lies beyond that region is unknown, but there could be other "big bangs" , possibly an infinite number of them.

There may be a center to "our" big bang. Possibly we are at the center, but more likely that hypothetical center is 10^22 lightyears away. In any case, this has no relevance to the future dynamics of our part of the universe.

Answer 4

In very simple terms, The Big Bang was an explosion that sent matter out in all directions.

If that cloud of matter still remained dense enough (even after billions of years had passed) then the gravity of that matter would slow the outward movement and matter would start to infall back toward its "center". The universe implodes on itself and starts over again with a new Bang.

Too far apart would mean the opposite - things would keep moving away and eventually all the stars would burn out. Goodbye universe.

The latest studies show that matter is picking up speed and moving farther apart.

The outward force of the Big Bang is stronger than the gravity of all matter.

Answer 5

There is a central point, but the universe is currently expanding. If there is enough matter in the universe to stop the expansion, the universe will, in time, collapse to this central point. Theoretically, it then could explode into another Big Bang.

Answer 6

That's whats suggested, the (our/this) universe is still expanding after the big bang. But the gravity of everything will slow the rate of expansion and reverse the process.

Answer 7

We aren't to worry about that kind of thing. God created the universe, He controls it. So if He wanted heavenly bodies to collapse, they could in the blink of an eye, but the fact that the universe has been here for as long as it has, He's still doing His thing with His will, so I wouldn't worry about that. If there were a central point where things collapsed, they would have happened millenniums ago, so chances are that it won't happen in our lifetime if it does. Read your science fiction in moderation and trust in God. He is still in control and Jesus still saves.

Answer 8

Because it is generally accepted now that the universe is an expanding, not static, thing.

Answer 9

well just hang in there long enough and you would see that. everything goes in cycles.