The universe does not need to have a center for you to section it up as far as the latest telescope can see.  You simply make Sol sector 001, as in Trek.  It's no less arbitrary than the standard ruler.

Arbitrary, arbitrary,,, a curious word in this particular topic! Or perhaps you like "I think therefore i am" or "it is there because it's there" hehehe Nah, not nearly good enough.

Perhaps it would be easier to follow the logic in steps.

Step one) here we have an infinite universe

Step two) Within this infinite universe, where is Earth located?

Step three) Panic!

That is just as ridiculous as Dr who coming back into existence simply because Amy Pond remembered him!

Not really. The only reason you really need to know where something is is because you want to go there. Using an "arbitrary" point that is selected for any reason (ranging from convenience to shits'n'giggles) can be used to define another objects position.

Ideally, you actually use a coordinate system centered on your arbitrarily selected object. Generally speaking, you select your "origin" based on some property; for example, maps of the Solar System are invariably made with the Sun at the middle, because everything else orbits it. In the same way, an ideal map of, say, the Milky Way would actually use the galactic core as the "origin" of the coordinate grid.

So you're counterpoint is pretty fallacious; just because you think that using an arbitrarily defined point as the "origin" for the purposes of creating a coordinate grid is "ridiculous" doesn't mean it is. In the words of Murphy: "If it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid."

EDIT:

TBH, I think it's better that we progress into nonsensical pseudoscience, because that's way more fun, and way less flammable than politics. I suppose YMMV, though.

Well, I find it difficult to comprehend any species discovering 100% about their world and their universe, let alone other universes (if any).  I wouldn't know why a universe could be created out of nothing much for no particular reason, and then dying a long, slow, death by running out of energy and relative increasing entropy, and then not having any more activity for the rest of time (although time would arguably cease to exist if there is nothing left done by anyone or anything).  But the species would not know for certain about the existence of things and the universe, unless they already knew about everything (which would mean no room for *any* scientists ).

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled dose of politics (which can be even more nonsensical than nonsensical pseudoscience ).

Best regards,
Steven.

I smell bagged hobbit.  Is it sunrise yet?

If people want to smell bagged hobbit, by all means, let them! I'm certainly not going to loose any sleep over it.

Is the cosmos infinite? well it doesn't really have any choice, it has to be! If there was a barrier of some kind, then what is beyond the barrier? nothing? oh wait, there is already plenty of that on this side!!

There is one possible kind of barrier that could work.... a 'time' barrier.  Travel out into deep space far enough and time gradually grinds to a halt. From the perspective of the space ship, they would never know! Which is a very creepy concept!! Because If a spaceship was heading into deep space beyond the galaxies and it hit a time barrier and time slowed to zero, the spaceship would not perceive it and people on Earth monitoring its progress. It would appear to be traveling on forever but at the same time being frozen on the spot!!

If you can wrap your head around that idea then consider the possibility that we are all right at this moment, all frozen in time, but we just don't know it? In which case the reality would be that everything that has been and will be has already all happened in an instant, time does not exist except from our perspective.

I wonder if absolute speed is the same as nil time? and absolute zero speed is also the same as nil time?

If there is a time distortion between galaxies, lets say time slows right down at the mid point then speeds up again, you would never be able to detect it, we would simply perceive it as great distance and that is effectively exactly what it is!

So long as there is an object on the other side of the time barrier that we can detect, it would simply be the exact distance away that we perceive it, and any spaceship traveling through the time barrier to that location would appear to be traveling that great distance, and it would be of course.

If time dictates distance, i suppose it also dictates the size of objects? Which makes me consider what a black hole is doing to matter that it sucks in? Is it sucking all the time out of matter?? weird shit!!

It is amazing the extent some will go trying to use the sciences to disprove themselves … and justify god, absolutely amazing.

We both agree the answer is no, Science has NOT proven the universe is infinite.

But in response to the last part of what you said...

I think science and the universe prove the existence of Almighty God. I arrived at my conclusion relative to science which cannot contradict  the Holy Bible, specifically Genesis, which states that out of nothing, Almighty God created the physical Universe and all that's in it  including space, time and matter as well as all the laws of nature that came into operation.

Ya, I know it concerns faith in the trustworthiness of God as a reliable eye-witness to Creation. Faith enables me to begin a particular hypothesis about ancient Origin events. Genesis informs us of the who and the why, but not the when and how of Creation.

I won't belabor this as BT has been patient about us getting off topic a bit.

That is just a saying and one that I think carries a lot of weight. After all, the earth IS  the only planet where life is found.

Well, Sagan can't prove anything since he died long ago. 

But the point is even though Sagan confidently predicted there must be billions and billions of planets out there teeming with life, he never proved any such thing. Just hasn't been done by him or anyone else in the scientific community and that's why I said "the still unsupported assumption". 

....................

Come on? I said we know from science...that's your context.

No, in fact it was Mystikmind in #178 where he/she mentioned the "infinite universe" twice.

I was merely responding to that.

.......................

I know. I responded to your point when I cited that website and posted a few paragraphs from it. I thought that it answered alot of the points brought up in the discussion. Notice, if you will, at the very end...it mentions that the universe is expanding but that it is not infinite. Here it is:

Your definition of universe is fine.

As far as "infinity" and understanding it in terms of mathematics, again, I refer to the website. It did a good job and even though I'm not a scientific type or strong in math, it makes sense to me.

Lula, this picking out little tidbits is pointless … just say what you mean to. Please try to apply some common sense and stop looking at everything as an attack. Everyone knows the saying … just my way of telling you that you cannot prove gods existence. You seem to think you are knowledgeable on Sagan … I don’t think so. This is not accurate at all, “Sagan confidently predicted there must be billions and billions of planets out there teeming with life” because he said no such thing. You might have found something more useful considering he published more than 600 scientific papers and such and was author or editor of more than 20 books among many other accomplishments. Amazing that ‘my stuff’ is always unsupported assumptions … and your stuff is well, gospel. I think you can use the word science in a sentence Lula, but know little about the processes employed in search of actual for real knowledge … or what that even is for that matter, go figure. Everything in the universe is unique and due to the limits of our technical prowess, we have only found life on earth probably because we cannot go anywhere else, yet, to check it out up close and personal … just like we have to do here, go figure. You do not understand the numbers. At the speed of light, it will take 100,000 years just to cross our galaxy and the closest galaxy would take 2,000,000 years to get there … so don’t expect much empirical data for a while. We have to discover a different way or technology or we are on a slow learning curve for sure. We aren’t even close to light speed … yet.

Oops ... didn't see your post in time,sorry.