No, I'm not "sure", LOL. However, I have yet to see a mathematically consistent, coherent

"Theory" of space-time which posits anything like a "center" which is located somewhere within, again, our 4 dimensional spacetime itself.

Now, extrapolating the old "flatland sphere" idea, if spacetime were curved - and closed- in such a way that the universe was a sphere in a higher mathematical dimension, then yes there would be a "center" which nevertheless existed in a higher mathematical dimension outside of our spacetime, much as the core of the earth is nowhere on its surface--

But that said, observational analyses to date have all indicated that spacetime is neither curved in on itself (spherical) NOR outward (saddle-shaped) but rather, "flat" at largest scales, albeit again in 4 dimensions.

Also if one steps outside of "time" (as much as is mentally possible) and accepts current big bang/hyperinflation theory, it is possible I suppose to argue that a "center" (if not "the" center) sits at the big bang, both in space and time- but the big bang occurred everywhere, so again, if you're talking now the center is, like the leftover 3 degree echo of the big bang, everywhere.



Positing a "center" somewhere in our own, current spacetime as it stands now, runs into all sorts of logical problems, not the least of which is that it implies an "edge" or boundary, and then what's beyond that?

(one of the appealing factors of the spacetime-curved-into-a-higher-dimension-sphere idea is, of course, that it avoids that problem by saying if you go far enough in one direction, you end up coming back from the other way, sort of like flying off the right side of the screen in Asteroids and coming back in in the left.



But unfortunately, again, observations don't seem to indicate that one is true)

Personally, my own leanings are towards something like the infinite self-propagating eternal inflationary theory of Guth and Linde (of which our own Universe would be a tiny bubble), and I believe everything is mind-bendingly infinite in all directions and across all scales, not just multiverses but an infinite number of multiverses and beyond that types of multiverses, and so on. And as mathematicians know, asking what the "center" of infinity (much less infinite infinities) is, is a meaningless question.


...also, adding a brief detour out of science and math and into philosophy- as the solipsism jokes upthread allude to, from a purely experiential/zen/existential standpoint for me, the universe DOES have a center, and yes, I'm sitting at it right now. Meaning, as much as my own experience is concerned, from the moment I first became conscious, everything that has ever taken place, from my perspective, has happened with me smack dab at the center. Wow! I must be important! Or something. I don't say this because I have a huge ego (although I do) but rather because If I'm being rigorous from an experiential viewpoint, well, the ONLY experiential viewpoint I have or will ever have, as far as I know, is mine. The only vote that matters, so to speak.

And as such the whole fuckin' shebang revolves around (or to some extent, takes place inside) my own head. So as for a "center", there's that, I guess.

Porn isnt protected speech? There's a 10 Billion dollar a year industry that disagrees.

And SCOTUS "standards" on the matter are a joke- starting with Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" all the way up to the so-called standard in use today, the "community standards" definition of "obscenity".

"Community standards" for obscenity are a joke because it is basically impossible to argue, in our 21st century interconnected media world, that there is any sort of definable "community" who would find consenting adult sex acts "obscene" in such a way that it could be drawn broadly enough to criminalize the speech of, say, youporn or the like. Or in other words, for every community that doesnt like it, there is another that DOES.

And short of culture war reprobates like Rick Santorum, no one on either side of the aisle is remotely interested in trying.

Simply put, if the SCOTUS had been even the slightest bit interested in putting the kabosh on pornography, they wouldnt have overturned Clinton's online decency law (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). Instead, They did, and now that horse is long out of the barn.

And a wise decision, as well- because leaving aside the moral panic "culture in crisis" concerns, it is well nigh impossible to come up with a consistent and enforceable universal standard of "obscenity" in a pluralistic, interconnected, 21st century society. What is "obscene" to some people- oral sex, gay sex, al yankovik getting freaky with bubble wrap- is a wholesome saturday night's entertainment to others.

And so it is with so-called "hate speech". What is hate speech to one person or group, is not to another. The government not only should not be in the business of making objective determinations about the content of speech, it simply can't. Not rationally, not consistently. Not without taking a position that one set of beliefs, belonging to one group, is the "right" one, to the exclusion of the view of others.

Bottom line, though, the principle of free expression is far more important than silencing even the most obnoxius voices among us.

is it gonna be Clod-man?

"Forcing Clinton to go on the record on controversial issues" - aha.

Your problem, i think, is that you have bought into this beltway conventional bullshit wisdom which says that actual brave leadership is BAD.

It's the same genuis thinking that led Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to run a 1990s "tough on drugs" script when confronted about medical marijuana.

News Flash: The world has changed. It is a new century. The American People WANT real leadership.

If someone is afraid to go on the record about "controversial issues", THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Fie! Enough of this flim-sham flapshatterry!

I don't know what that means, but I really wanted to say it.

It's blowin' you and me

Shirley MacLaine has no clue what she's talking about. Utahraptor, on the other hand, GETS IT.

Worst. Hood Ornament. Ever.

"picture her with hair"

Okay, now what?

even better, I'm entitled to think "insidious and systematic objectification" is just what happens

to some people's hard-wired western religious sex-guilt when they filter lame-ass concepts like "lust is bad" through an overpriced sociology degree.