Astronomers will say that that at this point in time there is no true center of the universe, and there is good reason for that.
If the universe did begin with the Big Bang some 13 or 14 billion years ago, that explosion of time and space began thrusting all of the energy and subsequently, mass, outward from the center, taking time and space with it. So while it is theorized that the universe had an initial singularity that expanded to form what we now see as the cosmos as it expanded (more about that later), it left the center, well, empty of everything. Time and space moved on, creating a void at what was once the starting point for everything.
Probably the best analogy for the structure of the universe as we see it today is a balloon, because it explains many of the features that we see. We see all of the galaxies all rushing away from each other. We can see distances uniformly in all directions.
If we use the balloon analogy, the galaxies can be seen as spots on the surface of the balloon. As the balloon expands, the ‘galaxies’ all move away from each other as the elastic material stretches. If the time space is only the material of the balloon itself, then any one spot could see an equally limitless ‘universe’ in any and every direction, well except up or down, but this could be explained by positing that down (or: in) is the past and up (out) is the future. In this analogy, the universe, just as the balloon, has no center, because in the center is only air, not balloon; meaning that there is no time or material in that location. Of course, this example assumes that the universe is a closed curve, that is, the fabric of space has a positive curvature that it is connected to itself everywhere and does not tend toward ‘nothingness’ at its extremes. In this model, the universe is limitless, expanding, but also bounded and defined by the balloon material itself, which represents both time and space.
In some ways, this is also the model provided by Cartesian geometry.
In Cartesian geometry, zero is at the very center of the geometric system, and as was pointed out previously, zero is not well defined. One could even say that it is imaginary, since it can’t really be achieved; and therefore, cannot be said to truly exist. It is only the space outside of the origin that contains real numbers and real space.
Zero is an end point, as shown previously. An abstract location not inherently different from ‘infinity’.
So, in constructing a geometrical and number system, we should utilize these two values as limits to the system; one limit having no value, and the other having infinite, (meaning as a practical matter, no defined) value.
Clearly, this numbering system has no true center like Cartesian geometry and standard number theory does, stretching from positive to negative infinity, with zero smack dab in the middle.
However, there is a point in within the boundaries of this newly defined number system that does have a clear value, and in a manner of speaking is at the center of the system.
That number is ‘one’.
Because, ‘one’ is the number that separates the fractional from the whole numbers.
While it is quite true that there are fractional values that are above one, those values are dominated by their whole number portion, and as the value increases, the fractional portion has less and less significant value. For example, while for the number 2.5, the 0.5 does represent a meaningful portion of the value, however, if we’re talking about 1,000,000.5, the fractional portion value is essentially zero with respect to the whole value, 1,000,000.
Fractional values that are less than one are significant all by themselves, since they represent the entire value of the number.
Furthermore, each number above one has a multiplicative reciprocal value less than one. In case your memory needs jogging, a reciprocal is a number that when multiplied by the original value has a product equal to one, the multiplicative identity number. It can be demonstrated that every whole number has a reciprocal number that is less than one, even for the irrational numbers such as pi, the square root of two and phi.
Cartesian geometry and numbering has an additive reciprocal system. In that system, although it does also include the multiplicative reciprocals as well, the numbering is centered on zero, which is the additive identity. In many ways, this displays our propensity to believe that values can be added together to result in nothing (zero). This is not a logical concept.
If you set out one morning and hiked 2 miles to the west, then 1 mile south, 3 miles east, 1 mile north and then 1 mile west, how far would you have traveled? You might think that you went 8 miles that day, but in strictly Cartesian terms, since you ended up where you started, you’ve gone nowhere. (This, BTW is another delusion that one gets from not explicitly including time with the dimensional equations, because if you did, you’d realize that at the end of the journey, you had entered a later time-space)
This does not match your experience.
The choice of one as the center of the numerical system is both logical, useful and, as we shall see in later chapters, philosophically pleasing. ‘One’ is the multiplicative identity number, and as such has a much more important role in mathematics than zero, especially in regard to matrix mathematics, which is the form that almost every serious expression of energy, space and time utilizes these days and is, in the eyes of the author, the only true mathematics.
‘One’ is easily and thoroughly defined, and is a concept understood by virtually all sentient beings. It is the first whole number, and as such rightly should be given the special role that it enjoys in our processes and mathematical concepts.
‘One’, is in fact, the center of our mathematics, and in many respects, all of our critical thinking.