Another essay written by Alan T. Braunstein, M.D.. Comments and opinions welcome.The Center of the Universe&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp June 17, 2002For truthseekers:&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp This is the third brief dissertation in my series of anti-big bang cosmological heresies. Apparently I have a mission is to show that all of cosmology as we have come to know it has been based on the misconception that the cosmological redshift represents (predominantly) Doppler relativistic recessional motion relative to the light sources we measure. These papers are merely thought experiments, with no proof offered. Although I offer one possible way to prove some of these ideas, I will offer it when contacted by appropriate physicists or other cosmologically minded scientists. &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp OK. Question: "Where is the center of the universe?" If there were a point of origin of the universe, why is there no sign of where this might have been? Although scientists ostensibly do not believe it is here on earth, the extrapolation of reversing the expansion of the universe does seem to bring the beginning back here (probably right to the Garden of Eden, if we believe our biblical friends). &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Cosmologists will say that there is no center, as the (fabricated and ridiculous) cosmological "inflation" had caused this "center" to move about 15 billion light-years away to the outer rim of the known universe in one incredible instant; but that seems to place us in the "new" center. The center is thus now "out there," and we are "in here." Kind of backwards. Wow - A "Big Bang" which started "here", went "there" in that one incredible instant, with its light just now reaching us after billions of years. Does this make sense to anyone? If this is nonsense, and it is, we will not find evidence of a true universal center (if one exists), because if there is one, it is not within our viewing distance. If you recall some of the arguments for the hypothetical "big bang," one is that the universe would either continue expanding forever, or it would reach a point where gravity would reverse the expansion, and we would then have a "big crunch." It seem that physicists have (just recently) decided that the universe is actually accelerating in its expansion, so we can forget the latter possibility. But why can't the universe be static? The old argument that gravity would cause everything to contract is simply not true. Even if the universe were finite, this "gravitational" effect would apply only to the outermost portion of the universe, not in our limited view, now or ever. Here's the counterargument: Mass "a" is surrounded on all sides by other mass. If the attraction is equal in all directions, there can be no net movement (see my vacuum cleaner ping pong ball model, for example), because the forces all cancel out, being equal from all directions. Not so in a limited, closed system. But we don't know that our system is closed, and it certainly is not within our "vision." The universe likely extends much further than we can "see," and may be, for the sake of this argument, "infinite." &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp How about another thought experiment? Suppose we could move a billion light years in any direction. If we were to look at a previously 14 billion light year (BLY) old galaxy (now hypothetically 15 BLY away), would we see it at an earlier evolutionary age, maybe just as it was forming? Perhaps. Would we see the beginning of time? No. We are not in the center of the universe, right? So why should positional change allow us to see further than just building a bigger and better telescope?&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Einstein originally thought the universe was static in nature, but later considered that hypothesis his "greatest blunder" when an "error" in his calculations was discovered. Perhaps he was right the first time. If redshift does not in truth represent cosmic expansion, then most of everything we believe about the "Big Bang" will be proven false, and the science of cosmology will have a new beginning - One which will attempt to discover the real reason for the cosmic background radiation (CBR), and what it truly represents - Certainly not backwards radiation from the beginning of time. &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Also, if the universe is expanding in all directions from a "big bang," how can so many "colliding" gallaxies be explained away? How can very old stars (some thought to be older than the known universe!) be so close to us? Consider that the farthest galaxy or quasar visible may not represent the beginning of time and the universe, but may be just like us - "Somewhere" in a static universe far away, with just as much space and time around it as we have.&nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Alan T. Braunstein, M.D. &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Center-4.rtf

I think Braunstein makes a very valid point. I am not an expert in cosmology... but I feel that if the Big Bang is only supported by the redshift of starslight... then it is a bit weak. Such a tall building with so small fundament? I am not sure if his argument on the center of the universe issue is correct... center of anything is a concept that is valid only if there are borders... but if averything is inside, everything is the center...Is any cosmological expert in the forum that can explain me if the redshift is the only experimental evidence for the Big Bang?I have also a problem with cosmic expansion. It is said that space is increasing. (not that the object are moving away). But then, the distance between an electron and the nucleous is also increasing. This means that the early atoms of the universe were smaller than the atoms of today. When the universe was half of the size of the one of today, the atoms must have been also half size? And if they are half size, then the quatum jumps must have been smaller.... so that the interpretation of spectral lines of elements like hydrogen must be also taken with care... at the moment, it seems that cosmology assumes that the spectral lines of hydrogen had exactly the same wavelength troughout the whole history of the universe...I also once asked a professor if anybody has measured the cosmic expansion within the objects of the solar system. But it seems that they have only have measured with very far stars. Somebody needs to measure it on earth and confirm that space is expanding everywhere. Diversity is Good!

Background radiation, and the speed theory of the redshift are the only two evidences of the Big Bang theory. So I guess no, background radiation is also. But then, are there any other sources from which we can gain evidence? I'm sure there are a couple, but definitely not many.

Interbane, why is background radiation an evidence for the Big Bang? Diversity is Good!

The Center of the Universe is made of chocolate.Chris

Background radiation from a time period around many billions of years ago is just now reaching us, enabling us to 'see' the radiation of that time period. What we see offers insights that scientists have made deductions from, including support for the big bang theory. I think.

"Consider that the farthest galaxy or quasar visible may not represent the beginning of time and the universe, but may be just like us - "Somewhere" in a static universe far away, with just as much space and time around it as we have."That is way cool, even if it's untrue. I stay out of this forum b/c I don't possess the ammo to add anything, but it's fun to read. A question: isn't the common lingo now "spacetime," a singular concept, not space and time?

Quote:A question: isn't the common lingo now "spacetime," a singular concept, not space and time?You have to be edumacated in order to say 'spacetime', everyone else is only allowed to say space and time... like, separately.

The "center of the universe" mind you does not in actuality represent the "middle of the universe" just for starters.Its heither near or there and either somewhere.I do believe that the "center" is neither on or inside the earth and neither on or inside one of the six other planets.Its is "lost" and will never be "discovered" but may be measured and we might become close in finite measurements.This is a cosmological heaven and masterpiece.Its amazing to me.I will make this conclusion and decision later on in life,it is way to soon now. TBR Astrophysics & Cosmology Friends & Mild Lunacy. ----I gotta go faster Keep up the pace Just to stay in the human race I could go supersonic the problem's chronic Tell me does life exist beyond it When I need to sate I just accelerate Into oblivion-----Bad ReligionEdited by: capecodindependant at: 1/10/05 9:10 pm

TBR is the "center of the universe".. TBR Astrophysics & Cosmology Friends & Mild Lunacy. ----I gotta go faster Keep up the pace Just to stay in the human race I could go supersonic the problem's chronic Tell me does life exist beyond it When I need to sate I just accelerate Into oblivion-----Bad Religion