
Originally Posted by
forrest noble
I think you mis-characterized the OP question. The question was this:
....something about this (standard interpretation of no-centre to the universe) has always gotten me a bit muddled. It goes like this: when the universe was very small it does indeed have a centre (surely?), say when it was the size of a grapefruit. What happens to make the centre cease to be something we can speak about?
(words in parenthesis added)
I think you missed out the first paragraph. Something
about cosmology has him muddled.

Originally Posted by
forrest noble
My primary point was and is simply this: Although many in the mainstream think there is no center to the universe as I explained in my posting #28, there is little or no evidence to support this mainstream proposal, in my opinion based upon my comments.
I have already posted a link that
shows the main evidence for the Big-Bang. There is ABSOLUTELY no evidence that the universe has a centre.

Originally Posted by
forrest noble
Most all of my rhetoric beyond this has been in response to direct questions or commenting on others postings. For those that did not want to hear my answers, such leading questions should not have been asked. I think it is always a problem in discussion/ debate whereby one thing is related to another and therefore must be brought up to answer a question. This is especially true of models where everything concerning one part of the universe is directly related and in some ways involves everything else theoretically.
Fair enough, and I apologise for my earlier tone, but I did not start out asking you leading questions, I was simply correcting the statements you were making about the standard cosmology, for the benefit of everyone. It started in post #31, where your "contradiction" is based in your own misunderstandings of the theory you are arguing against. You were proposing a contradiction that doesn't actually exist, and my pointing that out was not a question.
You even acknowledged, in the next post, that I was correct in the context of the standard model, and then you posted a link to a web article that actually states that this supposed contradiction was cleared up when we discovered the universe was accelerating, and calculated how much energy would be required - it accounted for the difference between the visible mass and the mass required for critical density. Simple. A flat, open universe.
Next, in post #52 I had to correct you, once again, when you stated the assumptions required for a (Big-Bang) universe with no centre. None of those assumptions are required for a universe with no centre, whatever type of universe it is. Again, this was not a question, it was a statement. Yet again you were misrepresenting the theory you are arguing against.
In your reply to me, you completely went off topic, as all your arguments were against aspects of Big-Bang theory that are not a pre-requisite for the universe having no centre. You were just intent on having a go at the theory in general and seemed to have completely lost sight of the fact that the discussion is about the reason we think there is no centre to the universe. At the end of your post, you even agreed that the one assumption of the theory that
is required for the universe to have no centre was the only part we have observational evidence for, homogeneity and isotropy!
From then on, it was a battle to get you to understand how the things you were saying were not the reason we think the universe has no centre, to stop you confusing other readers of this thread with your misconceived objections. You might have objections to the Big-Bang model, but they are not the reason why we think the universe has no centre.
The assumptions of homogeneity and isotropy are the reasons we think the universe has no centre. Your idea for a universe is neither homogeneous or isotropic, which is why you need two extra sets of boundary conditions to describe it, making it far more complicated than the standard cosmology.