I think the universe is actually static

Popular opinion holds that there is no centre of the universe. How does that conform to big bang theory?

All galaxies except the ones that are very close, are red-shifted and hence moving away from us. Allegedly. And yet this doesn't mean that we're at the centre of the universe? Oh right, forgot about the "balloon theory". Oh, please.

A couple of links:

"In 1929 Edwin Hubble announced that he had measured the speed of galaxies at different distances from us, and had discovered that the farther they were, the faster they were receding. This might suggest that we are at the centre of the expanding universe, but in fact if the universe is expanding uniformly according to Hubble's law, then it will appear to do so from any vantage point.

If we see a galaxy B receding from us at 10,000 km/s, an alien in galaxy B will see our galaxy A receding from it at 10,000 km/s in the opposite direction. Another galaxy C twice as far away in the same direction as B will be seen by us as receding at 20,000 km/s. The alien will see it receding at 10,000 km/s:

A B C
From A 0 km/s 10,000 km/s 20,000 km/s
From B -10,000 km/s 0 km/s 10,000 km/s"

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

"The problem here is that, whether we're talking about a balloon surface or our real universe, an expansion would not be detectable to inhabitants of that universe."

"But the need for any such Big Bang would disappear if we dissociated the red shift from galaxy motion. Suppose that the lengthening of the wavelength somehow "just happens" as light travels."

http://www.donaldsauter.com/big-bang.htm

I mean, seriously, piss off.

Oh, and check this out:



There are no "redshifts", let alone blueshifts.

.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

in effect, seeing self in good company, there!







so, could you name any noteworthy alternative affects?

When they asked the Dalai Lama what he thought about the Big Bang Theory, He said a most interesting thing. He asked the askers to ask them self's something. "Consider (he said) the possibility of many big bangs!" (Of course, this my interpretation)

The red shift is visible as the lunar eclipse.

The reason why the moon goes red during the lunar eclipse is that the ambient color of the surrounding universe without the color of the sun's light is red.

I believe i am first to postulate this, and there is no other answer as Rayleigh scattering is incorrect for many reasons, the most obvious one being that there is no red light emanating form the earth's surface.

So, when one keeps finding new answers based on the same old theory, it makes sense to accept that same old theory.

It is difficult to think in terms of a four-dimensional shape to our universe. Luckily I had read the book 'flatland' by Edwin Abbot Abbot, before I had considered the big bang - so thinking in 4 dimensions was easy for me. The book 'flatland' is essential to understanding the shape of the universe.

In addition, the term big bang, I have calculated to be somewhat incorrect. There is just not enough time and chance available for the universe to explode and then coagulate into nice neat spinning shapes. My calculations necessitate a 'big unwind' - meaning that the universe must have been very similar in structure to what it is now.

So the Universe has the structure of an organism more than a random bunch of dust.

The simplest explanation being the speed with which the moon is receding from the earth when reverse calculated gives an answer that suggests the moon separated from the earth just after the start of the universe. So there is no time for a 'bang', just s steady neat unwinding - more like a plant evolving from a seed than a pile of dust coagulating with just gravity.

In addition, this postulates that 'spin' is a fifth force that must have been structured in opposition to gravity - That is, spin is 'dark energy. We know dark energy as the centrifugal force. Without spin as a fundamental force, the universe would have long since collapsed into a single giant black hole, or be dispersed as complete entropy.

;-j

My book explains all this and more

http://www.flight-light-and-spin.com/

*trying to sound as humble as possible*
I have calculated that this treatise is the most profound book since the new testament.

Nah. Doesn't sound humble at all. And THAT is the nastiest paradox i have ever had to solve.