Summations Only

Why must the barycenter be the densest point in any finite system? The barycenter for the Virgo supercluster, the galactic cluster we belong to, is found in empty space and is not the densest point in the galactic supercluster.

There is no such thing as the highest average in your system. There is only the average.Perhaps we can use a teeter totter to help illustrate this. If you have two people of equal weight at an equal distance from the fulcrum of a teeter totter you can balance out the system, in effect putting the barycenter at the fulcrum. So where is most of the mass in the system? At the ends of the plank, not at the barycenter. Where is the "average density" found? At the fulcrum. That is not what the cosmic microwave background shows. Instead, matter and energy were spread out almost uniformly. The small fluctuations from perfect uniformity were also spread out all over the place, as you can see here:Cosmic microwave background - WikipediaIf, as you claim, there is a center to the universe and it was the most dense then we would expect to see that signal in this data. It isn't there. Instead, we see nearly the same level of energy coming from all directions, exactly what we would expect to see from an early universe where matter was evenly distributed.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Nope, the majority of the weight is a the ends of the plank, not at the fulcrum.

The argument seems to be that there had to be a black hole at the center of the universe because the most dense point in any finite system must be at the barycenter. I was using a teeter totter as an analogy showing that this just isn't so. We could use real world examples like binary star systems as another example. We could use two figure skaters holding on to each other in a spin as another example.This "average density" and the even funnier "highest average density" nonsense is just a way to ignore the obvious.

There is no such thing as the highest average density. There is only the average density. The initial expansion was extreme, and the subsequent acceleration has been slow in comparison. This picture speaks a thousand words: The size of the cone shows us the size of the universe, and as you can see the size increased very quickly at the beginning. You are confusing gravity and expansion. One is not the other.The fact of the matter is that space is expanding everywhere. From our vantage point, everything in the universe appears to be moving away from us (excluding galaxies speeding towards us because of gravitational attraction). But guess what? You will observe the very same thing no matter where you are in the universe. Space is not expanding from a central point. It is expanding everywhere at the same rate.The balloon analogy is often used to explain this. Imagine if we took our three dimensional universe and chopped it down to two dimensions. We then make this two dimensional universe the surface of a balloon. As we inflate the balloon all points move apart from one another, and there is no center of expansion on the 2D surface of the balloon. That is how expansion works.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

I think this does not explain the observations. The observations are consistent with a much larger universe just 300,000 years (when the CMB was produced) after the singularity first started expanding. This requires a much faster expansion rate than what we see now. Your claims appear to be contradicted by the facts.

Based on what evidence?

Based on what evidence? Where do you show it? Be specific.

He denounced a lambda that was equal to the force of gravity for no other purpose than to prop up a static universe.

How can you claim that when the space between any two points is increasing?

Let's see how this evidence holds up . . . None of those apply to the type of expansion we are talking about. The expansion of our universe is the expansion of the space itself. In your examples, we have the movement of matter within space. Those are two very different things. That has nothing to do with the expansion of our universe. The expansion of our universe is not driven by areas of different pressure within a planetary atmosphere. This has nothing to do with the expansion of our universe. Then we would expect to see a blueshift. We don't. We see the exact opposite which is a redshift. Also, we see time dilation in heavily redshifted type Ia supernovae, exactly what we would expect to see if they were moving away from us at high speed. We also see that redshift is consistent no matter where we look which is not what we would expect if we were in a vortex.

All of the evidence indicates that the universe is expanding. That is what you need to understand. What we can see is distant stars, and what we see with distant stars is a redshift. We also see time dilation in heavily redshifted type Ia supernovae which can only be explained by a difference in velocity between us and the type Ia supernovae caused by expansion.Everything is moving away from us. The universe is expanding. That is nonsense. Expansion is outward, by definition. When you expand a balloon do you let air out of it so that it shrinks? If you say that your waist line is expanding are you saying that your waist size is getting smaller? That is exactly what is happening which is what we would expect to see in an expanding universe. Red shift is not caused by a loss of pressure. Red shift is due to a difference in velocity.A central vac is not analogous to our universe. It doesn't answer them at all. You have yet to explain the most basic observations:1. Why are galaxies redshifted, and does the redshift increase with distance?2. What produced the CMB?3. Why are distant type Ia supernovae going through time dilation?Your vacuum analogy doesn't answer any of this.

It would appear that thousands of astrophysicists do think about it, and think about it quite well. You claims are nothing more than denial at this point.

If that were so then we would not see a consistent increase in redshift with distance. The galaxies on the same side of the vortex as us and the same distance from the center of rotation would be moving the same speed and would not be redshifted. Galaxies on the same side as us but behind us in the rotation would be catching up to us and blueshifted. We would see a whole array of redshifted and blueshifted galaxies with really no relation to distance. That is not what we see.Instead, we see a dead on correlation between redshift and distance, exactly what we should see in a galaxy without a vortex and even expansion everywhere. The evidence supports and expanding universe, and falsifies your vortex ideas.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

If we were falling into a black hole then the stars opposite of the black hole would be blue shifted. They aren't. Galaxies are moving away from us, not towards us or a towards a central portion of the universe.The evidence contradicts your claims. Our universe is not expanding due to a loss in air pressure. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever read. If galaxies are converging on the nozzle then they would be blue shifted. They aren't. They are the exact opposite. They are red shifted.