New cosmology model without a Big Bang

I can't find answers to my questions elsewhere ... maybe here.
Why do we see all galaxies moving away from us? If we say the observable universe's age is limited by the radius of our view, isn't this heliocentric? Aren't we putting ourselves at the center of the universe? Shouldn't all the galaxies on one side of be moving with us as we all expand away from the true center of the big bang?
If my understanding is correct, the only way that all teh galaxies would seem to be moving away is if we are only observing a very small percentage of the total universe. Our observable pocket could be just a fraction of a percent of the true size of the cosmos.
No?

"Except there is no "true center" of the big bang. Or, more accurately, every point in space is the center of the big bang."
"Each dot moves away from every other dot."I cannot grasp the "every point is the center" proposition.
I do understand that everything we see is part of the same "bang." It's not like a chemical explosion where heat and flame propagate outwards from an ignition point. It's more like "every point in space" IS the ignition point. But there still should be an epicenter. There should still be a point that it essentially motionless.
Everything between us and that point should appear to be moving slower than everything on the opposite side. One direction of our visible universe should be red shifted less than the other direction. Even with the balloon model ... the parts of the balloon expand faster than those closest to the mouth piece.What if we ARE on the surface of a balloon that is expanding outwards from a central point? just as an example:
Our part of the balloon skin could be 50 billion light years thick. At the center of the balloon is an empty space of unimaginable "empty" where dark energy has built to extreme levels. What we think of as the "dark ages of the Big Bang" is the build up time needed for dark energy to bloom into a new Big Bang. There would be a constant renewal of "universes" as the expansion of the previous universe "pulls" the center to required energy levels.It's just a thought experiment I've had that intrigues me.

You cannot just say, "this is not possible." Well, you can, but it's an empty statement.
Theoretical mathematics postulates ... what are they up to, 11 dimensions?
So, just because we can't imagine the dimensions doesn't mean they can't or don't exist.
Maybe we aren't ON the surface of the balloon's skin, we could be IN the skin.

Actually, I am not questioning the metaphor of the balloon. I am questioning the idea that an explosion, even one as massive and incomprehensible as the Big Bang, has to expand from a central point.
I am no mathematician. This is due to an easy upbringing. I was allowed to be lazy and to let my intelligence stroll along. I love my parents, but they didn't push me when I needed pushing.
Anyway, I have a great interest in physics and the universe, but it's based in science fiction, not science ability.
So, my curiosity comes from an over active imagination. I've seen many articles about the math of the Big Bang, the Theory of Relativity and the attempts to unify everything ... which I read with a mixture of wonder, interest and confusion.But everyone always bases everything on the presumption of the Balloon Metaphor. I've never seen anyone working on an explosion model. Even in the act of exploding, if we inhabit a small enough region of that explosion, the observations would be what we see. But the scales used to determine the age of the Universe, etc. would be completely different than what is now used.I am not disagreeing with the current models ... just postulating a different one.

"You kinda need to be a bit of a mathematician to get to postulate your own model. Otherwise, why would your's be any better or more interesting than the following one?"I am a technical instructor. One thing I've learned from my students ... sometimes, the most perceptive questions come from the least experienced person. Since I don't know all the existing theories, maybe mine comes from a new direction.I am not vain enough to believe that, but if I don't put it out there, I'll never know.For example. I have no problem believing that space is infinite. I do not believe space and time popped into existence with the Big Bang. One cannot travel back in time. Time is decay and once decayed, it cannot be revisited. Thus, time was moving right along in an infinite space before the universe as we know it began expanding.

Not to change the subject, 'cause I don't ... but I don't have a button allowing me to reply with a quote. My reply button is "without a quote" only.Nevermind ... this was answered on another thread ... I'm good.Edited by mikechell, : No reason given.