Summations Only

People used to believe Man was made 'Poof,' just like in the bible, but Darwin showed us Man evolved slowly. People still believe the Universe was made 'Poof,' just like in the bible, but I say the Universe evolved only slowly...
...from a huge cloud of hydrogen that went critical in the center (rather like Sol, but on a different scale.) I'm saying the Universe is finite, and anything finite has a Center of Mass.
Naturally, because Pressures and Temperatures were greratest at the center, the center evolved fastest, and black holes would have appeareed there first, altering the situation from a place of Slow, Hot, Compression - to the Fast, Cold, Vacuum we see tonite.
At the center is a war-zone, completely dark and cold (any light or heat gets eaten) You'd have to be a black hole just to survive here. Contrast this with the Outside of this Gas-Cloud, still warm from the original compression, and still strongly reminiscent of the Original Cloud. This is totally peaceful and the expansion is at one (1) mile per hour. Completely un-evolved!
Going further in, a long way in, you'd recognise the Constellations etc. You'd be here. Here the evolution is greater, with Stars, and black holes. Here the expansion is very much faster too.
Well, that's how we got here. This is the Mable Theory. Mable is the Mother of All Black hoLEs, the black hole at the very center.
So here goes... Edited by Peter Lamont, : Wanted to add name of the Theory.

You need to describe the observational evidence that led you to these conclusions.

Ihope to explain the entire theory, bit by bit in this forum. Will you permit me? I agree with you - observational evidence is the very best. I read in wiki that anti-gravity doesn't exist, but gravity certainly does. It's Gravity that keeps the Moon orbiting Earth - not anti-gravity.

If you can demonstrate that your ideas are based upon observational evidence, or even that there is a theoretical basis, then I will promote your thread.

Observational Evidence...
There are two kinds of expansion, the first kind (1) Accelerates and then slows down, and the second kind (2) which starts slowly and then accelerates.The first kind (1) is Outward - an explosion, Big Bang?, popping seed-case, Solar Wind etc. An explosion begins with acceleration.The second kind (2) is Inward. Air nearing the nozzle of a Central-Vac will start slowly and then accelerate, losing pressure (expanding) as it enters the nozzle.Observe:- a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward Direction.A snowball that the kids just managed to push over the edge of the snowy bank accelerates as it expands on its way to Earth's Center of Mass.Observe:- a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward Direction.Each time a bird flaps its wing, it makes a (free) vortex. The outside of any such vortex turns only slowly but air caught up in this vortex will then accelerate, losing pressure and expanding on its way to the center.Observe:- a) the slow start b) the accelerating expansion and c) the Inward Direction.What is happening in the three (3) examples above is:The Expansion 'et al' is being pulled (hence the acceleration) by an ongoing (and seemingly increasing) attractive force, emminating from an 'All Relative' Central Point.This allows me to say that ANY accelerating expansion is Inward.In 1998 they found that the expansion of the Observable was accelerating. I can only conclude that we are not 'going out' but 'going in' to the Center of Mass of the Universe, whatever is there.

By observations I meant information you might gather using telescopes, spectroscopes, blink comparators and so forth. I, too, have observed lint accelerating toward my vacuum cleaner, but that has nothing to do with cosmology.

I was really talking about the subject of 'Accelerating Expansion' the kind the Observable Universe is currently engaged in. I find it difficult to believe that you missed this.I maintain that we are going 'in' not 'out'. I thought I had shown that!Sure, this is 'backyard' Physics, but the same laws apply to backyard Physics as apply to Astronomy. I am surprised that you would object to that. Sometimes the best way to show something is by comparisons to every-day occurances, rather than any high-flown waffling. Something else - Anti-Gravity doesn't exist, according to Wiki. Dark Energy is nothing more than Anti-Gravity, and dressing it up doesn't make it real.Ask yourself, please, if you believe the Universe is run by Gravity or Anti-Gravity? Where does Gravity run out? It doesn't according to Newton - it's Universal. I don't know.. Maybe this Forum is not for me...

Hi Peter,What convinces you the universe is finite and has a center? What data says the center is dark and cold? What measurements yielded an expansion rate of 1 mph closer to the center and a much faster rate out by us? If you provide some cosmological data supporting your claims then I will promote your thread.

You have completely misunderstood me. I maintain that in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) the rate of expansion is slow and that increases further in.Of course the Universe is finite. One second after your Big Bang, the Universe could not have been more than 400 million miles across, even travelling at the speed of light. That's a finite distance, is it not? So how do you go from 'finite' to 'infinite'? Is it something that happens fast, or perhaps only very slowly?The CBR is the densest part of the Universe - it's where we find Star Nurseries, for example. Do you think the densest part of the Universe is expanding fastest? Or could it be just sitting there, the CBR, as it is in my Universe? Which possibility seems more likely to you?I don't even think you read my 'Observed Evidence'. Just because it doesn't involve telescopes doesn't make it valueless. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall, who-ever you are.Something I've noticed = Old people don't like this theory. Young people are 'glad I came'.

Hi Peter,I'm sorry you feel like you're talking to a brick wall, but we're not going to modify the thread proposal requirements just for you. When you can provide some supporting evidence for your claims then I can consider promoting your thread.You might want to check your understanding of the CBR. Calling it "the densest part of the universe" strongly implies you have no idea.

You said, 'If you can provide Observational Evidence in support of your theory, I will promote your thread. You have ignored it! You didn't mention 'telescopes etc.'I did that in my 'Observed Evidence' piece. All you could do was laugh at it. You won't read what I write, you don't like my Physics, i can't seem to get anywhere in this forum.So I'll leave it to you. to keep your promise - or else let me go.

Thread copied here from the The black hole at the center of the Universe. thread in the Proposed New Topics
forum.Note: I will promote one of your topics here...and want you to consider this your test topic. All of the arguments in all of your failed PNTs can be brought up and discussed here...but im watching to see how you respond when people challenge your beliefs and unsupported assumptions. Please use this topic wisely and dont ask for any more to be promoted should you not get the answers you want here.Edited by AdminPhat, : explanation

Here we go, Peter. Prepare for many people to laugh at you...but be patient and listen to their arguments and how they challenge you. Be humble in the face of laughter you may learn something.

The CBR is distributed throughout space. It is not located some distance away from any point, and accordingly the idea that some location is 'further in' the CBR is completely without meaning. How old are you? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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.