"» Fabio «" wrote in message ...
Hi all.
I've a very strange idea about universal structure.
I think that the 3d space on which we live is the surface of a 4 dimensional
sphere.
So.. the 3d space in which we live is "finite" (and not infinite) and
ipotetically flying throught the space to a specifical direction we will
back to the starting point.
So the universe have should not have a "center".. or really the center is
located in the center of the 4d sphere that we cannot notice because it's in
a other dimension. (this can explain why no one have found the center of the
universe from which the "big bang" exploded)
This 4d sphere is expanding! so two 3d points on his surface will notice
that their distance is growing, though their angolar distance is the same.
(this can explain why all the galaxies we see are going far from us)
Finally.. can happen that the light of one star will travel around this 4d
sphere in billion of years.. and so in the sky we can see also the light of
our galaxy billions of years ago. Or if you don't like this theory, you can
suppose that the 4d sphere is expanding so quick, that in "one second" his
circumference grow more than 300000 km. (and because no one can pass the
speed of the light, no one will be able to circum-navigate this 4d sphere
coming back to the starting point)

This is just my simple idea, I would like to ask you if there is any
sperimental proof that my theory is obviously wrong.
Thank you very much

Fabio

PS: a simpler way of explaning my idea is to think to a very little 2d
creature on the 2d surface of a very big 3d expanding sphere (an huge
inflating baloon)


A reasonable man knows that relativity is from that primitive era when
the scale of the cosmos in terms of galaxieswas not yetknown.

Any man with reasonable intelligence would recognise immediately that
your "every valid point is the center of the universe" is just an
exotic offshoot and progression of Albert's stellar circumpolar
universe,in itself it looks as dumb today as geocentricity is.

Amazing that not one person spots it even as it relates to galaxies
and stellar rotation around the galactic center,it should have brought
the relativistic epoch to a close in 1923 but almost a century later
we find that thinking like yours prevails (no offense intended).

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

"There are stars everywhere, so that the density of matter, although
very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the average everywhere the
same. In other words: However far we might travel through space, we
should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars of
approximately the same kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter
theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre
in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed
outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should
diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an
infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a
finite island in the infinite ocean of space."

If you wish to remain looking that bad then be my guest but I assure
you that you would be a complete numbskull to dismiss the notion of
galaxies as Albert did ,he has the excuse in 1920 that galaxies have
yet to be discovered,you have none.