On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 18:08:15 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004 07:13:41 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" N:
dlzc1 D:cox wrote:

It is evidence that the Universe had a center, and where/when that
center
was to be expected to be located.

Where is this center?

The "where" was any particular "here".

A point?

What has` when' got to do with where the center
you postulate was located.

Because any particular *now* is not at the center. Only the Big Bang is at
the center. Expansion has removed the center from the "contents" of the
Universe.

The center is in the past? `Big Bang' as removed the center? What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center? Then was it something resembling
a `singularity'? All pretty nebulous wouldn't you say?

CBR seems to be rather uniform in all
directions. There are finite geographies that do not have `centers'.
If `red shift' is being correctly interpreted, everything appears to
be receding from earth's point of view.

Or from the point of view of any mass.

Then you use `mass' as synonymous with human mass.? A rather teensy
weensy part of the mass in the Universe by any estimate. Not even
really significant in the estimated 5% that we know a little about.

David A. Smith