Dear vonroach:

"vonroach" wrote in message
...
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?

All points are equidistant from the center... *now*.

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?

Yes.

`Big Bang' as removed the center?

'Big Bang' is the center, yes.

What ia
all the CRR, remnants of the center?

If you mean CMBR, then it is removed from the center by 270,000 years (or
light years).

Then was it something resembling
a `singularity'?

Not on this side of the Big Bang, no. Mass/energy spread more-or-less
uniformly across the newly minted spacetime. No longer 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.?

Any detector made of mass. Any location. Any velocity allowed to mass.
All will have a net recession from the detector's position.

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.

Not sure where you are trying to go here... Are you?

David A. Smith