Who says we need to appear to be at the center of the expanding universe? No idea what you're talking about here, because in GR every point in the universe is equally valid as the center.
Well the problem here is becoming obvious. You have a far too limited exposure to information. You simply only read things related to your pet view and have no idea what alternatives are or show. I have not recovered the original paper from which my comment was based but here is an extract and the paper title. Below that is a study that invalidates the raisin bread or ballon view of the expanding universe. This supports my own view of appearing at the center due to extinction theory. Perhaps you should consider stop trying to pretend to be an expert in relativity and go study other views ***************** Paper Extract ************************ IS THE EARTH THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE? Abstract: Varshnim Y.P.: 1976, Astrophys.Space Sci., 43, 3. It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: Namely, that the earth is the center of the Universe. ******************************************************* http://www.utc.edu/Faculty/LingJun-Wang/IsotropyOfRedshift.pdf
I haven't bothered to do the analysis properly but that paper seems to be doing some pretty dodgy things. The major deal-breaker is that he seems to be assuming that there exists some kind of singularity in the centre of the universe at the location of the Big Bang. What the heck? Perhaps I am misinterpreting what he is saying, but the conclusion in particular alludes to this which, if this is really what he is saying, implies the author is deeply misinformed regarding the theory of an expanding universe. Also disturbing is the fact that he seems to be only using special relativity to analyse the problem, when cosmological expansion is inherently a phenomena of general relativity, even if you assume it is only flat space that is expanding. It looks like he totally ignores the expansion of space itself and treats everything like it is just flying away from each other in a Minkowski background and then calculates the red-shift you would see from this. If this is true he is only invalidating this model he has concocted, not the regular expanding universe model. I don't do cosmology so perhaps I am wrong, but I can't say it looks too good. I am happy for someone to tell me I have missed some important point he makes though, since then I will learn something about cosmology.
Kurros: My general conclusion as well. While I am happy to look at alternatives to BB, in particular as to alternatives to the high red-shifts of quasars, and the anomalous high-red-shift quasars that appear to be in front of nearby galaxies, this paper is not it.
Let me repeat my position. I hold the illusion of being at the center of the universe is due to extinction theory. That is if you move in any direction you will continue to appear to be at the center. I'm not here to vouch for or debate why it appears to be the case but to point out tug-boat-annie didn't even understand the comment. I don't really believe GR has addressed this issue. It doesn't even correctly predict star movement around the galaxy which is why you have the hypothetical Dark Matter.
