Originally Posted By: Momos
1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.

I don't have any stars inside the shell, the stars are the shell. [/quote]

2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.

It doesn't show light speed as far as I know.

Instead it is theorized the expansion of space itself is stretching any lightwave on its way. So a lightwave emitted 7 billion years ago (at a time the universe was half ist current size) will be "stretched" by a factor of 2, so the apparent velocity will doubled.
The redshift by expanding space is exceeding the redshift by doppler-effect for distant objects.

Actually in my space #3 theory matter has been decellerating from the moment of the big bang, so at halfway through the age of the universe the size of my univese is far more than half it's eventual size. And when I say "size of the universe" I mean the area of the mass that has been dispersed in said universe.

Your hypothesis arises the following questions:
a) some objects are still decelerating, for unknown reasons.
b) some objects are still accelerating, for unknown reasons.

All objects in my universe are presently decellerating, at a point they will all be accellerating, but the visible evidence at this point does not support that.

c) objects (including ourself) are capable of velocities much higher then lightspeed. (Since we measure distant objects moving away faster then lightspeed in any direction we have to conclude, in your hypothesis. that in fact we are moving away from the "inside shell" with several times c, the "outside shell" is faster yet.

No where in my theory do I geive any measure of speed besides decelerating.

d) Apparently there has to be some mismatch between "local physic" (objects can't move faster then light in our vicinity) and "large scale physics" (our galaxy is moving faster then light)
e) Postulating the possibility of higher velocities then c, also means changing the interactions of other forces - and yet distant galaxies seem to consist of the same elements as our.

You are alone in your universe now, keep that crap outta my universe.

3) The Big-Bang-Theory postulates an expansion of space. At the beginning there was almost no space (so to speak), the big bang happend not in some distant point of the universe, but *everywhere* at once.

I say space was allready there, infinate, matter dispersed around space does not make up space in my universe.

Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.

The farter away they are the bigger the rate of decelleration is, do not confuse that with acceleration, it is only apparent acceleration, and I only say that so you guys can visulaize this.

This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?

Actually I would say we are closer to the inside or outside edge of the shell as eveidensed byt eh "hole in the universe" measurement that was taken. It's around here somewhere.

4) The microwave background radiation is thought of beeing emitted 400.000 years after the big bang, when the temperature decreased to ~3000K and electrons and protons recombined.
This radiation was emitted *everywhere* in the universe and expansion of space has stretched the wave length of this 3000K-light to the current temperature of 3K.
This radiation is isotrop.

In you hypothesis this radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?

400,000 years after the big band my universe shell would have been still expanding. I guess the radiationhad to come from somewhere so it stands to reason that it came from all matter so it could be coming from the opposite side of my universes shell which would be 800,000 years worth of travel away from us at the time of it's beginning to radiate.
What? I've a drawing I want here. How I do that?