The Universe Is Not Expanding - Mass Density

[onepower]

I was looking at some astronomy pictures the other day and had a thought.

If the universe is expanding (big bang theory) this would be considered radiant energy/matter. Radiant meaning to proceed or move from a center outward. If this were true then logically the density or distribution of matter in the universe should follow the inverse square law. That is the mass density nearest the center should be the most dense and becoming increasingly less dense as we move away from the center. However if we look at the mass distribution of the universe it is quite uniform which all but disqualifies the big bang expanding universe as a valid theory.

Apparently I'm not the only one who seems to think this...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y969fUR_Vtg
The Universe Is Not Expanding - Mass Density

https://www.sci.news/astronomy/science-universe-not-expanding-01940.html
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests

I mean it's simple textbook physics, the area with the highest mass density/distribution must be in the direction of the source of said mass according to the inverse square law. Likewise any point furthest from the source must have the lowest mass density... so why is the mass density so uniform?.

AC

[Kator01]

Hello Onepower,


this is from a german website, critics about physics


https://www-klaus--gebler-de.translate.goog/41165.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp


Big Bang was invented by a Jesuit...it is just a religious fiction. Einstein was not happy with it.
Why did he not object ?


Mike

[onepower]

Kator01

this is from a german website, critics about physics
https://www-klaus--gebler-de.translate.goog/41165.html?_x_tr_sch=http&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
Big Bang was invented by a Jesuit...it is just a religious fiction. Einstein was not happy with it.
Why did he not object ?

Indeed, I also found the big bang expanding universe theory full of fallacies and just another variation of creationism.

The first fallacy is a form of circular reasoning supposing something went bang and expanded outward with no valid explanation of where the something came from in the first place. The second fallacy is supposing anyone can claim something came from nothing and still expect to have any credibility. This is true because logically we cannot define "nothing" as an absence of everything then claim something came said nothing.

AC

[sm0ky2]

The universe is not expanding.
In fact, all of the galaxies are not even moving away from us or from one another.


There are areas in which masses ARE moving apart
And other areas in which masses are moving closer together


The most coherent mathematical formula describes a quadrapolar universe
With 4 points of convergence and 4 areas of divergence

[sm0ky2]

Also, we look from our perspective, and see back in time in every direction
Not just in the one direction their "big bang" is supposed to have originated.