Is our universe stationary ?

I proposed already that there might be a way to tell if this was the case at all and went so far to state that IF "our car" was moving there might be a way we can tell. I even went so far as to make the next deduction that under the right conditions we could not only determine if it is moving but we could calculate the velocity and the diameter of the orbit our "car" makes in it's path around a much larger more dense "car".The problem is that it would require a very long period of time being able to monitor every remote point at the outside edge of our expanding pocket of space time. A period of time likely to exceed that which our species will survive. That’s why this is a hypothetical IF. You have to read the original post in this thread to see why I propose the hypothetical IF.Lets say by chance we are able in 1,000 years to monitor every star in our universe using a supercomputer and a large scale array with dishes on our Moon and maybe other planets. Capturing all the data from every star at the most remote regions of space on the farthest edges of our pocket of space time and recording the results for another 10,000-100,000 years I submit that we could find an area where stars disappear from view for no apparent reason. If our pocket of space time does have a velocity AND that velocity is much greater then the velocity of the stars and galaxies inside of it then a star or solar system that ends up on a trajectory that is 180 degrees opposite the front of our STC’s trajectory could in theory break free and be left behind. If there is no velocity of our STC at all then everything will expand relatively uniformly as it has been doing all along. However if there is velocity of our STC but it is not much greater than a star or galaxy then I submit that to us it would look like somebody on the moon throwing a flashlight into the air. Gravity will pull that flashlight back. If this is the case then at the outermost edges of our universe the red shift may have slightly different properties for certain stars that we can’t explain in other ways. The other observable phenomenon would be the new matter crashing more frequently on the side of our STC that is at the front of our orbital path.So there are three phenomenon that could prove our STC is moving. Stars disappearing at the outer edge, new stars or solar systems coming crashing in more from one direction then another, or stars appearing to return back towards us. This is all very hypothetical and most likely un-provable but that does not mean that it could not be true.I suppose another possible way to determine if it is possible or likely that we are moving would be to take a sphere that is loosely joined and apply centrifugal and centripetal forces and see what sort of shapes arises. If we take a point singularity that is stationary and watch it expand I don’t know about you closed minded folks but us open-minded folks might think that matter, stars, solar systems, and galaxies would be distributed more evenly in a spherical shape. If however the point singularity was not stationary and there were external forces of friction and resistance occurring then I might think the shape would not be spherical but maybe more oval. Not saying the oval shape to our universe is proof of our universe in motion, just that the needle in our haystack may have just became easier to find. IF we concentrated our efforts at monitoring the outer most edges of our known universe for any of the 3 phenonmem I predict might be observable along the equator of our STC I think we would increase the likelihood of finding the front and back of our STC’s trajectory.Now back to your flies in a car. I submit the difference in your analogy is that you have the windows closed and painted. That stops stuff from coming in and going out. If there were no windows then you would have flies in your teeth. So rather then paint the closed windows lets put the car on ice at night in total darkness with no headlights. Other then the wind in your face you might not know you were moving until you stepped out of the car or hit a tree. The real problem with my theory and hypothesis is that I not only believe that our STC has its own orbit I also believe it has an imaginary axis so finding the needle in a haystack is tougher when the car is spinning in circles across an ocean of ice in the middle of cloudy moonless night.

I do not know based on a stellar map where the Milky Way is situated in our known universe so there may be one edge much closer to us then another. I was referring to the fact that from our planet in any direction the farthest stars in any direction would be closer to the edge of our STC. You seem to understand we are not talking about an edge to The Universe which is good, because we are not. We are talking about the outer edge of our POST, pocket of space time, a pocket of space time that was directly created as the result of what we call our big bang. This assumption is made because as the universe is expanding the outer most edge carries with it part of the same POST that we exist in. There are points a billion light years in every direction past this edge that may contain a void that our POST has not expanded into yet. It is this region between our POST and what is outside our POST that I call the outermost edge of our STC or POST. The stars and galaxies that lie near this edge are the farthest away from our planet in any given direction. Some may be further, some may be closer, but they are all the farthest away from us in a specific direction from us.As far as seeing back 14B that does not automatically imply our ability to find the front and back of our trajectory without first recording and analyzing the data. This hypothetical event may only happen once a decade or once a century and we do not have enough recorded data on every portion of the outermost edge of our POST to make any decisions or deductions at this point. A point I was making is that it could easily take 100,000 or a million years of data capture and analysis before we could find out IF any of the three hypothetical events that I propose may be observable at all.

There are stellar cartography maps that attempt to provide Cartesian coordinates to the stars and galaxies we have been able to map out so far. The have been done by measuring radiation, light, and other visible and non-visible wavelengths. They approximate the extent of our big bang’s expansion to look something like an oval or oblong spherical shape.A) Big bang whatever it was began to expand
B) Big bang continued to expand
C) You and I have let others measure and map its expanse
D) They draw a picture
E) We look at picture
F) Picture has an approximate edge or boundaryIs this the edge of the matter that was once contained in our point singularity or only the edge of that part of the original matter we are able to measure or detect? Not having first hand access to the actual data I must assume that what they have mapped out is what they believe to be the matter that was at one time contained in our big bang singularity or they would not have been so quick to make it an oval. The fact that others have placed a boundary on what they have mapped out and it is not a perfect sphere leads me more towards our ability to measure the extent of our big bangs expansion and not our inability to measure the extent of our big bang expansion.So I submit that farther does mean older and YES what we see is looking far back in time but relative to our time right now that puts these older objects at the edge of the POST created by our big bang.