A sphere in 3 dimensional space is a curved 2 dimensional space, with a center that is off the 2 dimensional surface.

Last I read, no spatial curvature has been detected in the universe that we can observe.

So, are you saying that the observed universe is a 3 dimensional space curved in time?

And, we really are not seeing our universe in "all times" up to 400,000 years ago. We are seeing the universe in the "now" that is "here", but not any other time in any other place. We *infer* other times and other places based on the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Those theories explain how a finite speed of light that cannot be measured to change in any direction will distort our perceptions of time and distance when there is a differential in speed between the observer and what is observed that approaches the speed of light. The question in my mind is whether that mathematical inference process is properly done. As currently done, it __requires__ assumptions that we have 20 times the matter/energy that we can find with our best observations, so far, on order to match our observations.

And, there really is no proof that there is nothing and there cannot be anything outside our __calculated__ universe radius. I use the word "calculated" to avoid the circular logic that the definition of the word means there is nothing else. All we can say is that we do not expect to be able to observe anything beyond where we calculate that space is receding from us at the speed of light, carrying all light-emitting things with it so that their light will never reach us. With the BBT, we even calculate that there is more beyond that radius than we can find inside that radius.

If we were falling into a black hole, and already inside the event horizon, wouldn't we also see that the light from objects that fell in after us was being stretched away from us, to the point where things too far behind us would be emitting light that could no longer ever reach us? And, similarly, wouldn't things emitting light in front of us be accelerating even faster than us, such that, at some distance ahead, the light would seem to have infinite wave length to us, thus being undetectable by us?

Yes, I know you *think* that falling into a black hole *must *somehow reach an end point because things must be getting infinitely small. But, that is an expected perception of an outside viewer. If as you say, the BBT says we are getting bigger with expansion of our space, wouldn't we also get smaller if our space was getting smaller? Wouldn't that make it look like things not getting smaller as fast as us seem to be expanding?

For that matter, if we were falling into a black hole and inside the event horizon, would we even be able to measure distance in the direction we are falling? Doesn't Special Relativity shorten everything to zero depth that is traveling at speed c relative to us? So, what about an hypothesis that has another dimension that we cannot measure at all, along which we are traveling at the local speed of light? That would be the type of unrecognized acceleration that I mentioned suspecting, earlier. How would that affect our perceptions of the observed x,y,z dimensions and t?