center of universe

copypasta, maybe i find answers here.

when i was a kid, i was reading carl sagans "cosmos". one thing is bothering me since, and i would appreciate if some1 xplains here what i concluded wrong.

first fact: universe is spreading. in our point of view, we're at center, cause everything is going away from us. but it's cause outer regions are moving faster, inner slower, so in every point of view you can see everything is moving away. so we can't say where is center of universe. ok.

2nd fact: scientist wanted to proove theory of relativity by making atomic clock and putting it into voyager 1. so they expected time shifting as ship speed was raising. they did get time difference readings, but results were totally different than things they calculated. ok.

i am wandering: wtf, i dunno if no1 was tryin to calculate time shifts changes after voyager turned around (jupiter? saturn? don't remember) and put 2 vectors together, and conclude how much this ship went SLOWER or FASTER than earth in that moment, and calculate which way center of universe is?

>>12
"all matter must have initially been at one point"
According to big band theory this is correct, the universe was at one point in time and space, a singularity.
True.

"accelerated away from that point during the big bang"
Again correct.
Not true. That's the entire point, and that's the non-sequitur.
Every point in the universe is that point, and nothing is accelerating away from a single point.

If we take your unimaginative pseudoscientific balloon universe the 3rd dimension would take the role of time, in the real universe however the 4th dimension is time and the moment time started, assuming it did "start", was the moment everything accelerated away from each other, the big bang.
Dimensions of space and dimension of time may be analogous in some contexts, but not in this one.
The balloon analogy has two dimensions of space (the surface of the balloon) and one of time, like our universe has three dimensions of space and one of time.

The balloon analogy is classic and widely acknowledged to be helpful, if not perfect. If you want to call it pseudoscientific, I suggest you take it up with every mainstream physicist in the world.

You should have said "what do you mean by point? Do you mean a point in space or a point in time and space?".
We're talking about finding the center of the universe, so do you really want to now move the goalposts and pretend you were talking about a single point in time?
Because the grown-ups have already established there is no point in space that's ``the center'' to be found except at the singularity, where it's trivially the whole universe.

Basically, you're full of shit and a sore loser.