Cosmological expansion vs. "stretching" From a relativistic point of view, how can we tell the difference between a universe that’s expanding (outward) from a singularity versus one that is being sucked INTO a singularity? In the case of the latter, it seems that those objects closer (than us) to the singularity would be accelerating more rapidly and thus be red-shifted. Also, we would be accelerating more rapidly toward the singularity than those that are farther from it, so those would appear to be red-shifted too. The physicists from whom I’ve been able to elicit a response counter with, “This can’t be true because the universe has no center.” I understand that that the universe has no three-dimensional center. But I don’t see why a singularity of DESTINY is different from a singularity of ORIGIN. In other words, if the conventionally accepted singularity (the origin) doesn’t represent a 3D center of the universe then why would the one we’re (putatively) falling INTO have to represent a 3D center? In such a scenario, my uses of “closer,” “farther,” “toward,” and “away” refer not to 3D space but to some higher order construct where at least one other dimension (e.g., time) obfuscates the “position” of the singularity. In fact, one might even consider that, relativistically speaking, “expansion” is not a meaningful term; the universe is, more correctly, experiencing STRETCH; whether that is an outward stretch or an inward stretch would seem difficult to determine. The expansion of the 2D surface of a balloon is often used as an analogy for the 3D expansion of the universe. I envision instead the 2D surface of a vortex, whereby the direction representing “down” (e.g., down into a whirlpool) represents a 4th (or higher) dimension not perceived by us as “space.” Notably, the stretching apart of galaxies as they accelerate into this putative singularity would account for the new data that appear to indicate acceleration of the universal “expansion,” right? And, if we apply Occam’s razor to this data, the current explanation doesn't hold much water. The “dark energy” required to fuel such an acceleration seems much more contrived and convoluted than would a descent into a singularity, especially in the lack of any (other) evidence for this energy.