Calling All Cosmologists

I concur, I think that both possibilities are correct. However, my favorite theory is that is finite and it's contained within some other *thing* (substitute *thing* for whatever you will)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

obviously you didn't understand what i said. i did not say that cosmology is fact and not arguable, it is. i implied that science is the least controversial topic of beliefs and how accurately they portray the reality around us. there is no other explanation that even comes close to describing as much as what our current cosmology theories do.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Absolutely right. I retract the word "demands".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

context = yes
volume = no
I would contend that the context can be described by the term "still/void".
aguy2

 

Yes, I've heard it; I've told it. It's a semi-joke; a play on words.

Since we, humans as observers, can only see so far into space, we are literally at the center of the observable Universe. I use it as a gag, citing how ancient humans thought we were at the center of the Universe, then how we learned about solar systems and galaxies and galactic clusters... and finally we're back to being the center of the Universe. It's true, but it's meaningless. Every other point in the Universe is equally the center.

Isotropic? Yeah, more or less. Other than some massive gravitational forces (the Great Attractor comes to mind) there is no 'flow' in space. As far as we can tell, movements of galaxies and galactic clusters are not coordinated, other than in the Universal expansion. As far as we can tell, on a large scale, the Universe is pretty much the same 'that way' as 'this way'.

Homogenous? Yeah, more or less. Depends on the scale one views. Within the solar system, it's pretty lumpy. Within our spiral arm of the galaxy, it's fairly homogenous. In our galaxy, if one averages the volumes and masses, it's very homogenous... but then, that is the function of 'averaging', isn't it? Further out, we find galaxies and galactic clusters in a fairly homogenous array... not perfectly spaced out, but fairly well and evenly scattered. Then there are those monstrous voids in space... but the voids are evenly scattered, too.

 

Earth is not in the center of our own solar system. Our solar system is not close to the enter of our galaxy. Our galaxy does not seem to be at the center of the local cluster.

The Virgo Cluster (containing our galaxy) is known to be moving at great speed toward The Great Attractor.

You need not think about more complex theories. Considering the above makes it stupid to think we are at the center of the universe.

 

http://www.physics.nmt.edu/~dynamo/PJRX/Results.html
If the animation of figure 3, is taken as a crude representation of the current observable universe, I would say that our streaming cluster to be a little left of center.
aguy2

 

A Guy2: When I checked that URlL, it did not seem to be related to cosmology.

 

To my knowledge no one else is modeling the visible universe as a pulse/jet, and the illustrated example was the best I could find. Physicists are very conservative by nature and seem to want to hold on to isometric expansion for as long as possible.
aguy2

 

"The universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger than we can *possibly* imagine."

 

A Guy2: There seems to be some gross misunderstanding here. Your post included the following commnet relating to some graphics at a site to which you provided a URL.

I went to the site and looked at the graphics. The site had the following to say about figure 3 (List format instead of quote to make it easier to read).

• Figure 3: Figure 3 shows the side view showing the laminar flow ahead of the pulsed jet in an Ω = 0 static fluid field with a hydrogen electrolysis pulse of 0.1 s duration (ANIMATE ). The jet velocity is 8.3 cm/s, therefore the height of the sheet of bubbles is ~ 0.8 cm. The large-port diameter of 4.8 cm is delineated in image (B) by the vertical white lines. The 0.5 s line in image (B) shows the equivalent position of the delayed electrolysis pulses exhibited in Figs. 10 and 13. The 0.0 s and 0.5 s lines in image (C) show the equivalent extent of the extended electrolysis pulse exhibited in Fig. 11, where the sheet of bubbles is ~ 4.2 cm in height.

Pulsed jets measured in centimeters can hardly relate to cosmology.

 

How would you propose we physically test cosmological conditions; build a 1:1 scale model? Nobody is testing models of cosmological pulse/jets; that hydro/pulse experiment was the closest thing I could find.
aguy2