Re: The Cosmological Principle
- From: Sam Wormley <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 19:10:25 GMT
oriel36 wrote:
Thomas Farrsby wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:LVmYe.357539$_o.295746@xxxxxxxxxxxx
The Cosmological Principle
APM Survey fo a 30 deg. swath of the sky, showing about 1 million galaxies out to a distance of almost 2 billion light years. http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990047b.jpg
After the introduction of General Relativity a number of scientists, including Einstein, tried to apply the new gravitational dynamics to the universe as a whole. At the time this required an assumption about how the matter in the universe was distributed. The simplest assumption to make is that if you viewed the contents of the universe with sufficiently poor vision, it would appear roughly the same everywhere and in every direction. That is, the matter in the universe is homogeneous and isotropic when averaged over very large scales. This is called the Cosmological Principle. This assumption is being tested continuously as we actually observe the distribution of galaxies on ever larger scales. The accompanying picture shows how uniform the distribution of measured galaxies is over a 30° swath of the sky. In addition the cosmic microwave background radiation, the remnant heat from the Big Bang, has a temperature which is highly uniform over the entire sky. This fact strongly supports the notion that the gas which emitted this radiation long ago was very uniformly distributed.
These two ideas form the entire theoretical basis for Big Bang cosmology and lead to very specific predictions for observable properties of the universe. An overview of the Big Bang Model is presented in a set of companion pages.
See: ref: http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html
This is nothing new. What's your point?
This is an exercise in Newtonian/relativistic thumbsucking and the contrapunctal opposite of the principles of astronomy.
So,how did Newton look at the remaining observable stars -
"Cor. 2. And since these stars are liable to no sensible parallax from the annual motion of the earth, they can have no force, because of their immense distance, to produce any sensible effect in our system. Not to mention that the fixed stars, every where promiscuously dispersed in the heavens, by their contrary actions destroy their mutual actions, by Prop. LXX, Book I."[Principia]
In spite of this,Albert decided that Newton give a center to the observable universe -
"This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in the infinite ocean of space."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html
Now,any person with common sense would see the poor guy in 1920 ,in an era before stellar islands known as galaxies were observed,has just rejected the notion of galaxies or what amounts to the same thing; a new axis of rotation to incorporate heliocentric motion into.
No for the last 80 years you have been following pure homocentric garbage and even managing to turn Copernicus into a homocentrist -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle
You are an embarrassing bunch with your 'sunrises and sunsets' after half a millenia since the exquisite reasoning behind Copernican heliocentricity emerged.
Interesting: http://www.google.com/search?q=oriel36+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be .
- References:
- The Cosmological Principle
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: The Cosmological Principle
- From: oriel36
- The Cosmological Principle
- Prev by Date: Re: registax
- Next by Date: Re: registax
- Previous by thread: Re: The Cosmological Principle
- Next by thread: Re: The Cosmological Principle
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading