Recent content by Calimero

You can google "wmap" and look at the picture of CMB radiation to see how amazingly universe is uniform. There are tiny fluctuations, roughly 1 part in 100 000, which served as seeds for later structure formation.

No, cosmology operates on premise of homogeneity and isotropy, meaning that average density of sufficiently big volume is the same throughout the universe.

No, it is not a geodesic of spacetime for sure.

Nobody can't tell you that, there are some lower bound estimates which tells that hole thing must have some considerably larger volume then OU (hate to dig for exact number right now), but then again it can be infinite, which means that it is infinitely larger then OU.

It is not that hard to understand at all. Consider Earth's surface. If it was perfectly round, then there is no special point, all points are equal, and there is no centre.

If they are meaningless, which I agree, why people here often use them as explanation for some phenomena, or even worse, try to interpret them as physical phenomena itselves?

Well, thank you Mark for that novel info you are providing me with. First, when subject like this is discussed, cosmological constant is left aside. We may be discussing universe 10 billion years ago when total amount of CC was negligible. Second, if you are aiming for that 2012 Nobel Prize...

Nice you brought it up. What do you think would happen with galaxy left at proper cosmological distance at rest with respect to us? Universe (space) is still expanding, but expansion is decelerating due to the gravity. Should that galaxy just go on with expanding space, or maybe do something else?

Sure it is. But those are just coordinates. Since we are fundamentally incapable to detect motion through space (people tryied that, but failed miserably), it doesn't make sense at all to make physical distinguish between motion through space as opposed to motion with space. Difference is only...

First it doesn't offer any proofs. It is just analogy to help you better visualize metric expansion, which is obviously doing well even for skeptics like you, 'cause you justifiably conclude that all points are equivalent centers. I have no idea what you mean with inner and outter edges. But...

Well, he is saying what i was trying to say in number of threads, but people here are persistent in lack of their pedagogical skills. He is saying that behavior of a test particle left at rest w.r. to us at cosmological distance is determined with acceleration of universe. In a universe in which...

Hi Phinds. Nice work. I would suggest just one thing. You say: Which is not quite accurate. Here is the quote from wikipedia article "metric expansion of space" where it is nicely put:

I have to go, will respond later. Hope we can continue this discussion.

Well, in most aspects I agree, but then again you can't say that galaxies themselves are not receding as a physical interpretation.

I think that you should be much more careful with that kind of interpretation. Galaxies are separating due to the inertia, that is due to the fact that they were doing so in the past. As a result space between them is expanding.