Recent content by curioushuman

Let me put this in a larger context. The notion of the universe being isotropic was one of Einstein's premises that led to his discoveries about the nature of the universe. That's a pretty good reason to believe that the universe is isotropic. The fact that galaxies seem to be moving away...

Hmm, "not exactly" isotropic. "Not completely" isotropic. Isotrophy either is a feature of the universe or is not a feature of the universe. I think we better drop it. You're missing my whole point.

I might be missing your point, but things look different because the content in my field of view is different. You could say the same about looking left and looking right. I can't draw any inferences about the nature of the universe because the two are different. It's just different content...

I'm working with the premise that the real universe is completely isotropic. To what extent is it non-isotropic?

So, in my scenario, C would be unable to see A?

But we distinguish galaxies at far flung distances and even give them names. We could substitute "galaxies" for "points" if you like. These objects are distinguishable.

From B's perspective, A and C are at opposite ends of a 10 billion light-year straight line with B at the center (as I set this up). From A's perspective, either: 1) A, B and C are simply not colinear, or 2) A, B and C are colinear with A at the center. The reason A would have to be at the...

In an isotropic universe, every observer sees themself as being at the center. But consider 3 observers, A, B, and C who are 5 billion light years apart and all lined-up in a straight line with B at the center. B knows this to be true because A is in one direction and C is in exactly the...

Go away Naty1!

Chronos, "There are 'tons' of stars and galaxies we will never see because they left our cosmological horizon before they ignited." When you say "they" left before they were ignited, and I take it you mean the gas clouds from which those stars and galaxies ignited. If so, those pre-star...

Okay, so it's #5) "Anything of an age less the age of our universe at the time the CMB was produced (which would include every star or gas cloud ever created in the history of our universe) would have to be physically interposed between us and the CMB." Marcus, you added the qualification...

Thanks for going through that, Marcus. We are in agreement on my points #1-3. By "earliest" I just meant "way near the beginning" and 380K is fine. I didn't know that the CMB got turned into microwaves due to being stretched so much (I thought they just came out of the "soup" that way), but...

No one here seems to understand the question I have regarding this matter. Let me try putting it in a more formal form: The agreed upon "fact" part: 1) The CMB shows how our universe was configured at its earliest moment in time, before stars began to form. Just as visible light is emitted...

Naty1, About the contradiction, yes, that was intentional on my part. That's my conundrum. They both can't be true. That is, I don't understand how it's possible for us to see the CMB radiation IF (and everyone seems to accept it as a reasonable suggestion) we can see only a portion of the...

Hi mfb, Everything you say makes perfect sense to me. To cast my issue a different way, when I see CMB (with the help of a special viewing instrument), the electromagnetic radiation entering my eyes (or my instruments "eyes") departed from its source close to 13 billion years ago. Stars and...