Recent content by Rip

The universe I am imagining would not look the same for arbitrary combinations of position and inertial frame (that is impossible), it would be a universe in expansion that would only look the same for combinations of position and inertial frame such that the immediate environment of the...

Thanks for your correction. A monotonic dependence of relative velocity as a function of distance seems to be all that is required. Thus I suspect that either expansion or contraction are required to avoid high energy collisions in a hypothetical universe that looked roughly the same regardless...

Yes of course, you are right. But on a cosmological scale, that is not very a big relative velocity, or is it? In any case do you agree that a universe that looked the same regardless of the inertial reference frame of the observer would be necessarily in expansion? My reasoning is that...

Is there evidence backing up that statement? We shouldn't be taking everything in BB theory as a proven fact. Why should our inertial frame be the special one? Is it by coincidence? Isn't that aspect of BB theory very anti-Copernican and anthropocentric? I know BB is the theory we have...

You are right, there is a leap of logic. It is aesthetically pleasing to imagine a universe that has the same symmetries as the underlying theory, but that need not be the case. So if we accept as an hypothesis that regardless of the chosen inertial reference frame, the observed statistical...

What do you think of this argument? Lets suppose an infinite and eternal universe that is homogenous on a large scale. Since there is no privileged inertial reference frame, regardless of the chosen inertial reference frame, the observed statistical velocity distribution of matter is nearly...

Wallace: I never said my theory is conformally related to LCDM or anything to that effect. Thank you for pointing out the spatial flatness vs space-time flatness thing, I will look into that.

Garth has commented on the spatial flatness issue.

Wallace: I forgot to say thank you again. You are helping me a lot to refine my ideas. Specially with the problem with the deccelerating era. I was not even aware of that! Garth: Thank you!

Space tiger: Nope it is unpublished. I tried a few years ago. The referee got really angry and basically said it as all junk, but did not at all explain why it was so. People get really angry when you tell them they have been wrong all along. Wallace: I have read a bit about those other...

Wallace: Thank you again for providing me with some feedback. I really appreciate it. > But the point is that if this was the case then the 'future pointing' clusters would > always have been contracting, and the 'past-pointing' clusters would always have been > moving away from us...

Azael: That is why in my paper I do not talk about antimatter, I talk about matter with past-pointing 4-velocity. It is a proven fact that in electrodynamics matter with past-pointing 4-velocity can not be distinguished from matter with the opposite charge and positive mass (antimatter), but...

Wallace: I guess that in my model, if you can call it that, (it is more a vague idea than a model) future-pointing clusters are contracting and being repelled by past-pointing clusters, and that should give you different relative speeds and accelerations in different regions of space, so I would...

Oooops. Wallace: sorry I got it the other way around, it is for larger redshifts that the deceleratoin occurs, so I have no explanaition for it.

Thanks Thank you very much for your reply. I was not aware of the so called decellerating era, and haven't though of it to any extent, but my intuition is that our neighbourhood is composed of future-pointing matter just as we are and at longer distances past-ponting matter might be found, so...