- #1

- 134

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

The cosmological principled as applied to modern cosmology and the standard model concerns only the spatial part of spacetime, this has been criticized based on Minkowski's predicated non-separability of spacetime, that led(among other things) to the "perfect cosmological principle" that applies to both space and time and that was used in the flawed stationary model of Hoyle,Bondi and Gold.

So everybody is pretty confident that, no matter what relativity might appear to indicate ,the cosmological principle only affects the spatial dimensions.

That's why I would like for someone to help me solve this false paradox: When we observe the universe we inevitably not only observe the spatial dimension but (specially at high redshifts) due to the finite nature of light we see a look-back time, we are actually perceiving spacetime, not just space. so if we expect to observe ever more and more homogeneity with distance we a re actually expecting to watch more and more homogeneity the farther in time we look back . But paradoxically this leads to the perfect cosmological principle which is forbidden by a universe with a finite age.

Surely there is a trap in this reasoning, but I can't see it right now.

Any hint would be apreciated.

So everybody is pretty confident that, no matter what relativity might appear to indicate ,the cosmological principle only affects the spatial dimensions.

That's why I would like for someone to help me solve this false paradox: When we observe the universe we inevitably not only observe the spatial dimension but (specially at high redshifts) due to the finite nature of light we see a look-back time, we are actually perceiving spacetime, not just space. so if we expect to observe ever more and more homogeneity with distance we a re actually expecting to watch more and more homogeneity the farther in time we look back . But paradoxically this leads to the perfect cosmological principle which is forbidden by a universe with a finite age.

Surely there is a trap in this reasoning, but I can't see it right now.

Any hint would be apreciated.