Relativity and Cosmology

1. Where did you get this quote from?

2. Were you ever exposed to the so-called "Balloon Analogy"?

Here, take a look.

There has always been a fringe facet to mainstream science called "The Anthropocentric View", which takes the vast universe and nature in general, as creations, 'meant' to serve the existence of man.

It was finally abolished in the early nineteen century, although with many attempts to revive it, from mystical or religious points of view.

Also see reference to the so called "Anthropic Principle", which takes in our observation on nature, considerable account, of our limitations to grasp, anything beyond our given knowledge and data processing capability, into our overall view, concerning observation in general.

A good book to tackle these issues from both philosophical and scientific points of view, is Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker".

It's late for me so I have not viewed your post thoroughly but as I always enjoy yuor entries I assure you that I will when time allows.

In the meanwhile, I took the quote from a statement posed in the original question.

Come now Yuval. One must read them all. Through all the little bits.

cr3

Admittedly, as much as I try to deny it, my memory is not as all that. You cannot really expect me, at 54, to recall everything said here, to the letter.

I'm lucky to remember where I put my keys last, especially, out of my appartment...

I remarked to coworker that reads SCI-AM religiously, that we haven't got the TOE yet, we have yet to completely understand quantum physics, and now were rushing ahead to explain multi-verses. Walk before you can crawl!

I assume that this has something to do with the most fundamental force in our known Universe - "Publish or Perish."

It must have been that "Publish or Perish", to give rise to the notorious 'bacteria from mars' (and Clinton's blabber about it), exactly as the 'we are in the center of the universe' in explanation to Hubble's red-shift initial findings.

Hi CR3.

"The best models say those sources were only meters apart then, but today they are around 90 billion light years (ly) apart, 45 billion ly each way, with us in the center."

I think you quoted from some previous post of mine. Read in context, this simply said that we are in the center of our observable universe. We have no information indicating we are in the center of the Universe - in fact the 'best models' today say that there is no center of the Universe, because it is either infinite or it is closed and finite, yet unbounded like the surface of a sphere, just it's a 4-d sphere.

Jorrie

Thank you so much.

And you are correct regarding the extraction of text. The "observable universe" statement, although seeming a bit redundant or rhetorical, does in fact, clear the statement nicely.

However, now I have to spend a week swishing your last statement around in my fishbowl!

obliged,

cr3

As I understand it, we are at the center of the visible universe. It continues beyond our ability to see, but our visual limit is 45B in any direction. Tom C.

Yes, "observable universe". Next time I'll read all the latest posts before I bark off a response.

Hi guitarhunter.

'Visible' and 'observable' here mean more or less the same thing anyway.

Jorrie

Hey Jorrie,

After the grilling you've gotten here, wanna join us physics jocks at the Jacuzzi for a Texas-size ribeye and a few drinks 'on the house?' You da man!

Hi -e. Sounds great. When/where?

I guess the equivalent of your 'Texas size ribeye' will be a 'Blue Bull steak' in my valley. The Blue Bulls are our provincial rugby team here in Pretoria and it gave a name to the biggest, meanest steak in town.

So if I can't come that-a-way, maybe you can join a few engineers this side for a Blue Bull and a few Black Labels (that's beer over here).

Jorrie