The cosmological principle 11

 

Supplement

 

Many conclusions consistent with the concept presented here could be reached as early as in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. This is not an exaggeration. Another thing is that such a model would certainly not be preferred. Even in the early twentieth century, it was common to view, solely on the basis of intuition, that the universe was static and infinite. Significantly, this "infinity" was quite small (...) because it was not known that there are hundreds of billions of other galaxies outside of our galaxy. Nevertheless, the infinite, static universe was obvious then.

At that time, knowledge about the universe was too poor.  In addition, knowledge about the micro world was only just beginning to develop. Although even in the time of Galileo it was possible to go in the direction indicated here (the cosmological principle), and Giordano Bruno fantasized in the spirit of this principle (and ended badly), even in Einstein's time it was definitely too early. For this reason, he introduced a cosmological constant into the equations of general relativity, but he rejected it as soon as it turned out that the universe was expanding. He called it (this constant introduction) his biggest mistake. According to other scientists, if not all, even today, it was a mistake to "deny" even though the universe is still not static (…). Who was right? In my humble opinion, however, Einstein was right. Well, changing your mental habits is an extremely slow process, straight through a generation, if it doesn't take ages.

By the way, I would like to add from myself that the return to the cosmological constant in recent times, despite the fact that the Universe is actually un-static, proves, contrary to appearances, the objective existence of a deep crisis in cosmology. Yes, but thanks to this,   dark energy was "discovered"... As a reminder, today cosmology is uncritically totally based on general relativity, even taking into account the cosmological constant. Today, this theory (even without the cosmological constant) should be supplemented a bit today, and maybe even modified. "Is it not desecrate of holiness?" Every theory should pass the test of falsification. I am convinced that Einstein would not have gone in a direction he himself rejected (and rightly so). Now, well, the drowning man grabs the razor (Ockham's razor here). [The real crisis leads to real progress.]

But let's go back to the universe. In the final conclusion of this first article, on the basis of the cosmological principle, we can even say that the Universe is a fully self-consistent over- object, and the tempo of its evolution is determined by global time. The development of the Universe in each of its elements, even on the smallest scale, is the same, because the basic laws of nature do not depend on the scale. We will return to this conclusion in later articles. Anyway, it will be strengthened by further arguments.

We came to far-reaching conclusions; we basically built the foundations of a coherent model of the universe. And we needed so little for that. Everything now depends on the results of astronomical observations. If they do not confirm the correctness of the model that we are going to build (on the basis of the proportionality of speed and distance, as a conclusion from the cosmological principle), then either another solution should be sought, consistent with the cosmological principle, or this principle is not correct. However, I would leave this conclusion for the end; if only in connection with the Noether theorem (see above).

The center of the universe does not exist

According to today's views, we imagine the space of the Universe as a "balloon" of Riemann's space with positive curvature. The universe of matter is as if on the surface of this balloon. Thanks to this approach, there is no preferred point, no center. But that is not the only possible way to get rid of this special point (to consistence with the cosmological principle).

One can reason differently - what we did here, starting from the postulate that the observed (and observable) Universe is everything, it is expanding, and at the beginning of this expansion it was a relatively small entity. Simply, “Once upon a time we were all together and made something very small” - it was full space. There is no space outside the universe. Only the relative motion of objects of cosmological significance enlarges space, and this increases with the universal relative motion of objects, even inertia. We came to quite surprising conclusions. Will the observational facts confirm them? Will they be confirmed by arguments that will appear later in further articles?

A reader who was impressed by reading my book wrote to Me.* It appears from the letter that he is an educated man (though not a physicist). I also discovered, not for the first time, thanks to the comments on my posts, that the biggest problem is the conclusion, already in the first article on the cosmological principle, that the observable universe is the All, that there is no space outside the universe. This is the most difficult for everyone to digest, despite the fact that it follows explicitly from the cosmological principle.

In response to the letter, I wrote, among other things: The fact that the universe has no center is due to the cosmological principle. There are no privileged points in any way. There is no center, but also there are no points constituting the surface of the "sphere" - the Universe. Anyway, the existence of such a surface directly proves the existence of a center ... There is no surface sphere separating the Universe from the supposedly existing remaining space. So the universe cannot be something sunken. In an infinite void. All points belonging to the Universe are absolutely equiponderant to each other. Therefore, space outside the Universe (of limited size) does not exist. It is not a matter of imagination, but a specific, unknown today, topology. It is even obvious, at least logical. Yet, it is not possible to break through the barrier of the imperative of habitual thinking, and this applies to everyone.

Today's cosmology is in trouble precisely because it has violated the cosmological principle. It is in the light of this principle that every point in the Universe (including an observer) is its center, and at the same time the geometric locus of the points (positions) furthest from it is a kind of sphere.

In an article devoted to the topology of the universe, I cited an ancient sentence: God is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and the perimeter is nowhere. Here God, being a sphere, presents the sky with himself - he is the Universe (also an infinite set of points - observers ...), and not what is understood today as God. What a beautiful allegory. The Universe is also a being with a specific topology: it cannot be a sphere because it has no center - due to the full equivalence of all points. So there is no outer surface (of a sphere) that would constitute something alien, would be a violation of harmony, and above all a violation of the cosmological principle. Intuition often fails. In this situation, one cannot speak of a circuit (it is nowhere to be found). What an accurate approach to the topology of the universe. This is reminiscent of Spinoza's pantheism. By the way: How did the ancients know about this?

*) "The universe of dual gravity" in Polish

 

The cosmological principle 10

The dimensions of the universe; the space of the universe; the cosmological principle and the principle of conservation of angular momentum.

Let us return to our hypothesis that the speed of cosmological objects is proportional to the distance. Along with this, the speed of expansion cannot be greater than c - hence, regardless of proportionality, it follows that the size of the universe is limited.

Based on this finding, is it possible to determine the supposed size of the universe? Well, you can, due to the existence of the upper limit of velocity (c), which is the speed of expansion. It will be very easy if it turns out that the radial velocity is indeed proportional to the distance - that was our priority hypothesis. However, this proportionality must first be detected observationally. We have already written this proportionality in post 7: v / r = const. The size of the universe (R) would correspond to the speed of light (c). To compute these dimensions, all you have to do is ... find the value of the proportionality coefficient ("const"). One should refer to observation. This is a very important finding. One could say that this concept is falsifiable.

And now the question: Why should more distant objects they moves away faster? This is an essential question, but it causes confusing. Who asked about it? Only children, I guess. Now, the fact of expanding means that once, in the distant past, the whole universe was relatively small. Supposedly at some point there was chaos. In it, the speed of individual elements of this whole was varied. Due to inertia (yes, just inertia), their motion is preserved. The faster ones are farther away today, and the fastest ones, almost where only light can reach. I guess I answered that question. This approach is also justified by the flatness of the Universe's space (Euclidean space). Why flatness? Therefore, because it is about the real (and inertial) movement of objects. So it is not about some kind of pushing, or about the result of some primordial pressure from nothingness of singularity. By whom? Ask theologians.

Will the model adopted today and in force answer the question that opens this reflection with the same ease?

So what defines the space of the Universe? Is it the state of its curvature, or is it just the relative inertial motion of objects, causing the universe to take up more and more space? I am inclined to view matters in such a way. And what is beyond the material everything? I guess some indefinability, or just (we should be consequent) space outside the Universe does not exist. The space of the Universe increases with the increase of distance between any specific objects (having cosmological significance). The space is created by their movement. Outside of the material universe, space does not exist. Let me even say that given the observation the Universe is everything, it is the full and only being. Have I exaggerated (judging by current perceptions)? I do not think so.

And where is the center of the universe, that is, the place of the Explosion? There is no problem with this if the observable universe is and has always been everything, both material and spatial. All points, all today's positions of bodies together constitute this point of the Explosion, because "we were all together once".

You can also look at it differently. If the universe were an object embedded in a larger (infinite?) Space, it would have a surface (like the surface of a sphere). So it would be possible to determine of the center. In addition, the points belonging to this surface would be highlighted points, and this would be contrary to the cosmological principle.

Here we come across the issue of the topology of the universe. Also this will be discussed. As a reward for your patience.

One hundred years ago, the proposition that the speed of light is invariant, was a revolutionary heuristics and the basis of special relativity. [It doesn't matter whether Einstein knew about the Michelson-Morley experiment or not.] After all, the cosmological principle could not provide the context for research in the field of electromagnetism. Today, after a hundred years, the invariance of c is a conclusion from the cosmological principle (provided that the concept proposed in this paper is applied). The very existence of the upper limit of the (relative) velocity results from the essence of electromagnetism. [Note that all particles (except for neutrinos) participate in the electromagnetic force, so their local speed is not greater than the speed of light. We will deal with neutrinos in an essay devoted to them, solving the problem of their "otherness".]

I have noticed this in my book on the special theory of relativity (An elementary introduction to the Special Theory of Relativity, a bit ... differently). And what does this cosmology have to do with the electromagnetic force (after all, it is about the speed of light)? Apparently, this interaction appeared just as the speed of the universe's expansion had stabilized. It is therefore a secondary thing. The "speed of light" is a relic of this special moment in the history of the universe. Summing up, it can be said that this speed is a relic of the time when the electromagnetic interaction appeared, as well as the moment when the expansion of the universe with today's features started. In this context, it may be justified to suppose that the velocity of the electromagnetic wave may be locally differentiated (even in a vacuum) due to inhomogeneous distribution of matter on a large scale. Is this a reasonable supposition? Is it right? This topic will be discussed in other articles.

And one more thing. According to Noether's theorem, the invariance of the fundamental laws of motion is related to the fulfillment of certain conservation laws. In particular, the invariance of the choice of direction in space is related to the conservation of angular momentum. The principle of conservation of angular momentum is universal, as experiment has shown. So there is complete symmetry with respect to the direction. What does this remind us? Of course, the cosmological principle. As you can see, the cosmological principle is not only a requirement of our cognitive intuition, not only a common-sense imperative. This is a direct conclusion from undoubtedly right and universal findings regarding the course of physical phenomena, findings based on an experiment and confirmed in all phenomena without exception. You can also the opposite. Well, the fulfillment of all these fundamental rights means the rightness of the cosmological principle, its confirmation. These rights are derived from it. This is saying something.

 

Hubble's law 2

 

The basis of measurements 

Indeed, distances from distant galaxies and their velocities must be measured. At the beginning of the 20th century, this issue was not considered, although measuring tools were already at the disposal of scientists. About a hundred years ago, everyone was convinced that the universe was infinite and static. Besides, they did not know that many of the nebulae previously discovered were galaxies like the Milky Way (our galaxy), very distant galaxies. Back then, there was no intellectual basis for measurements, was no motivation. It is obvious that even the model we built, based on the cosmological principle, would not matter. One more thing, everyone has been busy testing general relativity and building models of the universe from it - with great commitment.  To this day, this direction of interest has dominated, despite the fact that at least fifty years ago science found itself in an impasse (and is still there today). [Cosmological constant  and dark energy is a sign of a struggle for survival. Scientists do not know that the balloon of the Riemann Universe (I think) has already burst.

But it was already possible to measure. Speed ​​measurement was not as problematic (Doppler Effect), while distance measurement was challenging. It was already clear that very bright stars such as "white giants" could be used to measure distances, taking into account their brightness variation with distance. They can be identified on the basis of their characteristic spectra. It is enough to rely on the fact that visual brightness is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. However, for comparison purposes, another method had to be found. In 1912 (Henriette Leavitt) it was discovered that Cepheid stars pulsate with a frequency that depends on their absolute brightness (pulsation cycle period: 1-50 days). Cepheids are also giant stars. They were discovered in 1784 (John Goodricke). It is enough to know the pulsation period - to determine the absolute brightness. Comparing it with the visual brightness (magnitude) makes it possible to determine the distance of a given star.

 

Continued in the next article.

Hubble's law 1

 

Preface

Many scientists treat the cosmological principle as a secondary matter. Here in this work, this principle is the basis of all cosmological thinking. Now is the time to research whether our conclusions, based on this principle, agree (or do not conflict) with the observation.

Remember that in this work the cosmological principle has been taken as a basic assumption (a priori) as an axiom. About 500 years ago, at the time of Copernicus, the thought that we are not the center of the universe was a breakthrough, a revolution. Copernicus himself, and later many other philosophers, did not understand the essence of the principle. Even Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for his views, did not realize its essence. But today the cosmological principle seems so clear (and "obvious") that even its violation by many hypotheses and theories is not a problem... [It is important that this violation can be presented mathematically - it is immediately acceptable as a scientific thing par excellence, regardless of the category: False - true. The existence of a mathematical notation has become the sole criterion of science. Should it be so?] Recently, the cosmological principle has ceased to be a criterion for assessing the correctness of many hypotheses and even theories. This is not their advantage. The cosmological principle has become a marginal thing, far from what attracts the attention of scientists who obviously deal with "serious" matters. Soon only the historians of science will deal with the cosmological principle. Is it right? After all, based on this principle as a starting point, we obtained interesting and scientifically important results, and we were also able to predict the results of the observations. What matters is that our expectations can be refuted empirically (they are falsifiable). This is the real criterion of science.

Today, the movements of the galaxies (in the Newtonian sense) are not being considered. As you know, in line with the common (and binding) position, we are talking about the expansion of space. In this context, the cosmological principle is not so important. Is it right? I am asking again, referring to the article on the speed of expansion (No. 8). After all, the existence of a speed that does not depend on system of reference - c, even results from a principle. In my opinion, compliance with the cosmological principle should be the criterion for assessing cosmological hypotheses and theories.

The main result of adopting the cosmological principle with regard to the dynamics of objects of cosmological significance was, as we remember, the hypothesis that the relative velocities of galaxies are proportional to their mutual distances. We wrote it symbolically as follows:

v/r =const.

It's a kind of anticipation. Will scientific research confirm this? Is it possible to measure the constant that appears in the formula above? We see that we only need to (...) measure speeds and distances.

The cosmological principle 9

Are currently accepted views about the universe absolutely correct?

Is general relativity really the correct tool for describing the universe as a whole? On the one hand, we have a cosmological principle, and on the other hand, a model based on general relativity.  The cosmological principle defines the universe as nonlocal, and general relativity is a local theory. Today's vision of the Universe is based on the one hand on this theory, and on the other hand on the interpretation (not necessarily correct) of the results of observations.

Today, as is commonly believed, the expansion of the universe is not related to motion in the classical sense, but is the result of changes in the geometry of the universe (changes in curvature). Is it true? Suppose yes. If so, there is a possibility of "accelerated motion" because it is not about forces, but about the expansion of space. In this sense, the Newtonian (force) model is not relevant. [We remind you that according to the cosmological principle, the resultant force acting on any object of cosmological significance is equal to zero. This is consistent with the thesis that the relative motion of objects of cosmological significance is inertial (uniform) motion.] Although the cosmological principle allows for acceleration (if proportional to distance), doubts and questions arise immediately: What is the reason for the acceleration (if any)? Is it an "outward" acceleration although gravity acts in the opposite direction, although General Relativity only describes gravity attraction? [Here I am omitting the "cosmological constant" that Einstein added to his equation, and fourteen years later he gave it up when it became clear that the universe was not static.]

Suppose there is acceleration after all. The speed increases in proportion to time, and also, as previously assumed, in proportion to the distance - accelerated expansion. Under these conditions, the speed of the quasars should be very high. Is their speed greater than the speed detected in the observation (spectrum)? Not of course. But this would indicate that the universe is much smaller than we think. Is it testable? In this situation, is the speed of the galaxies really proportional to the distance (as we expected - see the formula in article 7)? Observation will decide. Wait patiently.

Regardless, the universe in quasar times was much smaller than today - then gravity (attraction), according to the cosmology based on general relativity, was much stronger than today - counteracting expansion (against outward acceleration) more strongly. Besides, where does this outward acceleration come from? Something's not right here.

So maybe the acceleration decreases with distance? If so, the acceleration of the nearest galaxies should be the greatest. But we do not state this. However, we know that the Andromeda Galaxy is even approaching us at a speed of about 300 km / h. We can see that this option is also unrealistic.

Perhaps the retard of movement of galaxies, decreases with time, but more and more with distance? If so, then the speed of the quasars should decrease very quickly, as opposed to the fact that they move very fast relative to us. So this option is also not remarkable. What if acceleration increases over time? So here with us it must be very high (not to mention speed). We do not detect it. In addition, currently, global gravity (which is supposed to inhibit expansion) is expected to be less than in the past when the universe was smaller (according to general relativity). Also this option is not realistic.

In conclusion, any option other than the expansion of the universe at a constant speed is problematic and even unacceptable. And yet scientists cling to the cosmology based on general relativity (they know no other option) and dream of describing the universe with the help of a cosmological constant that supposedly accelerates expansion (there was no other idea, and you have to move forward). Yet Albert Einstein called the cosmological constant his greatest mistake. In my humble opinion, contrary to today's beliefs, he was right. 

The cosmological principle 8

The cosmological principle and the speed of light

 

It is known that the speed of light does not depend on the system of reference (invariance). This invariance is a conceptual basis of the special theory of relativity. Light is an electromagnetic wave and the theory of relativity is based on electromagnetism. Is there any relationship between the speed of light and the expansion of the universe and the cosmological principle?

Based on the special theory of relativity, we know that there is an upper limit of speed - a material body cannot move faster than the limit speed. The speed of light is the limit. But it's not just about electromagnetism. It turns out that the speed of light is the upper limit of the speed of each particle, even if it does not participate in the electromagnetic interaction. Indeed, the matter must be approached from a broader perspective. "But why is this velocity also not dependent on the system of reference, why is it invariant?" [In special relativity it is only assumed that the speed of light is invariant (as a postulate). However, there is no answer to the question: "Why?"] We know that motion is relative - it is impossible to clearly define the speed of the body (due to the existence of different frames of reference). But the speed of light is absolute.

"Invariance of the speed of light" is a postulate, an assumption by Albert Einstein, not directly based on observational facts. However, the conclusions of the theory are confirmed by the experiment. But we still don't know "why the speed of light is invariant." Is it possible to explain invariance? We will soon see that it is.

In the previous article, we built a model (preferred in our eyes) in which the relative velocity of celestial bodies is proportional to the distance (in a set of various objects). According to this model, more distant objects move at a higher radial speed. But we already know that there is a maximum speed equal to the speed of light. Therefore, the speeds of the farthest objects should be close to the speed of light and cannot be greater than it (even equal).

What's the conclusion? It is very possible that the dimensions of the universe are limited. The boundary of the universe (horizon) is determined by an object that moves at the speed of light. Based on this, the speed of the expansion of the universe can be determined. It's the speed of light, of course. The size (radius) of the universe is obviously defined as the distance at which there are objects that move away at the speed of light. [It should be noted here that modern cosmology uses the concept of the tempo of expansion, which is defined by the Hubble factor H. This will be discussed later.]

This limiting speed (speed of expansion) does not depend on the direction of observation, that is, according to the cosmological principle. Thus, it is invariable - it does not depend on the system of reference, because regardless of the direction of observation - the same maximum speed. In summary, the speed of light does not depend on a system of reference, as it is the expansion speed of the universe. This is the secret of the existence of invariant speed. We have here confirmation of the validity of the cosmological principle. The speed of light is not relative, it is not local. Also, the universe as a whole is not local because it is all that exists (materially). [A local object is one whose location can be determined because there are other, external objects.]

The size of the universe ("radius") is determined by the distance of the most distant objects because their velocity tends to c. They represent matter that existed at a very early stage of expansion, about 15 billion years ago. Back then, the universe was very small, so it was auto-coordinated in terms of features and phenomena, and so it also expanded in any direction at the same speed c. It is acceptable that even today the universe is completely auto-coordinated. [So we have a cosmological principle. Here the circle closes.] It is obvious that you cannot see what was at the very beginning, even with the best telescopes. It is not possible. After all, in the first moments, there was no electromagnetic radiation (light). However, our model is in line with what we already see.

The opinion that there are objects faster than light - "they cannot be seen because they are beyond the horizon" is not the conclusion from the observation (for understandable reasons). There is no observational fact that confirms this opinion even indirectly. This judgment is based solely on the theory, or more precisely on the interpretation of general relativity. In the model of the universe built on this theory, light does not run in a straight line, but along geodetic lines - this gives the possibility of a speed greater than light. The idea that there are objects beyond the horizon defined by the speed of light is consistent with the inflation hypothesis. But that's not proof; it's just a hypothetical option, not necessarily the right one.

    For the sake of completeness, it is worth adding that there is an option of moving faster than light. But what would move like that? Perhaps some particles - rather not galaxies. 

The cosmological principle 7

 

Models of the universe consistent with the cosmological principle

Many models can be built, but here we will limit ourselves to a very simple, elementary model, although this particular model is very consistent with what is apparent from the observations. In my books I made more in-depth analysis. But that's enough for the rest of our discussion.

Here I am omitting views based models that are unacceptable to me, which I think are wrong. Among them, the LCDM (Lambda Cold Dark Matter) model is very popular today. I mentioned this at the end of Article 6. Lambda (Λ) is Einstein's "cosmological constant". He gave it up when it became clear that the universe was not static - Hubble's discovery in 1929. But today this constant is in fashion because it creates dark energy. However, in my opinion, dark energy does not exist. I described this in the article: "Horizontal Catastrophe B".  I do not accept at all a cosmology based on mathematical equations, based on general relativity. In my opinion, this theory as local does not fit the description of the universe that is not local.

But it is not everything. Let's summarize first. We have already talked about the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe, about the same properties of matter everywhere and of course about the same laws of nature everywhere. We spoke of the coordinated, concerted evolution of the entire universe, and then also of global time. It will soon turn out that, on the basis of our conclusions, we can also describe the cosmological motion of objects, the motion that determines the incessant change of the entire universe.

The question then arises: what conclusions can be drawn by observing the movement of distant galaxies? Is there a clear trend in their movement independent of the direction of observation? Although observation would do us a lot, at this point we will only think. Obviously it is a radial motion (near - far). Various movements can be considered (as long as they do not contradict the cosmological principle).

Is the averaged (statistically) speed zero? This is hard to accept as we have already concluded that the universe is changing - it is not static. If the universe is not static, then perhaps there is some mathematical relationship between the velocity of the galaxies and the distance (from us). Two options are preferred: accelerated (or retarded) motion and uniform motion (constant speed). If the motion is accelerated, it is a sign that every galaxy is affected by a force. In what direction? After all, there is no preferred direction (according to the cosmological principle). Looking at the same galaxy from two different points, we find that the directions of the force vectors are different. Thus, the direction of acceleration is not clear. This complicates our description a lot. In addition, according to the cosmological principle, there is no non-locally preferred direction of motion.

In this situation, it is worth checking the simpler option - uniform motion, since, according to the cosmological principle, the forces acting on each galaxy from all sides balance each other. [Even in the center of a massive sphere, gravity is reduced to zero according to Gauss's law.] This leads to the hypothesis that relative motion, with respect to any pair of objects, is uniform. [Everyone either gets closer or away.] And yet the speed is different for different distances (in a set of different objects). The farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it moves (at a constant speed). "Faster" and not slower, which would be absurd, because then the nearest galaxies would move very fast. And this observation does not confirm. In the simplest case, the speed is proportional to the distance, which means that a galaxy twice as far is moving twice as fast. This case is preferred because it is not the result of simultaneous action of different local factors. Again: the universe is non-local. We can put it briefly as follows:

v/r = const

Of course, the existence of proportions follows the cosmological principle (the simplest option). This is a hypothesis that, at this point, is not based on any observation. If the observation rejects this model, we will go back to the earlier, more complicated option.

    Interestingly, scientists did not consider this option, even though the cosmological principle was well known and even constituted an important criterion in cosmological research. The discovery made in 1929 (more on this later) did not change the attitude of scientists who, even to this day, sort of have forgotten the cosmological principle. Even after the publication of general relativity, Einstein did not think about this model when he tried to describe the universe. At that time, everyone was convinced that the universe was infinite and static. Therefore, the discovery of Hubble in 1929 took the scientific world by surprise. Hubble's empirical law confirms our hypothesis (about the proportionality of distance and velocity).

 

The cosmological principle 6

The universe is not infinite! The question of the speed of the passage of time.

The universe is limited both materially and spatially. What we see is the whole universe, not a part of it.

And time? Did he suddenly appear without existing before? If so, when did it appear? That sounds weird.

   The awareness of the spatial gradation (with distance) of the features of objects in relation to their evolutionary advancement, as well as the fact that the universe is isotropic, leads to the view that all celestial bodies have a common origin. And this despite that today the distances are really huge. Probably some time ago the entire universe was a very small and very dense thing. Additionally, this gradation of object features does not depend on the viewing direction. This suggests that the observable universe is all there is.

That's not all. There is nothing beyond the horizon, that is, the border of visibility. It is an absolute horizon that constitutes the border between existence and non-existence. The view I presented above is really rare today, even though it is quite logical. When we deal with background radiation, we get a real reinforcement of this view. However, such a view, in the cosmological context, requires the use of a rather specific topology when describing the universe.

As is well known, the only tool actually used to describe the universe is general relativity. Is it really justified? After all, this is a local theory, and the universe is not local. The results of the observations are decisive, not the theory, no matter how best. Interestingly, most of the observational results surprise scientists, yet they do not want to give up their mental routine.

In conclusion, it can be said that the universe is limited in its dimensions - it is not infinite.

This thesis is reinforced by the conclusion that in the distant past the universe was very small (the distance between celestial bodies was very small). Moreover, spatial infinity would deny the existence of evolution (both on a global and local scale, even in the smallest dimensions of elementary particles). There would also be no temporal reconciliation of properties and phenomena between all objects, no gradual evolution according to distance.

 

The most distant objects are quasars, although observational data point to something more distant that preceded the appearance of quasars - a faint glow, perhaps created by the first stars, even before larger-scale accumulation of matter began, about a billion years later.

The first stars appeared about two hundred million years after BB (what happened at the very beginning will be discussed later in another article). We do not see the beginning itself for both technical and fundamental reasons - so it is very possible that the properties of matter were different. After all, there was no electromagnetic radiation the existence of which allows observation. Indeed, evolution does exist, while "infinity" (and singularity) is just mathematics with no reference to real nature. These matters are dealt with differently today: mathematics is the starting point for all discussions and research. Is it right? I am not the first to raise doubts. But let's not get ahead of what is still ahead of us.

What about the passage of time? There is no doubt that it exists. But what does it look like from a cosmological point of view? Here is a way of thinking (one of those possible): When was time created? Contrary to appearances, there is no consensus on this matter. If evolution already exists, then is it possible that time is not limited - in both directions? And in this context: Can an evolutionary process go on forever? Was there also before the Great Beginning? According to many people, time did not exist then. In any case, it is difficult to accept "the existence of time ahead of time". It's hard to agree with that.

   And if evolution takes place (what we have already stated), when did it start? After all, it had to start sometime. When? Is it then also the time was created? Not necessarily.

If evolution takes place, what was the earliest state of matter? According to a fairly common opinion, time and space suddenly formed at the zero point (on the axis of numbers). But does it make sense? What was before? Is this a really naive question? And one more question: will time once formed still exist and flow endlessly?

Of course, these are embarrassing questions. Those who don't think have no problem.

In order to get rid of these (and similar) questions, it is worth considering (not for the first time, of course) the option of the cyclical nature of Nature, the cyclicity of the evolution of the universe. In this way, we returned to the idea that had already emerged. Is the universe really oscillating? This is what makes it possible to reconcile evolution with infinity.

   Many cosmologists look for grounds for the position that the universe is cyclical because it is intuitive. It is not easy to express this judgment at present.

   The point is that today the dominant conviction, and even belief, in the existence of the Cosmological Constant. Einstein introduced it into the equations of general relativity, and when it turned out that the universe was not static but was expanding, he rejected it, claiming that it was his biggest mistake in his life.

 And yet this constant was reactivated. Its (alleged) existence is to cause an accelerated expansion of the Universe - dark energy. Today, the LCDM (lambda-cold-dark-matter) model is widely adopted. In my humble opinion, this is not the last word of science. It is commonly believed that there was a singularity in the beginning, and since then the universe has expanded endlessly, even with acceleration. A striking internal inconsistency.

Interestingly, in the philosophy of the ancient Near East (even among ancient South Americans), periodicity is a fundamental feature of nature. Today this rule has been forgotten. Perhaps because time is treated as a linear thing - perhaps influenced by Christianity. 

The cosmological principle 5

Global time. Is there a spatial non-homogeneous of time?

 

   We have already defined the global time of the universe. But we also know about the existence of time dilation - kinematic and possibly also gravitational. It will be discussed elsewhere.

   We are aware that in our eyes the objects, the farther away from us, are the more retarded in their in evolutionary development. [As is well known, an explanation for this is simple and logical. After all, to see what is happening in the object, one has to wait for the light coming from there, for example, after the explosion of a supernova star. However, with regard to the very distant objects (billions of light-years), their motion must also be taken into account.] It follows that the observer himself (on his watch) represents real time (without lag). This is the global time, the time of the universe - a time that has passed since the beginning of the count, from the beginning of being. Here is the definition of global time.

   In this context, it is worth mentioning the existence of kinematic time dilation, related to the expansion of the universe, visible with respect to objects moving at very high speeds (close to the speed of light) - very distant objects. The reason for the existence of this dilatation is that the speed of light does not depend on a system of reference. This dilation does not violate the existence of global time and of course also of the cosmological principle. After all, the size of this dilatation does not depend on the direction of observation. 

   The problem is that there is also (in theory) a local non-homogeneity of time caused by a gravitational field. This is due, as an interpretation, to general relativity. If this type of time dilation exists, the existence of global time is also in doubt. After all, it would violate the internal coordination of the entire universe, for example the course of evolutionary processes - different when looking at different directions. 

The cosmological principle 4

Looking at the distant galaxies. What do you see and what results from it?

Looking at distant galaxies, we find that they represent a Universe not today.  After all, the light from them must have traveled towards us for a very long time - this is how it is explained today. Are these objects identical with those near us? Observations show that it is not.  The quasars, for example, are all billions of light-years away from us. They represent the universe billions of years younger. What does this indicate? Indicates the existence of evolution, the variability of the universe. It follows that a "strong" cosmological principle is not correct. [Says that the universe does not change, that is, time is not a factor in the description of the universe.] After all, we notice that further objects looks different: quasars - active galaxies - galaxies closest to us.  And no matter which direction we look. Indeed, background radiation properties also indicate the existence of evolution. Thanks to the discovery of this radiation in 1964 we already know that the universe is changing.

   If we were to observe the universe from the outside (is it possible?), we would find that the universe as a whole evolves the same everywhere.  We would get the impression of coordination, the same development everywhere despite the lack of any immediate connection between the parts (because of very large distances). The universe would look like a living organism. It's the impression. Simple, matter everywhere is the same and evolving at the same rate - at any scale: from the galaxies to atoms, elementary particles and deeper, of course proportional to the scale of the distance. There is no reason to be otherwise. All objects are equally distant in time from the common beginning.   In this sense one can speak of a global time, a time of the whole universe. Is it possible to measure time? Yes, it is possible. This is each observer's local time, because other objects, are delayed in time.  The universe, that's it all and is devoid of local features - is not part of a larger entity. The universe is all that exists as matter in the broadest sense.

 

  

   

The Cosmological Principle 3

   Indeed, we have oneness in space and time - the whole universe. Hence the conclusion that there is also a genetic unity of everything that is part of the universe, all parts of the universe, despite the remoteness of most celestial bodies. Awareness of this leads to the need to consider two options. According to the first, the properties of bodies, materials and radiation are determined to be permanent and eternal. However, are there any physical phenomena taking place in this case? Are there any interactions? In this case a negative answer to these questions is natural. In this case, the matter is closed to discussions, not least because the existence of time itself is highly doubtful.

   According to the second possibility, there is a global evolutionary process, there is a variability that indicates the existence of time. If so, then there is a basis for scientific research, astronomical observation and inquiry.  And this, we already know today, confirms the genetic unity of the matter of the universe.

   On this occasion it is worth noting that the unity of physical properties of matter despite the large distance of objects, would indicate that some time ago we were all together and time flows at the same rate everywhere. After all, we see the same development of matter (the same in every direction of observation) despite the distance between the objects and this requires a kind of coordination right from the start of development - until today . All material has a common history. Hence the conclusion that the rate of development everywhere is equal. Indeed, the conclusion that some time ago together we were a very small entity compared to what we see today - is well-founded.

   One might think that it is not about auto-coordination, but about the creation of everything by the transcendental factor. That's it. But how was it created? For what purpose? On this occasion did he cause time to come into being? When? ... and all this to create a hideous creature that combines the features of a wild animal and a thinking and prudent person? That there would still be a conflict between good and evil - with the predominance of the latter?  

      A long time ago we were (all the matter of the universe) a very small entity and today the distances are huge. So we come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. But it is still not a final conclusion. This is one of the options available. Shrinkage also takes time. Perhaps before the universe was so small, it shrank. Apparently even earlier, before contracting, it was expanding. This is how the thought of the oscillation of the universe and all nature is born. This is what the sages of antiquity already thought.

     We are only at the beginning of our discussion and despite this we have come to interesting conclusions. We did not need much data. Was enough to be based on the cosmological principle and the most elementary observation (including of the spectrum).

  One may ask: does it follow from the existence of time that there was an absolute beginning in the past?  If the cyclical nature of nature follows from the cosmological principle, it makes no sense to speak of the absolute beginning of time. We refer to the beginning as a point in a sequence of cyclical variability. Like a dot on the sinusoid graph. We have chosen this point as the starting point, as the beginning of expansion, the beginning of the cycle.

The Cosmological Principle 2

   We continue. Note that, as of now, in the continuation of our discussion, one can conclude, even claim, that there is indeed genetic uniformity of all that constitutes the universe itself despite its enormous dimensions, despite distances of billions of light-years. In other words, when looking at different directions, one does not see a significant difference in the types of celestial bodies: galaxies, quasars, etc. But, in this context, one still sees differences between near and far objects. As an example, quasars are all very far from us. And here we have a problem. After all, all observation points are equivalent to each other - according to the cosmological principle. If a particular observer is, say, near the quasar, he sees, in the context of space, a different sees the diversity of property the objects. The only solution, which allows for further discussion, is that the universe changes, that there is an evolutionary process of the entire universe and in addition the same everywhere. And of course there is a time in the context of the existence of evolution, a global time. [If so, then the second cosmological principle ("strong") is irrelevant. The universe is not static.]

   In other words, there is a gradual and continuous change, which indicates the very existence of time. It follows that the viewer, now (!), If he is in the vicinity of an object that we see as a quasar, sees it as a galaxy like ours and and he sees us as a quasar, that is, as the ancient galaxy. We (and all viewers everywhere) see that the distant objects, are younger than us, which have been less years since they were formed. But precisely because the light needs time to reach us (that we can see them) - that's how everyone actually thinks today. Definitely not! The evolutionary process of galaxies does not depend on the existence of the observer (everyone actually agrees with this). It's not a matter of communication. Such "media" thinking borders on inconsistency: the universe is not local. The distant objects, like the quasars and closer: active, younger galaxies (in our eyes) that present a younger age of the universe, the whole universe (in any direction of observation). It is about the global time of the universe. And we are at the forefront of evolution,  because every object (galaxy) presents itself a past time for us. They are far away, because the universe there (i.e. then) has not yet reached the dimensions of today. If so, then we form the front of its spread, indeed its spread, constitute, we are the farthest point from the Beginning.  Our time, is the global time. This is the only way to explain the fact that the more distant objects, they are less advanced in their development - that is, what was discovered in the observation. Of course in the condition the cosmological principle is valid.

   If we are already counting the years, then where (when) is the beginning of the count? This is the natural question. If the universe is expanding, then in the past it was smaller and at first we were all together and that is why the uniformity of celestial body properties is independent of the direction of observation. We were all together as a very small object and then the counting of time began. We will talk more about this.

   You will get more in-depth explanations later, when we talk about the dynamics of the expansion of the universe. For this we need more information 

The Cosmological Principle 1

 

   Here is the first text, which opens a series of articles devoted to the basics of cosmology and astrophysics. Much of the article is based on my books: Let's Fantasize About the Universe and the Essence of the Material Entity ("Headlines" 2004). It should be added that since then significant progress has been made thanks to the development of matters - many new discoveries and progress in the process of understanding. Today I am even more convinced that I went in my consideration in the right direction. In 2018 I published (in Poland) a book: "Universe of Dual Gravity" (920 pages). This book forms the main basis for the content of the articles I intend to publish.

    I argue that all discussions and even studies in the cosmological context should start from this principle. It serves as an assumption here as well. In fact, any theory that claims to be a correct description of the universe must be consistent with this principle, and this thing should even be a criterion of its correctness.

    The cosmological principle says that the properties of the universe in the eyes of the observer do not depend on its location. When you look at the sky, no matter which direction, you see the same thing. The universe is isotropic. No matter what galaxy we are in, we basically see the same thing. We do not occupy a special place. All places are equal to each other. If this is true, then even determining the center of the universe is really impossible, in fact a center does not exist, or is everywhere. After all, every observer states that he is the center of the universe. Subjective and objective. The existence of the only absolute center would have violated the principle. In other words, the universe is a non-local entity.

   The first in the history of modern times to replace the reference system in astronomical research, and transfer it from the Earth to the sun, was Mykolai Copernicus (1473–1543).

In so doing he brought about a great intellectual revolution, created a basis for the development of science, free from theological imperatives. The cosmological principle is an apt expression of this. For this reason, it is accepted that the principle is attributed to it and received its name, although more openly its meaning was expressed by Giordano Bruno (Giordano Bruno 1548 - 1600). His views led him to burn at the stake. Indeed, true opinions are dangerous to their proclaimers. Only 400 years ago? How is it today? What about bad views, falsehoods, and lies? They are dangerous to all of humanity. But they actually win the vote. Long live democracy!

   The cosmological principle has been accepted in science as an a priori thesis, like an axiom in mathematics, that conforms to our conception in the depths of cognitive intuition. This does not automatically mean, however, that all conclusions and interpretations based on it are correct and consistent with each other. On the basis of the principle we will try to construct the universe, that is, to guess its immanent properties. Will the results of the observation confirm our hypotheses? If not, we'll keep looking. Do all the properties of the universe, expected on the basis of the cosmological principle, conform to the contemporary views of science? If not, then what is wrong? We will also devote our attention to this. Therefore we are asked: What are the immanent properties of the universe, arising from the cosmological principle? First and foremost one should expect that in the whole universe the structure of matter is the same, one should expect the existence of the same chemical elements and the same properties of radiation and of the atoms, also expect the same properties of basic physical phenomena, the same laws of nature. The astronomical observation confirms the justification of these expectations, then indirectly also the cosmological principle. But that's not all.