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.