Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Cosmology

In a message dated 2/13/01 3:56:23 PM Eastern Standard Time,

<< Since
we *do* admit observers and their apparatus as long as they don't exert
any significant gravitational influence on the body of interest, and that
any possible influence that that body exerts on them is appropriately
cancelled out by other nongravitational effects, there is no *in
principle* problem with the gedanken scenario I mentioned in my post.

Admittedly, there probably *would* be real (likely insurmountable)
technical problems with trying to implement the situation in the *real

David Bowman >>

Dave Thanks for the explanation. It's not that I ever thought you were
describing a "real" Universe. It's just that your post raised some very
interesting questions.
When we talk about R in our universe aren't we really talking about the scale
factor or if you like radius of the observable Universe.
Would it not also be true, that assuming the cosmological constant is
really some positive value, it would mean that each and every unbound
cosmological structure would be accelerating away from each other at the same
exact rate. This acceleration would continue to increase because of the
increase of the scale factor and the decrease of attractive component of the
gravitational field as the average distance between the unbound structures
This line of thought would eliminate the need for any arbitrary point of
origin which really has no meaning in the sense that it can be located at
some particular place in space.

Bob Zannelli