I'm not sure what characteristics he or you are referring to. I'm going to assume it's the distribution of mass. Maybe temperature. Not only is it the same, but the farther out one looks, the denser it gets. Something is out of kilter. Something is senseless. It's always been hard for me to think of astronomy as a science. No solid foundation. Everything is indirect, and usually wrong. Like elliptical orbits.
I believe that the universe is much larger than we see it in the most powerful telescopes. Moreover, we cannot look at the universe from the side in real time. Since we see that galaxies are flying with acceleration, there must be an expansion front for galaxies. We do not know the width of this front and its curvature. This expansion front should be spherical and it looks like a rubber shell whose thickness we do not know. This is a consequence of Einstein's theory and this fact was pointed out by other scientists.According to Friedman, the universe looks the same irrespective of direction and position. But I don't get it.
The thing to keep in mind with the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe is that it wasn’t an “explosion” like a detonation here on earth, with a definite center, and the universe spooling outwards into a pre-existing space.I love astronomy, but there's one question I have.
If the universe is expanding, can't we measure that compared to distant galaxies and triangulate the origin point of the universe? That'd be cool.
Mr Leomov, you are absolutely correct when you mention that "...the universe is much larger than we see it in the most powerful telescopes."I believe that the universe is much larger than we see it in the most powerful telescopes. Moreover, we cannot look at the universe from the side in real time. Since we see that galaxies are flying with acceleration, there must be an expansion front for galaxies. We do not know the width of this front and its curvature. This expansion front should be spherical and it looks like a rubber shell whose thickness we do not know. This is a consequence of Einstein's theory and this fact was pointed out by other scientists.
Inside this spherical expanding shell is the visible region of the Universe. The visible part of the Universe is located inside this spherical expanding shell. Therefore, we perceive our universe as flat and homogeneous. It seems astronomers have already measured the curvature of the universe. But the main thing is that if we are inside the visible region of the Universe, which is much smaller than the spherical front of expansion, then galaxies should have different speeds and different acceleration of expansion.
Then we can have a map of the expansion of galaxies with vectors of the expansion rate of galaxies. Next, we can calculate from this map the curvature of the universe, the width of the expansion front and the direction to the center of the expanding universe and our position on this map. This work must begin to be done. It seems astronomers have already established that galaxies are expanding at different speeds. Then this fully confirms the spherical shape of our universe inside the spherical front of the expansion of which there are galaxies. It is like a rubber shell of a ball and inside this shell are galaxies. Therefore, we observe that all galaxies move away from each other when such a shell expands.
I am repeating that this is the generally accepted model of an expanding universe according to Einstein's theory. We have to make only one addition, that the visible area of the spherical universe is much smaller than its actual size.
In my opinion, there are three issues:If the universe was expanding as theorized, we wouldn't see as many stars. I believe our science has made many serious errors.......not in the measurement........but in the interpretation of those measurements. Any linear oscillation....any and all......changes frequency thru a gravity gradient.
Our atomic clocks, still use linear oscillations for our clocks. It's so hard to fathom, why an educated person could believe that the rate of time can be changed. Time is omnipresent.
The light shifts seen......are caused by extreme gravity, not velocity.
Science even has the arrogance to compare and equate linear motion with angular motion. And this of course, is an impossibility.
A linear oscillation has four changes in acceleration during a period. And two complete stops. A rotation has but one and no stops. And that is only the acceleration of direction, not speed.
When we start using rotational clocks, we will see that time does not change. It does not change with acceleration or gravity.
AND...AND.....IF time does not change........ALL of our science falls apart.
As it should. The eclipse-star experiment and gravitational lensing are used as proof that space-time is real. Both of these dynamics can be explained with classical mechanics........just as light can be explained in the same manner. With omnipresent time.
A rotational clock.....the demise of quack science.