Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 07:37:15 UTC No. 16379681

>simply removing this one assumption fixes all major issues of modern day cosmology without the need for nonsense like inflation and dark matter

Nope. This has never actually been demonstrated. Inhomogeneous cosmology rests on pure hopeium. The basic idea is that general relativity is too complex and non-linear to solve every situation exactly. So people make simplifications, or assume the Newtonian approximation. One of those approximations is that you can average over volume, essentially like treating the gravity of the earth as a point source rather than summing over the full structure. Proponents say that this averaging misses some GR effects, this is called the back reaction conjecture. It is a conjecture because proponents have still never proven theoretically that these effects are anything but negligible in the real universe. And several good arguments have been constructed in cases where there has shown to be no back reaction.
They hope that they might one day be able to explain dark energy with back reaction, but again, it's still just a dumb guess. The subfield basically ignores all the papers showing back reaction is neglible and keeps going. There is zero realistic prospect of explaining dark matter, as some of the evidence comes from the CMB when the universe was in fact highly homogeneous. And inflation cannot be explained by this either.

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 07:45:52 UTC No. 16379689

>>16379681
Nothing is as stupid as assuming everything, everywhere is the same just to make a universe where it is easy to for humans to make assumptions about reality. Scientific convenience would be the peak of mental midgetry if it weren't for their obsessions with particles for the same reason. lmao

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 08:16:21 UTC No. 16379704

>>16379689
GR can only be solved exactly in a small number of situations. The universe is not one of those situations, so you have to simply something. Proponents of back reaction study exotic scenarios to find examples where there is an effect and you can solve it analytically, but these look nothing like the real universe. The mainstream interpretation is that back reaction is negligible, and so you can average the universe spatially.
Note that people do study the inhomogeneity in standard cosmology, but these are done using Newtonian gravity. There are also numerical approximations to GR that can be used, but unsurprisingly back reaction people don't like these because they show there is no effect.

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 17:41:16 UTC No. 16380307

>all of modern cosmology rests entirely on the notion that the universe is homogeneous
Homogenous and isotropy is an assumption, taught on first day of Cosmo grad course so that things get easier and simplified at that level. Next thing you're taught is a lot of present day research is based on the departure from homogeneity.

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:35:43 UTC No. 16380421

>>16379660
>Inhomogeneous cosmology
OP. You are Free. Free to assume any inhomogeneity conditions you please. Then work through the math to see what you new theory predicts, and design experiments to test those predictions.
Be sure to report back!

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:37:35 UTC No. 16380426

>>16380421
It's like a memory associated hold, that is achieved a certain way, and then it progressing nicely as you think.

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:39:14 UTC No. 16380434

>>16380426
When its shed, what fell?

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 18:40:05 UTC No. 16380442

>>16380426
Keep working on that. Quietly. On your own. For a while. Several months. At least.
Then, be sure to report back. kthxbye

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:44:48 UTC No. 16380538

>dude omg I know everything about the entire universe!!!
how come every astronomy thread is always thinly disguised narcissistic grandiose delusions of omniscience? how come nobody ever has any actual interest in astronomy other than to abuse the topic as an excuse to assert that their ridiculously grandiose narcissistic delusions of omniscience are true?

Anonymous at Sat, 14 Sep 2024 19:52:26 UTC No. 16380552

>>16380538
No, a lot of us do it for living and a bit of interest. It's just a daily routine shit like any other job. I and many people I know (postdocs and above) don't really talk to my friends and family about how universe is X and Y and how we know about some theories. You see narcissistic in every field, mostly midwit roasties. A year ago, everyone was a superconducting expert due to lk99. Anyone with degree in biology now is suddenly an authoritarian.

Anonymous at Mon, 16 Sep 2024 04:10:02 UTC No. 16382652

Prove it then