Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of illustrations
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Preliminaries
- 2 The Szekeres–Szafron family of solutions
- 3 Physics and cosmology in an inhomogeneous Universe
- 4 The Stephani–Barnes family of solutions
- 5 Solutions with null radiation
- 6 Solutions with a “stiff fluid”/scalar field source
- 7 Other solutions
- 8 Averaging out inhomogeneities of geometry and matter in cosmological models
- 9 Comments
- Appendix A Dictionary of abbreviations used in the text and in the diagrams
- Appendix B Why should one consider inhomogeneous models of the Universe?
- Appendix C Memorable statements about the cosmological principle
- Appendix D How was this review compiled?
- Appendix E Historical milestones
- Notes added in proof
- Bibliography
- Index
Appendix C - Memorable statements about the cosmological principle
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 May 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of illustrations
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Preliminaries
- 2 The Szekeres–Szafron family of solutions
- 3 Physics and cosmology in an inhomogeneous Universe
- 4 The Stephani–Barnes family of solutions
- 5 Solutions with null radiation
- 6 Solutions with a “stiff fluid”/scalar field source
- 7 Other solutions
- 8 Averaging out inhomogeneities of geometry and matter in cosmological models
- 9 Comments
- Appendix A Dictionary of abbreviations used in the text and in the diagrams
- Appendix B Why should one consider inhomogeneous models of the Universe?
- Appendix C Memorable statements about the cosmological principle
- Appendix D How was this review compiled?
- Appendix E Historical milestones
- Notes added in proof
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
This appendix is meant to pay justice to those authors who could see earlier than others that the FLRW models are an oversimplification of Nature. It contains a short (and very possibly incomplete) selection of quotations.
… the grounds on which homogeneity is generally assumed appearing to be those of convenience rather than generality … We must categorically dissent from the extreme idea … that homogeneity is included in the definition of the universe … We take it to be perfectly conceivable that an increase of telescopic power may reveal a variation of material density with distance, and the denial of this possibility … seems to us to be inconsistent with the fundamental principles of science. We hold that the assumption of spatial homogeneity is … a working hypothesis, valid so long as it does not conflict with observation or with theoretical probability, and justifiable during that time as a restriction on arbitrary speculation … we have no grounds for supposing that the part of the universe which is observed is typical of the whole … the phenomena we embody in our models may be purely local characteristics … while, in the present state of knowledge, a spatially homogeneous universe has greater claims to consideration than any other, such claims … have no a priori justification.
(Dingle 1933)- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Inhomogeneous Cosmological Models , pp. 284 - 285Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1997