posted on Jan, 4 2006 @ 08:53 AM
I don't know how much sourcing I can provide on the net, but books such as those by Timothy Ferris give a fairly up-to-date picture of a large-scale
structure of the obersvable universe.
What troubles me is that, given discovery of structures of galactic groups, clusters and superclusters, and even giant "bubble-like" structures of
galaxies, and unknown centres of gravity such as the "Great Attractor" (unknown becuase our own galaxy is inconveniently placed so as to block it
from view), to what extent are we able confidently to say that all galaxies are now receding from us. Atronomers "account" for local gravitation
when they measure the redshift which is indicative of cosmic expansion. Given how hard it is even to predict the motion of three bodies in orbit about
each other this seems an arduous task to achieve on a scale of several hundred million galaxies in structures we don't even yet understand.
Furthermore, expansion is only seen in the observable universe, with some models of expansion implying that the observable universe is a tiny fragment
of a whole.
Aside from galactic redshifts, the microwave background is all there is to indicate a big bang model is correct. Has no-one else wondered whether it
isn't time for a radical reconsideration of alternatives? (eg. given an infintely old [or at least very old] universe in infinite [or at least very
large] space, the density of supernovae over the sky could eventually average out to the isotropy observed in the cosmic backgrond - just a throwaway
Anyway, just wondered if anyone had any views on this all....
[edit on 4-1-2006 by d60944]