## Abstract

Modern scientific man has largely lost his sense of awe of the universe. He is confident that, given sufficient intelligence, perseverance, time and money, he can understand all there is beyond the stars. He believes that he sees here on earth and in its vicinity a fair exhibition of nature’s laws and objects, and that nothing new looms “up there” that cannot be explained, predicted, or extrapolated from knowledge gained “down here.” He believes he is now surveying a fair sample of the universe, if not in proportion to its size—which may be infinite—yet in proportion to its large-scale features. Little progress could be made in cosmology *without* this presumptuous attitude. And nature herself seems to encourage it, as we shall see, with certain numerical coincidences that could hardly be accidental.

## Keywords

Event Horizon Public Space Inertial Frame Cosmic Time Model Universe## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- † For its interesting historical antecedents, see S. L. Jaki, “Olbers’, Halley’s, or Whose Paradox?”
*Am. J. Phys.***35**, 200 (1967), which should also stand as a warning to all armchair historians.ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar - † This figure, as well as Figures 31, 33, and 34, is reproduced, by permission of the publishers, from the author’s article “Relativistic Cosmology” in
*Phys. Today***20**, 23 (November 1967).Google Scholar - † Further details can be found in W. Rindler,
*Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society***116**, 662 (1956).MathSciNetADSGoogle Scholar - † See, for example, H. Bondi, “Cosmology,” Chapter IX, Cambridge University Press, 1961. This is an extremely readable reference on all aspects of cosmology.MATHGoogle Scholar
- † One can further generalize this equation by including the effect of possible pressure: see the remark after equation (89.13) below.Google Scholar
- † In this connection we may quote Eddington’s mystical argument
*for*the Λ term (Mathematical Theory, page 154): “An electron could never decide how large it ought to be unless there existed some length independent of itself for it to compare itself with.”Google Scholar - † The
*R*in this formula must not be confused with the expansion factor*R*. Unfortunately the traditional notations clash here. tSee, for example, R. C. Tolman, “Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology,” formulae (98.6), Oxford University Press, 1934. Tolman’s “mixed” components 8π T_{1}, 8π T_{2}, etc., here correspond to G_{11}/g_{11}, G_{22}/g_{22}, etc. On the following pages Tolman reproduces Dingle’s expressions for the Tμ of a very general line element, and it is worth remembering where these can be found.Google Scholar - † Robertson used
*t*_{0}and log*ρ*_{0}, assuming a definite value for*H*_{0}. But Tinsley’s coordinates (Beatrice M. Tinsley, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Texas, 1967), have the advantage that the diagram need not be recalibrated whenever a new value of*H*_{0}is announced. Furthermore, the empirical density restrictions are on σ_{0}rather than on p_{0}: The dynamical mass determinations of clusters of galaxies depend on observing relative motions, and these satisfy ν^{2}∝*m/r;*but ν is directly observable as red shift, whence*m ∝ r*. The density involves a further division by (distance)^{3}, so that*ρ ∝*(distance)^{-2}∝*H*^{2}—*since*the uncertainty in Hubble’s parameter*R/R*is only in the denominator, the numerator being again observable as a red shift.Google Scholar - † See, for example, C. W. Misner, in “Relativity Theory and Astrophysics,” J. Ehlers, editor, p. 160, Vol. I, Providence, R. I., American Math. Soc., 1967.Google Scholar
- † I. Ozsváth and E. Schücking, in “Recent Developments in General Relativity,” p. 339, New York, Pergamon Press, 1962.Google Scholar
- † See, for example, I Ozsváth and E. Schücking,
*Nature***193**, 1168 (1962).ADSMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar