Mordred

That's thanks to inflation. See the horizon problem http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_problem This evened out the distribution. As thermodynamically you have uniformity. Further processes will occur in uniform manner. CMB is a good example of that statement as it's 380,000 years after inflation.

There is Three forms of redshift. Cosmological Gravitational Doppler Gravitational applies inside large scale structures. Example Sache wolf effect. Your limits of the universe volume being limitted by matter we see today is wrong. Please read chapter 3 of the article I posted. Second link The above statement is incorrect. This is not how cosmological redshift is described. Cosmological redshift [latex]1+Z=\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o} or 1+Z=\frac{\lambda-\lambda_o}{\lambda_o}[/latex] Gravitational redshift [latex]\frac{\lambda}{\lambda_o}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{2GM}{r c^2}}}[/latex] Doppler shift [latex]f=\frac{c+v_r}{c+v_s}f_o[/latex] Read http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion also read http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?9905116 "Distance measures in cosmology" David W. Hogg Forgot a key relation for cosmological redshift [latex]1+z= \frac{at_0}{at_e}[/latex] a is the scale factor http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) Your description above sounds more like gravitational redshift Another relation [latex]d_2=-c^2dt^2+\frac{a^2dr^2}{1-kr^2}[/latex] K is the curvature constant.

Ah now I understand what your asking. The simple answer is you must define homogeneous based on the system conditions being modelled. Two examples. If your say modelling a thermodynamic process let's use a phase change due to a uniform temperature drops that occurs everywhere at a specific moment. Then this example applies globally. Another is distribution of matter. However if you have a non global change ie Baryon accoustic oscillations. Then you define your model based on the region of influence per duration being modelled. The background locally starts homogeneous the influence is inhomogeneous and anisotropic. There are good examples of both. However how you define homogeneous and isotropy is always specific to the model criteria. As cosmology models are typically perfect fluid approximations. There is various techniques to model non uniformity dynamics as a perfect fluid. Take a star. To use ideal gas laws on a star. You look for uniform regions. (Layers) you then model each region seperately seperating each region will a mathematical barrier or wall.(dimensions) then model the interactions between regions. PS the term physical vs unphysical isn't practical. Physical is anything that can be described by physics. (Energy matter influence field etc For your query local vs global is accurate.

Gravitational bound regions can be infinitely dense. You can have homogeneous and isotropic expansion. Redshift has nothing to do with homogeneity its a change in volume from one homogeneous point in time to another.. So I'm not really sure what your implying. The observable universe started in a region less than an atom in volume. That's the start of our region of causality. One must keep in mind stars and galaxies aka baryonic matter is only 3% the mass/energy budget. Galaxies is considered as mere dust. Our universe dynamics is controlled by dark matter and the cosmological constant as they are the two largest contributors. Dark matter formed shortly after inflation. No one knows precisely when but research leads to roughly when the universe was in its first few seconds. radiation both relativistic and non relativistic is the third main contributor. Matter has negligible contribution to pressure not so with radiation and the cosmological constant. You have three major time periods after inflation. Radiation dominent Matter dominant Lambda dominent Were in the latter

Yes but even then the distribution of matter followed a homogeneous layout at large enough scales. Homogeneous does not mean just voids. Today the scale we consider homogeneous is 100 Mpc. When the universe was smaller that scale is also smaller. Prior to the CMB roughly at the time the universe was roughly 150000 years old the temperature was too hot for galaxies to form. This period of time and prior is when particles are in thermal equilibrium. Any reactions were unstable and the reverse reactions occurred. Any period after inflation has been shown to be homogeneous and isotropic. Prior to inflation no one knows for sure due to the dark ages. Time period when the mean free path of photons is too short for light to reach us. This changed when atoms started to form. Hydrogen deuterium some lithium primarily. The term homogeneous occurs at sufficiently large enough scales that anistropies become irrelevant. much like a lake with waves. Look close it is definitely anisotropic measure a larger volume and those waves become negligible. For that matter it is easier to show uniformity shortly after inflation. The universe started at a hot dense low entropy state. In thermal equilibrium. As a result the number of degrees of freedom of particles not in thermal equilibrium was greatly reduced. For that matter it is easier to show uniformity shortly after inflation. The universe started at a hot dense low entropy state. In thermal equilibrium. As a result the number of degrees of freedom of particles not in thermal equilibrium was greatly reduced. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf"Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:"Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis These two articles go into detail on nucleosynthesis.

Money has little to do with it. Models get replaced by models that have greater precision to observation and data. LCDM is the leading model for this reason. Despite numerous attempts to show it as inaccurate.

Here is space condensate model http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0501176

Both in combo I can't recall any individually yes. Though there have been time dilation due to reduction in universe density models so those could count.( Keep in mind that example doesn't conform to GR )

Tired light was another alternative to redshift. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

You missed Hoyles counter arguments and the thermodynamic support in the historical aspects. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle He tried a steady state with matter creation model No model is ever without competing models. EVER. 30 years of studying cosmology I've seen some pretty wacky and weird peer reviewed models in just about anything you can name

There was a specific radiation on this but I can't recall which one. For some reason Unruh radiation rings a bell. If I recall it involved numerous horizons Yeah Rindler horizon is covered by Unruh http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unruh_effect

That's an interesting view point I kind of like it

You can by datasets and accumulated tests. Without mountains of data and numerous models describing scenarios both in cosmology and in all aspects of physics such as particle physics This would be far more challenging. However each measurement adds to our understanding. The CMB however provided a major support to the cosmological principle. This is due to extensive mapping by WMAP and Planck. Our understanding of GR is also highly valuable

There is a lengthy thread covering how the measurements are determined in terms of time and uniformity issues http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/87002-is-there-a-size-beyond-which-a-system-cannot-be-considered-at-once/page-3#entry847540 what it boils down to is much of it is based on calculations in proper distance and commoving time/distance. thermodynamics are applied during each time period being examined. obviously we can't examine the universe in entirety at once so one must extrapolate what the universe would be like per the time period being examined. The scale factor allows comparisons from one point in time to the other. However that is used to describe how the universe evolves. Homogeneous and isotropy is per each moment in time. A good example is Hubbles constant. This constant is only the same everywhere at a specific moment in time. The details is lengthy but the time and observable limits are factored in

One shouldn't take analogies too far. The rubber sheet and the coins are mere visualization tools to represent coordinate changes only.

Couple of points first for clarity whether you wish to define expansion as increase in volume or shrinking matter is fine. Personally don't agree with the latter but that's unimportant. We need to clarify both model systems do not require an outside to our universe as both methods work for both finite and infinite models. As of yet we can only conjectured if the universe is finite or infinite. When you see the term universe on literature this is describing our observable portion which is also the region of shared causality. In the infinite or finite universe case the shared causality is an important factor. For example if you had some influence outside our observable universe its influence is limitted by c. So it cannot immediately influence the universe everywhere at the same time. Neither information or influence can travel faster than c. As a result modelling a system as a finite defined by causality is a perfectly acceptable methodology. Conjectures of what is outside what we can measure is highly controversial and conjectural. In many ways more philosophy than science.

I stated I would find some references to ideal gas law usages in Cosmology applications. This coverage is decent without excessive complexity. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=14&ved=0CCMQFjADOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damtp.cam.ac.uk%2Fresearch%2Fgr%2Fmembers%2Fgibbons%2FSPCnotes.pdf&rct=j&q=ideal%20gas%20law%20cosmology%20pdf&ei=MqW4VKjUB8vYoATEw4DgAw&usg=AFQjCNGPVyfYvYkuu5dntQ9P4dnaJ-HArQ&sig2=2g3SCjSAu_n5CaiVEYQIGA If you look under the textbook style articles under the link in my signature. There is further applicable articles. One I posted earlier. The article I just posted is easier to relate to though.

Now he does the dance of joy!!!!

Look the term critical angle via Snells law. Refraction angles. You can hit an angle where the light will not exit the medium. http://www.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m309-01a/chu/Fundamentals/snell.htm Keep in mind your mirrors have glass refraction index roughly 1.600 if I recall but that depends on the glass itself. Then you also have the air between the two glass plates. I won't comment on your divine/alien source theory

Light was found to not require a medium to travel through. As a matter of fact if it travels through a medium it will be slower than c.

The metric term was probably added to point out space is geometric volume. Aka metric expansion. How often do you hear people ask what is it in space that expands. Orb if space expands what is it made of? The term metric implies geometric volume distance. Lol I wouldn't be surprised if the term originated from some forum frustrated with answering those questions. Oh but GR says space stretched it must be some form of fabric. Lost track number of times I heard that one

Lol

The references I posted will help. I'll dig up some easier to relate to material on individual particle species influences. Bose-Einstein and fermi-Dirac distributions are not for beginning understanding

The main concern is the contracting of one set of species and the expansion of another set coupled with two directions of flow. No matter how I view this set of interactions. I see no way to maintain uniformity. This would mean any equation of the ideal gas laws, cosmology and the Einstein field field equations in Cosmology applications would be wrong. An ideal gas is a uniform gas approximation. LCDM and the Einstein field equations both employ the ideal gas laws. You have not yet shown a solution as to how to maintain sn isotropic and homogeneous universe with your descriptives. If anything your descriptives are the exact opposite. We would know if the density is rising by an increase in temperature. Which is by the way another critical piece of evidence that the universe is expanding. We didn't just rely on redshift. There is 10^90 particles roughly in the universe. Energy is a property of particles. Our universe is cooling down. Therefore the universe must expanding. It cannot drop in temperature without a lower density. Here is the cosmic energy inventory http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory"

In 2d 3d or 4d contraction implies an increase in density. How is your contraction different? Doesn't matter the distance scales or how many dimensions you use. Or even what is contracting. It still an increase in density of a particular property influence or particle species.