Talk:Perfect Cosmological Principle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

[edit] contradictory principle needs controversial opinion

I think this principle (as much as its less perfect version) is totally contradictory to commons sense. Therefore I am missing the big lot of criticism towards such ideas! Sorry for not being able to provide that kind of information myself.
--86.131.238.201 18:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC) ...tb

In a sense, you're obviously right because the perfect cosmological principle is wrong. But it is based on the sound logical basis that, unless we have evidence to the contrary, we should assume that our place and time in the universe are not “special” but are representative of the universe at all places and times. But both this and the regular cosmological principle are axioms of convenience that are only good as long as they are not disproved by observations. For example, in one sense we are in a “special” place - we live on the surface of a planet, while most of the universe is not the surface of a planet - but we understand why that is. This is better discussed on the main cosmological principle page and so I'm suggesting that the two be merged. -- Cosmo0 21:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Definitely should not be merged -- they are different principles. And BTW the perfect cosmological principle is not wrong -- it is adhered to by chaotic inflationary theory. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)