Map of the Universe

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />Has there ever been a model or a map that attempted to generate a picture of the Universe in current time?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">At great distances, we have only theory to guide us. For example, if you assume that redshift is Doppler in origin, then the universe is expanding. And if you assume a Walker-Friedmann universe, as the Big Bang does, then a certain redshift-distance law follows, and this law means that the expansion is currently accelerating over time, but in the distant past it was decelerating.

By contrast, if the Meta Model is a better description of reality, then the main redshift mechanism is lightwaves losing energy by friction to gravitons; the universe is not expanding; and a different redshift-distance law follows. With this new law, energy loss is linear with distance traveled at all distances. There is no acceleration or deceleration. The visible universe looks essentially the same at all presently visible distances.

But the Meta Model is equally adamant that our present limited view of the infinite universe is much like the view of a fish in the ocean, who thinks that the ocean seems to go on forever. But eventually, just as the ocean comes to an end and changes to land or air or space, so too the galaxies we see eventually come to an end, and the universe will look startlingly different. -|Tom|-

Tom,

Has anyone taken the galaxy distribution data and plotted it out using many different proposed redshift relations such as yours to see how they look compared to one another? It seems to me that the bubblelike void regions would look uniform in size under a correct redshift relation but would start to stretch out at the greatest distances if the relation was starting to introduce a progressive error.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jeremy</i>
<br />the bubblelike void regions would look uniform in size under a correct redshift relation but would start to stretch out at the greatest distances if the relation was starting to introduce a progressive error.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">True. But the high-redshift galaxies are few-enough in number that the voids are not so well defined. It would be difficult to argue for or against any model until we get bigger numbers of high-redshift objects. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
-snip-
But the Meta Model is equally adamant that our present limited view of the infinite universe is much like the view of a fish in the ocean, who thinks that the ocean seems to go on forever. But eventually, just as the ocean comes to an end and changes to land or air or space, so too the galaxies we see eventually come to an end, and the universe will look startlingly different. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

How 'bout an expanse of Universe where the ratio of matter to space is inverse??