From: jos.bergervoet@xs4all.nl   
      
   On 1/14/2018 9:54 AM, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   > Lawrence Crowell  writes:   
   >   
   >>>>> QUOTE   
   >>>>> However, they require that we are in the   
   >>>>> centre of a large overdense region, which seems improbable on other   
   >>>>> grounds.   
   >>>>> END QUOTE   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is an interesting point. A counter argument came to mind. If one   
   >>>>> were to wager, bet, where they are in the universe then guessing one is   
   >>>>> from the denser part of the universe would increase the odds of winning   
   >>>>> the wager.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Not "overdense"!   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Actually PH, like LC, appears to have misread the paper, or...   
   >>>> Here is a quotation from the conclusions:   
   >>>   
   >>> No, you have misunderstood John's COUNTERargument, namely that---all   
   >>> else being equal---one is more likely to be in an overdense region of   
   >>> the universe than in an underdense one, simply because there is more   
   >>> matter---and thus, presumably, more life---in overdense regions.   
   >   
   >> To take this further, if the universe consisted of this local clump of   
   >> matter, say in effect the universe consists in a coarse grained sense a   
   >> central gravitating mass, then this would violate the observation the   
   >> universe is homogeneous. The homogeneous universe at large then has a   
   >> constant Ricci curvature or nabla R = 0, which is a feature of   
   >> cosmological spacetimes.   
   >   
   > The universe appears to be approximately homogeneous on large enough   
   > scales.  Of course a single clump would violate this, but no-one is   
   > proposing a single clump, nor a completely empty bubble.  Rather, the   
   > question is whether it is possible that inhomogeneities---within the   
   > current observational constraints---can have observable effects and   
   > perhaps explain some puzzling observations (though it is fair to say   
   > that not all are puzzled by them).   
      
   But what if there are inhomogeneities that are large-scale compared   
   with the size of the observed universe?   
      
   Then our observed part has abbout 50% chance of being in a (large)   
   overdense region and likewise 50% chance to be underdense. It would   
   accidental if we were exactly at average density! Of course this   
   scenario requires the universe to be (vastly) larger than the   
   currently observed part, but why wouldn't it?   
      
   Would this have any implications for the cosmological constant or   
   would that always cancel out? Or is it ruled out already based on   
   things we can observe?   
      
   --   
   Jos   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)