Is the Universe an homogenous system?
466824
Homogenous Universe\n\nAll observations scientists have made using the most powerful telescopes show that the universe looks the same in all directions! \n\nThe average density of galaxies is the same and does not change with distance or direction. \n\nThis shows that the universe is  homogenous, and this is called the Cosmological Principle.\n\nHomogeneous (usually pronounced: homo-GEEN-ee-us) means literally, to be the same throughout, no matter where you are in the universe. "If you look at the universe from earth or from a galaxy a million lightyears away, it will look the same." \n\nLOOK at IMAGE: http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/121/unv2pv.png
590360
To answer that you have to assume that there exist a process in space thatn constricts mass. and time is a function of that process. So for every energy level of space there exist a time.\ntherefore time is not homogenoeous thru out the Universe.\nIf that is the case than space is not homogenous either; this makes us conclude that the Universe is not homogeneous.
752748
Dont think it so vastly.\nWe know that, dS of uiverse=dS of system+ dS of surroundings\nBecause of System and surroundings Entropy Always move possitively so The Entopy of all Universe Is increasing. Itsgoing to reach his Highest limit.
807242
This universe is an event that occurs once and does not occur again.\n  Its existence or nonexistence has no relevance to anything but itself.\n   The big bang will not occur again!
436669
The argument is as logical for a big band happening "from nothing" as a God to exist "from nothing".\n\nI personally don't have a problem with there always having been matter in the universe and the big bang being more or less spontaneous.
895275
I read in Time a few years back that in an article, scientists explained a theory that universes connect as a chain, and our Universe- is among many. The idea was quite something to read and of course the diagrams and images they used to portray this thing out was all very fascinating to say the least. It was a rational idea even to me and considering what we found with a pin tip portion of the night sky magnified 1,300 times....hundreds of thousands of Galaxy's all clustered in an array that almost seemed like you are looking at it all through a cylinder. \nSo there is no real way to know for certain, but there could be millions of them...and a chain of universes makes rational sense.
220183
Simple way to look at this perinnial question. One solar system. One planet like earth froms. Sustains life. Universe is filled with billions of stars. Some the size of our Sun. Some have planets revolving round them. Like earth too. Take a wild guess and u wont be wrong. \n;-)
642809
Yes and no.\n\nIt is homogenous in a very large scale, but not so in a small scale.\nSmall equals to a few thousand light years.\n\nDont understand what u mean by level.\n\nTry to ask your question carefully\nLove to tell you, but dont know what you want.
193032
The above answers are interesting but, modern physicists speak extensively about 'multiverses'.  So, does one universe end at the edge of another? or, do they 'co-exist' in space and time? OR??????
1082195
The Universe itself doesn't necessarily need something to hold it together, it just is.  \n\nAs far as what's outside the Universe, science cannot answer that question, so it is left to speculation.\n\nMy opinion: the Universe exists within the realm of God, so the spiritual world is outside of it, but that is just an opinion, not fact!
1133232
No, because as the universe expands, the gravitational force on a single point by all parts of the universe gets weaker due to the increasing distance between bodies. So there is no ongoing force that would make a single body less dense. Of course it would be like entering a black hole if you went back to the first few moments of the universe.
1106396
err the big bang was not really a a collision of matter. All mass and energy in the universe existed at a sigularity, or a dimensionless point. The Big Bang simply expanded and inflated it.
334137
the universe is finite yet has no boundaries. it may be something like the two dimensional surface of a sphere.  nothing inside or outside the sphere exists for the two dimensional surface.  nothing exists outside the universe in this model.
1025063
It doesn't make sense that "everything contained in [the universe] is imploding in on itself". First, no one has the slightest clue as to what exists external to the universe. There's plenty of speculation, but there exists no observations that would point us in the right direction. The universe may indeed implode in itself if it is not expanding fast enough to resist the gravitational attraction of all the mass in the universe. Whether or not it is expanding fast enough is an important and open question in cosmology as well as philosophy.
446869
Good question. There really is no good answer except to say that the basic equations of physics have a lot of symmetry. To get that symmetry requires there to be only a handfull of truly elementary particles. The Big Bang has nothing to do with this. It wasn't an explosion in the conventional sense and didn't 'break up' matter into the fundamental particles. It's more like the fundamental particles 'condensed' out of the vacuum.
557686
Ok...we don't know how big the entire universe is. It may well be infinite, which, assuming it is homogeneous, would mean that it has infinite mass. At any rate, physicists currently think it is "much larger" than the observable universe. How much larger? I don't think that they have any evidence. But let's assume that we can see 1% of all visible space. This would make the mass of the universe = 100 * 3 * 10^52 kg, or 3 * 10^55 kg.
117141
I assume you mean "has any theory explaning the existence of man and the universe been accepted?"  The answer is no, but you should not assume that the big bang hypothesis is correct as the 2nd law of thermodynamics (AKA entropy) disproves the big bang.  It just depends on which group of thinkers you follow, if you follow secularists then you will most likely accept the big bang hypothesis, if you follow religious thinkers then you most likely will not.