homogenous vs heterogenous cosmology

In modern physical cosmology, the notion that the spatial distribution of matter in the universe on a large scale is fairly homogenous and isotropic. It means that the properties of the universe is the same for all observers in space regardless of where data is collected. This idea is called cosmological principle and forms the fundamental aphorism of modern science.

Homogeneity indicates that the same evidence is observed if we collect data from any part of the universe. Isotropy indicates that the same evidence is observed if we collect data from any direction in the universe implying the laws of physics are the same throughout the universe. Although cosmologists use observational data as verification for this theory still we only observe what we observe from earth and cannot verify non-earthly observations. So to generalize at the universal scale purely and primarily on earthly calculations is a bit presumptuous and even dogmatic.

Non-earthly observations are given in vedic literature about the structure and design of the universe. It does not match modern observations or calculations or theories. Beyond the earth, according to vedi ccosmology, are variety of environments (not just gaseous or solid states) with different types of flora, fauna and living beings. There are planes of existence, planets and star systems that have life all over it. There is also non-globular structures in our universe (more like flat planes). In our current understanding of cosmology, space equals spherical geometry (or close to spherical), however, we get information from vedic cosmology, that there are non-spherical environments. All this indicates that the universe is certainly not homogenous and isotropic. Modern cosmology provides a lifeless picture of the universe and vedic cosmology gives a universe full of variety of species and life forms.

I will end with a quote from a famous philosopher of science Karl Popper on his attitude towards modern cosmology;

I once was an enthusiastic admirer of (Friedmann’s) Big Bang. I am now a disgusted opponent. As to the “steady state” theory, it is insufficiently developed, and Ryle’s criticism insufficiently discussed. And the “cosmological principles” were, I fear, dogmas that should not have been proposed. - Karl Popper

Please visit www.vediccosmology.com

Hare Krishna