I don't see how that is "one extreme to another." And again, it would probably do you well to learn more of the arguments, as well of the history of how they were arrived at, before making these statements.With Cosmology, if it doesn't have an answer, it seems Cosmologists just from one extreme to another, such as Inflationary model to the superluminal expansion of space.
To tell the truth, I would like to believe in a static universe as well, I find it more reasonable, but the Hubble redshift seems to be telling a different story. . . Really. You just can't argue it away.
And there's still the issue of the regeneration of matter. If the universe is static, then all the hydrogen should get transformed into helium by stars.
As above, so below
I linked to the top 10 problems by the way. According to that study, there are in fact 30 top problems with BB.
My question is why objects seem to receed faster and faster as you move further and further away. Someone here said there was no established mechanism, and this worries me... because, in light of the idea that the most distant objects are now receeding faster than light, could be explanable if their was no ''upper limit'' on how fast an object could move due to this strange phenomenon of Hubble Law. In other words, these thing appear to be moving so fast because they are located so very far away, not because spacetime itself is superluminally expanding.
Look, I was told that if I was to believe a static universe, I better have an idea to explain the superluminal recession of distant galaxies. I actually gave a reason, the Hubble law of the most distant galaxies causes the illusion that things are moving really really fast - the snag - and I think it is an important snag, is that no one knows why the Hubble law says that the further an object is in space that it appears to move further away, if indeed it is moving away relative to us.
In this case, I have provided an answer and I have kept up what was demanded of me. Anything else are just quibbles I feel.
Why is this in science and technology?
This had every right to be in the cosmological section? The BB is a cosmological theory???? I am very confused by this.
Hubbles law is more an observation, not an explanation.
...and please stop posting off topic posts in your threads. Your "why moved" question should have been made in a report (so all mods see the question, and it doesn't mess up the thread).
I moved this thread (from the Q&A section), as you were clearly not simply asking a question, you were putting forth a view. Please read the rules. This thread may yet be moved again, to the ATM section.
Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-May-01 at 08:47 AM. Reason: Add "more"
Get up, a get-get, get down.
You keep saying distant things are moving superluminally because of Hubbles law.
(e.g. post #40 "In other words, these thing appear to be moving so fast because they are located so very far away, not because spacetime itself is superluminally expanding").
But that's backwards, because the law is more a quantisation of the distance/movement relationship.
Current science says the Universe is expanding. Naturally, a unit expansion will result in more distant objects "moving" faster than closer objects.
If you are going to say (paraphrased) "the Universe isn't expanding, it's just Hubbles law" all you've done is make a circle of claims that doesn't go anywhere.
Last edited by pzkpfw; 2012-May-01 at 08:55 AM. Reason: Clarify quotes
Get up, a get-get, get down.
As above, so below
We are presuming that galaxies appear to receed because spacetime is really expanding between objects. But what makes an interesting case for discussion is that you can describe all of this without spacetime expanding, you can explain it as just the momentum of galaxies alone. I find it backwards accounting for motion in the universe by saying it is the expansion of space; and I think this has to do with yet again, accommodating new idea's just to suit the Big Bang theory. Current science only says the universe is expanding because of the background temperatures - that was the final stake in the steady state theory - yet the background temperatures which has been explained can be accounted for the average temperature of space heated by stars themselves.
Edit: Just skimmed through the rest of the thread. Your answer seems to be that the increasing red shift with distance is an illusion. That seems a little ad hoc.
I said galaxies receeding faster than light is an illusion - the further they are, the faster they seem to move away relative to us. Why is everyone finding this hard to understand?
We are being told that the most outreached galaxies are now being [dragged by spacetime] at speeds faster than light. However, it is experimental fact that as distance increases, the speed of galaxies also increases inversely proportional to this. That is a hint that what we are observing in the most furthest reaches of space is in fact just a product of this phenomenon, this ''Hubble law''. It probably has nothing to do with faster than light recession due to an expansion.
So what is the illusion? The illusion is that objects are moving at superluminal speeds - or even being dragged at superluminal speeds. None of which I bet is even happening - if the Hubble law of moving objects increases with distance, then maybe there is no upper limit to how fast a very very distant object may seem to us to move at.
And not everything is in fact moving away from us. As I have also explained, Andromeda is in fact moving towards us.
I don't know much about ''on larger scales'' but if you mean, why does everything in the observable horizon seem to be moving away, well maybe there is a massive gravitational interaction we don't know about.
I also like the fact, that out of everything I have said, no one has even said one thing about the ''void'' millions of lightyears across, yet they still proclaim the big bang is the best theory we have. Big Bang can't even for a moment contemplate these voids, so I don't see how it is the ''best theory.''
As I said, we can detect "random" proper motion in the local cluster (not random, of course; galaxies orbiting about their mutual centers of gravity).
Beyond the scale of clusters, everything is moving away from us.
Are we in a special place and there is some reason that everything is moving away from us on this scale?
And how does this "galaxies fleeing from us" picture match a static universe.
LCDM cosmology does in fact produce filaments and voids. The probability of huge voids is low but they are certainly not impossible.