I subscribe to the metaphysical explanation ie "I am the Alpha and the Omega". -Book of Revelation
"The Lounge A place to talk about almost anything but politics and religion." See how everyone has honoured that rule so far...
//
//
Oh, wow!
This thread has very definitely expanded! Did I miss anything important since page 196 (last entry 4th februar 2020)?
This thread has very definitely expanded! Did I miss anything important since page 196 (last entry 4th februar 2020)?
Before you asked your question, the answer existed in one of several possible quantum states including 'yes', 'no', 'perhaps' and 'who cares'?
However, now you've asked the question, the quantum system has collapsed and all other possible answers other than 'no' have vanished! 😀
Hah! 😀
I'll take that as the perfect excuse to ignore the past 20 or so pages, thanks!
Has this thread, by expanding so rapidly, caused an increase in the Universe's expansion rate?
I'll take that as the perfect excuse to ignore the past 20 or so pages, thanks!
Has this thread, by expanding so rapidly, caused an increase in the Universe's expansion rate?
This thread is simply expanding into a vacuum.
It departed from the known universe an almost infinite number of pages ago! 🙂
It departed from the known universe an almost infinite number of pages ago! 🙂
All part of the process
I guess I could consider myself not quite round enough to be a bubble universe, yet with a digestive tract, I too am both Alpha and Omega.
I guess I could consider myself not quite round enough to be a bubble universe, yet with a digestive tract, I too am both Alpha and Omega.
The hypothesis that the universe is expanding cannot be reproduced in the lab and is merely the result of studies of current cosmological theories. It is a huge claim which somehow contradicts reality. Nobody has ever seen space expanding, yet theorists postulated this.
This thread should discuss the basis of this hypothesis and why it is considered as true. It is true because it fits the current cosmological model? Is it true because space expansion has actually been observed?
When there is no experimental repropducibility, hypothesising becomes much like mythology.
This thread should discuss the basis of this hypothesis and why it is considered as true. It is true because it fits the current cosmological model? Is it true because space expansion has actually been observed?
When there is no experimental repropducibility, hypothesising becomes much like mythology.
Earlier, we touched on the reliability of the 'standard candles' hitherto used to measure the expansion of the universe.
This reliability is now being challenged, leading to uncertainty in our knowledge of the rate of expansion of the universe.
The two most precise gauges of the universe’s rate of expansion have been in glaring disagreement, and a new study that measures the rate of expansion using red-giant stars as the standard candles has only served to confuse the issue by providing measurements halfway between the two.
If these speed discrepencies are not resolved then some of the basic hypotheses that cosmologists use to interpret their data could be wrong.
No-one is claiming to know the answer to life, the universe and everything, but we are still actively seeking one.
If anyone is asking "Does society need astronomy and cosmology? ", then you may find the following lecture to be of interest:
Why Society Needs Astronomy and Cosmology
The problem according to me is assuming an electromagnetic frequency shift is due to the universe expanding. But isn't this a leap in the dark? A frequency change may be the result of something science not yet understands. It may be caused by a property of electromagnetic quanta we not yet understand. Can modern science guarantee electromagnetic frequency remains invariant when quanta travel through space for millions of years?
There is too much science does not know. Hypotheses like these are much like someone building a castle over unknown terrain, without first understanding whether such terrain, can sustain the stresses of the building.
There is too much science does not know. Hypotheses like these are much like someone building a castle over unknown terrain, without first understanding whether such terrain, can sustain the stresses of the building.
Last edited:
Hubble's Law states that the redshift in light coming from a distant astronomical object is proportional to its distance. Its acceptance lay in the fact that it corroborated Friedmann's equations which govern the expansion of space within the context of Einstein's general theory of relativity.
However, it is interesting to note that Hubble himself always held open the possibility that the cosmological redshift did not mean velocity of recession, but might be caused by something else!
We should not take for granted that the Big Bang theory best explains our cosmological observations and the origin of the universe. Just because the scientists say so, the individual need not blindly accept their model as fact.
As Galileo once said: "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Ahy we are like goldfish looking out. Speculating, theorizing and postulating.
It must be comical to observe.
It must be comical to observe.
Observed by some scientifically advanced civilisation in a parallel universe, I assume? 😉
I just read a Wiki on redshift. Okay, I'm now totallyfully confused. How can distance between objects increase re: expansion without them moving from their positions in space?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.