Who is the Hubble Space Telescope named after, and what did he do?
Ultraviolet image of the Andromeda Galaxy, first known to be a galaxy by Edwin Hubble on December 30, 1924 - Galaxy Evolution Explorer image courtesy NASA
On cold winter nights we might look up at the stars, and remember Edwin Hubble in 1924.
On December 30, 1924, Edwin Hubble announced he’d discovered other galaxies in distant space. Though it may not have been so clear at the time, it meant that, as a galaxy, we are not alone in the universe (whether we are alone as intelligent life is a separate question). It also meant that the universe is much, much bigger than most people had dared to imagine.
In 2008 for Hubble Day, Wired picked up on the story (with a gracious link to 2007’s post here at the Bathtub). Wired includes several links to even more information, a good source of information. See Wired’s 2009 post here.
Hubble was the guy who showed us the universe is not only bigger than we imagined, it’s probably much bigger and much more fantastic than we can imagine. Hubble is the guy who opened our imaginations to the vastness of all creation.
How does one celebrate Hubble Day? Here are some suggestions:
- Easier than Christmas cards: Send a thank-you note to your junior high school science teacher, or whoever it was who inspired your interest in science. Mrs. Hedburg, Mrs. Andrews, Elizabeth K. Driggs, Herbert Gilbert, Mr. Willis, and Stephen McNeal, thank you.
- Rearrange your Christmas/Hanukkah/Eid/KWANZAA lights in the shape of the Andromeda Galaxy — or in the shape of any of the great photos from the Hubble Telescope (Andromeda Galaxy pictured above; Hubble images here)
A few of the images from the Hubble Telescope
- Go visit your local science museum; take your kids along – borrow somebody else’s kids if you have to (take them along, too)
- Spend two hours in your local library, just looking through the books on astronomy and the universe
- Anybody got a good recipe for a cocktail called “The Hubble?” “The Andromeda?” Put it in the comments, please
December 30, 1924, Edwin Hubble announced the results of his observations of distant objects in space.
Edwin Hubble - source: PBS
In 1924, he announced the discovery of a Cepheid, or variable star, in the Andromeda Nebulae. Since the work of Henrietta Leavitt had made it possible to calculate the distance to Cepheids, he calculated that this Cepheid was much further away than anyone had thought and that therefore the nebulae was not a gaseous cloud inside our galaxy, like so many nebulae, but in fact, a galaxy of stars just like the Milky Way. Only much further away. Until now, people believed that the only thing existing outside the Milky Way were the Magellanic Clouds. The Universe was much bigger than had been previously presumed.
Later Hubble noted that the universe demonstrates a “red-shift phenomenon.” The universe is expanding. This led to the idea of an initial expansion event, and the theory eventually known as Big Bang.
Hubble’s life offered several surprises, and firsts:
Hubble was a tall, elegant, athletic, man who at age 30 had an undergraduate degree in astronomy and mathematics, a legal degree as a Rhodes scholar, followed by a PhD in astronomy. He was an attorney in Kentucky (joined its bar in 1913), and had served in WWI, rising to the rank of major. He was bored with law and decided to go back to his studies in astronomy.
In 1919 he began to work at Mt. Wilson Observatory in California, where he would work for the rest of his life. . . .
Hubble wanted to classify the galaxies according to their content, distance, shape, and brightness patterns, and in his observations he made another momentous discovery: By observing redshifts in the light wavelengths emitted by the galaxies, he saw that galaxies were moving away from each other at a rate constant to the distance between them (Hubble’s Law). The further away they were, the faster they receded. This led to the calculation of the point where the expansion began, and confirmation of the big bang theory. Hubble calculated it to be about 2 billion years ago, but more recent estimates have revised that to 20 billion years ago.An active anti-fascist, Hubble wanted to joined the armed forces again during World War II, but was convinced he could contribute more as a scientist on the homefront. When the 200-inch telescope was completed on Mt. Palomar, Hubble was given the honor of first use. He died in 1953.
“Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science.”
That news on December 30, 1924, didn’t make the first page of the New York Times. The Times carried a small note on February 25, 1925, that Hubble won a $1,000 prize from the American Academy for the Advancement of Science.
(Does anyone have a suitable citation for that video? Where did it come from? Who produced it? Is there more somewhere?)
Happy Hubble Day! Look up!
Resources:
- Journey to Palomar site (production currently being broadcast on PBS affiliates – wonderful story of George Ellery Hale and the origins of modern astronomy at Palomar; that’s where Hubble worked)
- List of science museums in the U.S.
- List of science museums in the world
- 5 gigapixel image of the Milky Way (has some wallpaper company made a mural of this yet? can we stretch this image all the way around our classroom?)
- The telescope: 400 years old in 2008 (dated by Lippershay’s patent application)
- Hubblesite.org, the telescope
- NASA’s best photos of 2010, according to Huffington Post
- Official Hubble Telescope website at NASA
Hubble Space Telescope, working homage to Edwin Hubble - NASA image
Borrowed with express permission from Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.
Mr. Darrell's Wayback Machine 
Soon after astronomer Edwin Hubble proved the universe was expanding, it became evident that the universe was once very much smaller. The theory that the universe started from a single point (or very small area) is known as the big bang theory. The big bang theory has caused scientists to suggest that this universe would keep on expanding and creating by itself.
The reason why astronomer Edwin Hubble claimed that he discovered the universe was expanding was merely due to he discovered that the galaxies were moving further away from this earth at higher speeds, proportional to their distance and from then, he jumped into the conclusion that the universe was expanding.
However, there are a few reasons that are listed out below to show that it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding by seeing the galaxies were moving with higher speeds far away from the earth:
a) Let’s visualize that you are standing at a point where the earth rotates around the sun. As the earth makes a half round turn towards the point that is opposite to you, certainly you would express that the earth is moving far away from you. Let’s assume that you do not know that the earth simply rotates around the sun in a complete turn and what you have seen initially was simply its moving away from you right to the point that is opposite than you. Could you jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply due to you see the earth moving far away from you? Surely you cannot jump into this conclusion since the earth would spend about 182 days to rotate from the point that is opposite than you to the ultimate place where you stand to visualize and focus on its movement.
The same thing happened to the astronomer Edwin Hubble. He could not jump into the conclusion that the universe was expanding by seeing that galaxies were moving further away from this earth at higher speed since they could be a possibility that the galaxies would make a round turn after numerous days or months or years later. Thus, the assumption that the earth could be expanding by seeing galaxies were moving further away from this earth was simply some kind of speculation.
By the way the earth rotates around the sun by 365 days, how do you know the galaxies might rotate themselves around with years due to vast space of this universe? Edwin Hubble jumped into the conclusion that the galaxies would be expanding by observing and comparing the galaxies within a few days in his span of life is insufficient or rather speculative. This is due to how we would know that some galaxies might take more than a hundred years to make a full turn since this universe is in a vast space.
b) The earth is just small as comparative as the whole universe. To visualize from a small end, the earth, to the whole universe so as to jump into the conclusion is rather full of speculation. This is due to Edwin Hubble does not know how the universe looks like whether it looks like a sphere with boundary beyond. He also could not even be able to visualize what goes beyond the boundary. If there is a boundary that is beyond this universe, what substances that would be formed to restrict the space of universe? Could this boundary be stretchable or expandable? What if the boundary of this universe is not stretchable, the whole universe would be kept within it? If the boundary of this universe is not stretchable, how could the universe be expanding? Are there matters that go beyond the boundary of this universe? As Edwin Hubble saw the movement of the galaxies from the small little earth without the overview of the universe, his conclusion is full of speculation. Thus, it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by seeing that the galaxies were moving away from his sight while staring at the galaxies on earth.
.
c) There could be a possibility that this whole universe could be as a sphere and that all planets, moon and etc. could be rotating round and round within the sphere. It could be that the galaxies that Edwin Hubble was observing were moving faster speed than our galaxies. As the moving speed of another group of galaxies was faster than us, it seems to be that its moving away from our earth with fast speed. However, indeed that galaxies might perform its routine movement to turn round and round just that its speed is faster than the speed of our galaxies. Despite that galaxies might have moved faster than our galaxies, it still moves round and round within the big boundary of galaxies. If that is so, it is irrational to use it to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by seeing that the galaxies were moving away from his sight while staring at and comparing it while he was on earth.
Thus, using the evidence from Edwin Hubble to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding is rather speculation. As it is speculation, it is irrational to use it to support that Big Bang theory.
By: Jason Tannery on August 12, 2011
at 9:57 pm
But Jason: If the galaxies were making an orbit of something, then we should expect about half of them to be coming back toward us — blue shift. No blue shift.
Also, all objects are moving away from us, in all directions, simultaneously.
Since Hubble made the observation there were two competing hypotheses proposed, Steady State and Big Bang. Without laboring the point, and without demonstrating it very well, let us note that there is a lot of physics that goes into Big Bang, including the origins of matter from the sub-sub-atomic particles. All of that adds up to Big Bang.
You should study what Hubble observed, and I think you’ll see the problem with your hypothesis.
By: Ed Darrell on August 12, 2011
at 10:07 pm
The following are the explanations why the discovery of Edwin Hubble does not provide a good evidence that our universe would be expanding currently:
a)Despite many red shifts through telescope from astronomers, it does not provide the proof that this universe could be expanding for the following reasons:
1) The possibility that our universe could be very huge that it would take more than trillion of years to reach the opposite end of the sphere. The assumption is based upon the following factors: This universe is assumed to be as a shape of sphere with external boundary and all galaxies were assumed to pull within the boundary of this universe.
Let’s use a transparent ball to illustrate. Imagine that you would stand at one end of the sphere to view all the surrounding movement of galaxies. As all the galaxies were advancing at a high speed your end to the point that is opposite than you that form a half complete round, you certainly would visualize that all the galaxies were advancing as if that they are leaving away from you since their movement in speed is a few time faster than your galaxy. As this universe is very huge so much so that it would take a very long time, let’s say, more than a trillion years to reach the point that is right opposite to the point so as to make a half complete turn of this universe. Despite many galaxies have been moving towards the point that is right opposite to the point where you are viewing through telescope, the result would turn up to be many red shifts to be appeared in the sky. As universe is too huge for galaxies to travel from one end to another and only a few have completed a half turn to move than to the starting point of the sphere where you are, it turns up that they are many red shifts than blue shifts.
2) The second possibility is that many galaxies might have advanced faster from yet and yet many galaxies might have made a complete half and full turn and yet the galaxies might not as what we think to keep rotating themselves and these could result that they do not turn back to us and they are beyond our telescope and technology that can be reachable since the universe is too big for us to imagine.
3) The third possibility is that all the clusters of galaxies could be advancing in the same place and same direction just that most of the galaxies are advancing faster than us as if that their galaxies are moving further away from us. As we are in this tiny world and cannot have the full sight of this universe, we could not reject this possibility since it might be so without our full view of this universe since the astronomers just looked at the sky with a telescope that comes to their conclusion without viewing the universe as a whole. No matter how advance is the technology, it is unless to build an advice that could capture the whole view of universe from one end.
4) The fourth possibility is that majoirty of the galaxies might have made a full complete in this universe within the boundary of the universe in many years ago, such as, more than a few thousand years ago. What the astonomers that have seen right now with many red shifts do not reflect the universe might be expanding since there might be a period of times in many years ago that almost all the galaxies have made a complete full turn and it turns up that many galaxies have turned up to be red shifts currently. Or in other words, it would take many years later, such as more than a few thousand years, in order to have many blue shifts instead of red shifts at that time.
5) The fifth possibility is that universe was created in infinity and that all galaxies are advancing ever since the past. If that is so, it is erroneous to use many red shifts as discovered by astronomers to conclude that the universe is expanding.
There might be other possibilities that you could think of why there are more red shifts than blue shifts and yet it does not come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. As there are many alternative possibilities, to jump into conclusion that the universe is expanding through many red shifts being discovered is rather a little speculation.
By: Li Kong on August 15, 2011
at 8:10 pm
Li Kong, I urge you to look at the video near the bottom of that post. I think you’ve made some fundamentally erroneous assumptions about Hubble’s observations, and how he collected data.
Kong said:
The data show expansion, period. That is the observation, not the hypotheses or theory drawn from the data. “Proof” is not something science offers, really — instead, we work to disprove a hypothesis. Hubble’s hypothesis was arrived at after years of study of the data, and his hypothesis has withstood hundreds of attempts to disprove it. Let’s understand the history here. It’s not something he just dreamed up.
Hubble’s fundamental observation is that the universe is expanding. There really are no contrary data.
If we assumed a sphere exists into which the matter of the universe is expanding, that does not contradict Hubble’s observations or theories, nor can it.
But you should be aware: The universe is not spherical; there does not appear to be a universe beyond the expansion. You appear to be assuming things about Hubble’s observations that he did not assume, and which are not in evidence. There is no “empty space” in the universe into which matter expands. It is the universe itself that is expanding.
I think you might find that there are no blue shift galaxies. None. And, again, you assume that there is a universe of space beyond the matter that exists — and that is not in evidence.
But let me add another observation that confounds your explanation. The red-shifted galaxies occur wherever we look, in all directions. Not only that, but from any point in the universe, all other galaxies are rushing away. While it’s hypothetically possible to have something happen to cause a galaxy to move the opposite direction, no such galaxies have been found. All galaxies are moving away from all other galaxies, and those farthest away are moving away faster than those not so far away.
Big Bang and Steady State both accounted for that, but Steady State assumed a “center” somewhere, from which all other points move away. In actual observation, it has been discovered that there is no such center point. Or, put another way, that center point is everywhere. Big Bang explains how this occurs, and predictions from Big Bang theory based on those observations have been experimentally demonstrated.
You should also be aware that the modern version of Big Bang is also informed by Einstein’s work on relativity – to put it confusingly for us laymen, but accurately:
So, Big Bang is consistent with and partly founded on Einstein’s observations about how gravity and matter are related. If one wishes to disprove Big Bang, one must also disprove gravity, or explain why gravity gives false readings.
That’s a tougher problem than you have assumed here.
Kong said:
Show us the data. There are no such data known that are contrary to the expansion from Big Bang — and in fact, recent observations (well, in the past two decades) show that contrary to there being a “turn” somewhere out there, the expansion of galaxies away from each other is not slowing down, as many had assumed it would with the more commonly-understood properties of gravity, but the expansion is speeding up. Something is pushing galaxies away from each other, faster — something other than the original expansion from the Big Bang event. Check out an explanation of dark matter. It seems to me you’ve not considered this accelerating expansion in any form.
We may not be able to see back all the way to the beginning, but we have observations at least 12 billion light years out — 12 billion years of history — and in all directions, the expansion is away from us.
In all directions.
Are you familiar with the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF)? It seems to me that you don’t account for this information at all, and it contradicts your hypothesis strongly.
The HUDF images give us snapshots of the universe’s history, from about a billion years ago to 13 billion years ago. Expansion through all of that time. There is not an iota of evidence of a “turn” in the past 13 billion years, nor any explanation for how such a thing could have occurred.
Again, you assume the existence of another, larger universe into which the universe is expanding. No evidence of that.
There are no other explanations which account for all that is already observed, plus take into consideration the effects of gravity and matter in the universe. There are not other explanations which allow the phenomena you hypothesize, and also allow for the existence of matter as we know it.
Science isn’t really a game of making fantastic guesses. We have to base theories on what is actually observed. Much of what you hypothesize is contrary to what we’ve already seen in the universe.
Here’s the rough formulation, the quick test of Big Bang, as described at NASA’s site:
You’ve mentioned possibilities of observations of the motion of galaxies, assuming that no one has looked for such motions. Instead, the observations that have been made contradict your hypotheses, and therefore falsify them.
You may especially want to investigate the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation — through the COBE project, the Cosmic Background Explorer, we actually have photographs of shortly after Big Bang, photos that verify Big Bang very nicely.
Plus, there are other proofs of Big Bang you’ve not accounted for.
I think you’ll find the case very strong for Big Bang, if you look at the evidence, at all the evidence available. You’re thinking hard about these issues, and that’s good. Get some more data, and you’ll sharpen your thinking a lot.
By: Ed Darrell on August 15, 2011
at 11:16 pm
Hey, take a look at this video explaining the Hubble Ultra Deep Field photo, at Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub.
By: Ed Darrell on August 16, 2011
at 7:10 am
The reasons why the discovery of Edwin Hubble does not prove that our universe could be expanding:
Despite his discovery about many red shifts in the galaxies through observations instead of hypotheses or theory drawn from the data, there is a shortfall in his discovery. This is due to his observation about many red-shifts in the galaxies was throughout his limited span of life instead of throughout generations from generations since it might take many years, let’s assume more than 1000 years or even higher, in order to get all blue shifts at that time.
There could be a possibility that there were many blue-shifts in the past, let’s say, more than a few hundred years ago, due to many galaxies might have made a full turn at the same time. As many galaxies might have made a full turn in the past, the current view that galaxies have shown many red shifts do not reflect that the universe is expanding.
As we are living in this small little earth, our perception through telescope could not give a full view pertaining to the situation about how our universe is responding.
Edwin Hubble mentioned that the universe is expanding as if there is a boundary in this universe. If there could be no boundary that could restrict the universe, the universe should be in infinity. As we do not have a full view of the universe as a whole, to mention that this universe is expanding is little speculation in the sense that we do not know whether the universe could be in infinity or not.
For instance, if this universe were in infinity, there should not be any reason for us to mention that this universe is expanding. Many red-shifts that the astronomers gather from galaxies could only show that many galaxies are advancing further away from us and it does not reflect that our universe is expanding since the universe is in infinity.
For instance, if this universe could have a finite space, it is rational to assume that there should be a boundary to restrict the space of this universe. If there could be no boundary to restrict the space of this universe, how could there be a finite space in this universe? If there could be no boundary in this universe, how could the astronomers presume that the universe is expanding by seeing many red-shifts in the galaxies? To jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding without realizing whether this universe has a finite space is a little speculation.
If this universe has a finite space, it is rational to assume that this universe should look like a sphere or a sphere with oval shape. It is irrational to assume that this universe should look like cube or rectangular shape or whatever. To assume that the universe would look like a sphere, is simply an illustration so to give the possibility of why red shifts do not reflect the truth that the universe is expanding. We could not have a full sight of this universe whether there could be a boundary. What if the universe does have the shape of sphere in reality, giving an example that this universe as a sphere would be the most appropriate approach. As we could not have the full sight of this universe, to jump into the conclusion by seeing many red-shift is rather a little speculation.
By: Jason Tannery on August 17, 2011
at 5:47 pm
Jason said:
Hubble was able to sample galaxies going back a couple billion years. Since the speed of light is constant in the vacuum of the universe it travels through, mostly, we can know that an object a billlion light years away sent that light to us a billion years ago. Hubble didn’t even one whole century, but with his optical telescopes, he was able to view several billions of years of history.
Today, with the Hubble Telescope, with the COBE Project, and other viewers, we can view almost the entire history of the universe, back to 13 billion years ago and then some.
No blue shift phenomenon to support your hypothesis is observed, not anywhere in the universe.
Remember, Hubble simply observed the expansion of the universe. Others formulated the idea of Big Bang, and yet others worked out the physics and math that would be required and which would be manifested by Big Bang. We can be certain it happened, and when it happened within a few tens of thousands of years, because of the physical evidence left behind, much of which we can photograph, much of which we can measure physically, much of which we have on our planet.
So there are several threads of evidence and other solid theory that support Big Bang, including gravity theory, observations of gravity and gravitational effects (though no one has yet seen gravity nor measured it directly — it remains a force of great mystery in many ways).
Be sure to read the links I offered above.
When we look at light from any star, we look back through time. We can observe very completely the “situation about how our universe is responding.” We can look back billions of years.
We have a very full view, even if not complete. Great mysteries we have don’t relate to whether there was Big Bang, but instead involve what happened to most of the matter — dark matter, stuff we can detect through gravitational effects, but which we do not see otherwise.
And then there is string theory, with it’s at least 11 different dimensions.
There are wonderful, tasty mysteries in the universe. They all are informed by and inform Big Bang Theory.
Oh, just to put you in another tizzy — which infinity are you talking about here? Aleph 1, Aleph 2, Aleph 3 . . . ? Because there are different sizes of infinities. The infinity of integers is smaller than the infinity of all fractions. The infinity of points on a line is necessarily smaller than the infinity of lines in any plane that line is on, let alone points in the plane.
This is exciting stuff in science and mathematics. Read up on it — get George Gamow’s book, One, Two, Three . . . Infinity, or one of Steven Hawking’s books, or Brian Greene’s, or Timothy Ferris’s — and read the real science. Not only is the universe stranger that you do imagine, as one famous scientist said — it is stranger than you can imagine. Try to understand what is actually known before you make an uninformed argument that what is known is wrong.
You are speculating way beyond what you know. Some of your speculations have been falsified by direct observation. Some of your sepculations simply are not possible. Some of your speculations make sense, but don’t work with the mathematics. Study. Don’t resist knowledge.
That would be rational, but wrong. You assume equal force in all directions. We live in more of a disk — but there are other shape anomalies that make it more complicated.
In any case, assuming the universe to be spherical is a nice place to start from — but I’ll leave it to you to figure out how to make observations to disprove the hypothesis. You may find most of them are already done.
Don’t speculate. Go read what is known, and especially how it is known. There is no jump to a conclusion of Big Bang. There was a lot of measurement, a lot of observation, a lot of hypotheses and experiments done to disprove them — and ultimately, Big Bang is the theory that stands the tests, that explains what we see in the universe, and tells us what we might see that we haven’t even thought of yet.
By: Ed Darrell on August 18, 2011
at 2:28 pm
Edwin Hubble mentioned that the universe is expanding by observing the existence of many red-shifts appear in the galaxies is itself an assumption. One might argue that the universe is not a sphere and that we have no proved to deny it since nobody in this earth did see the boundary of the universe. Some might assume that there is no ‘empty place’ in the universe into which matter expands. If that is true that there is no ‘empty place’ in the universe into which matter expands, questions have to be raised due to the uncertainty about what would go beyond the matter in which the universe itself is expanding: What materials could it be that would make up of that materials? Nobody in this world has ever seen in the past whether there could be any matter that covers the universe. So, nobody in this world would know whether the matter could be stretchable or non-stretchable. What if the matter that covers the universe is not stretchable, how could the assumption that the universe could be expanding to be true? By the way, as nobody could see that there could any matter that covers the universe and this includes Edwin Hubble. His theory that the universe is expanding by observing many red-shifts in the galaxies is just some kind of speculation. If there could be matter beyond the matter, how big could the matter be? Could there be anything or any other universe or anything that is beyond this universe that could block the expansion of this universe in many years later? What could that matter be made up of so much so that it could allow this universe to be expandable? If that could be some matter that covers this expanding, could the thickness of this matter be lasted into infinity? If there could be a matter that covers this universe, could this matter be breakable since the support that the continuous expanding of this universe is true? Would there be any substance after the matter that covers the universe that could be expanding? As there are many uncertainties about this universe and whether there could be any matter that covers this universe since nobody could have a full sight of this entire universe, Edwin Hubble jumps into the conclusion that this universe is expanding by seeing many red-shifts in the galaxies is a little speculation unless he could be certain that there were people in the past did see the matter that would cover the universe so as to make this conclusion. Or else, there could be a possibility that this universe might be lasted until infinity without any matter covering this universe.
By: Li Kong on August 17, 2011
at 8:21 pm
See my response to Jason, above. It’ll take me a bit of time to get back to the questions you asked beyond those he asked. Thanks for coming by and don’t stop dropping by, eh?
By: Ed Darrell on August 18, 2011
at 2:29 pm
Kong said:
No, those are observations — facts. Hubble observed dozens, ultimately hundreds of objects determined to be galaxies. Using the cepheid objects, he could determine distance. Hubble also observed a “red shift,” which means that the light comeing from the galaxies show a shift on the chemical spectrum. It might be that stars observed are not made of hydrogen (which gives the typical signature of hydrogne in a spectrum of light) — or, as Hubble finally realized, it may bean simply that the object is moving away so fast that the spectrum of light observed is shifted to the red spectrum as a function of that speed, and it is not that the stars are made of completely unknown substances. I think you may want to study what red shift is, before you complain that Hubble’s observations are wrong.
Again, you’re talking about observations (not by Hubble in this case). Make your case: What evidence do you have that the universe is a sphere?
Here, you might want to read what NASA has discovered (with others) about the actual shape of the universe:
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html
Sure, those questions need to be asked. So far, the answers are, “there is nothing there.” Not space, not a substance — but absolute nothing.
Do you disagree? What is your evidence of something being there?
Every time you look at a star, you see the past. If you look at the sun, or sunlight on the ground, you’re looking at what our local star looked like a bit over 8 minutes ago. You’re looking at the past. If you look at our nearest stellar neighber, Alpha Centauri, you’re looking 4 years into the past. All of astronomy is looking at the past.
Where is the matter you claim is there? Where is there any evidence of it?
What evidence do you have that there is any matter there at all?
You’re attacking Hubble for stuff he didn’t say.
Oh, yeah, there are a few assumptions: First, that the universe doesn’t lie. This might be incorrect. It’s an ancient assumption, from Christianity, really, that the creator of the universe does not lie, and therefore what we observe in nature is true and correct, and not imaginary, not false, not a misrepresentation of what really goes on. Experimentally, we have found that to be true in every case ever tested.
Second, we understand (“assume” in your words) that chemicals react the same under the same conditions, wherever they are found in the universe. Experimentally, this has never been found to be in error — never.
So it’s not “some kind of speculation.” It’s knowledge gained from 500 years of measurements and observations of nature.
We have no evidence of “matter beyond the matter.” There IS evidence of matter hidden where we should be able to see it — but that’s a different issue.
Are you familiar with string theory? In its current incarnations, string theory proposes that there may be multiple universes — but they are not outside our present universe, but rather interwoven throughout.
Here’s a TEDS Talk by Brian Greene, on string theory and the 11 dimensions issue:
If there is matter there, it’s probably made up of quarks (see above).
Hubble made no leaps to any conclusion. He observed carefully, and studied. We should follow his example. I think you’re assuming Hubble did things and assumed things he did not. I also sense that you’re not very familiar with modern physics and astronomy, especially particle physics. You should read up a bit, I think. Start with the links above.
By: Ed Darrell on August 19, 2011
at 9:46 am
Edwin Hubble’s theory does not provide any support for the Big Bang’s theory since his theory involves speculation since we do not have the full sight of how this entire universe could look like.
Is it true to mention that there is no blue shift in this universe? The following are the websites addresses in which you could locate evidences that there are blue shifts in the galaxies to disprove the argument:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-allsky?ra_constraint=Unconstrained&ra_1=&ra_2=&dec_constraint=Unconstrained&dec_1=&dec_2=&glon_constraint=Unconstrained&glon_1=&glon_2=&glat_constraint=Unconstrained&glat_1=&glat_2=&z_constraint=Less+Than&z_value1=0&z_value2=&z_unit=km%2Fs&ot_include=ANY&ex_objtypes1=Clusters&ex_objtypes1=Supernovae&ex_objtypes1=QSO&ex_objtypes2=AbsLineSys&ex_objtypes2=GravLens&ex_objtypes2=Radio&ex_objtypes2=Infrared&ex_objtypes3=EmissnLine&ex_objtypes3=UVExcess&ex_objtypes3=Xray&ex_objtypes3=GammaRay&nmp_op=ANY&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=B1950.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&zv_breaker=30000.0;
http://www.beskeen.com/gallery/galaxy/m31/m31.shtml
The following are the possible reasons for the above blue shifts to arise:
a) This universe could have an immense space in which it might take more than 12 billion light years or even trillion light years to travel from one end of the universe to another initially. These galaxies might have travelled more than a half round in their usual routine tracks of rotation to its return and that there could be a possibility that there were a period of long time and that could be more than 12 billion light years ago that most of the galaxies might be in blue shift. As some of the galaxies are advancing slower than majority of the galaxies, it turns up that majority might have completed their full turn and moving upward and advancing further away from us and leaving a few galaxies to be in blue shift currently. As nobody could see the universe as a whole from the very past, especially what was beyond 12 billion light years ago or even trillion years ago, there could be such a possibility to occur in this universe. To jump into the conclusion that this universe is expanding simply by seeing many red shift is rather speculative.
b) There could be a reason in which that all the galaxies might have travelled faster than the above-mentioned galaxies bypass our galaxies in numerous years ago and ultimately causes these galaxies to fall behind due to their rotating speed is slowly than most of the galaxies. This assumption includes the possibility that there could be many blue shifts in numerous years ago and that could be beyond 12 billion light years ago, as the galaxies were travelling a rapid speed toward us. As most of the galaxies have bypassed our galaxies in the past and at the same time they have completed a full turn from its rotation, these certainly result in many red-shifts in current world due to most of the galaxies have moved upward following its usual movement tracks for its half turn of its rotation. As a result, this causes us to have more red-shifts than blue currently.
Most of the galaxies might not pass through us to be the centre of the point for rotating. However, it could be the possibility that most of the galaxies could have bypassed us in numerous years ago and this could be the reason to have the result in many red shifts than blue currently.
As some of the galaxies were moving slower than most of the galaxies, this results that there are more red-shifts than blue currently.
c) There could be a reason that some galaxies are moving fastest speed than the other and this causes some galaxies to be in blue shift since they have completed a half round turn in facing our universe in advancing.
d)There could be many other possible reasons that we could think of for the possibilities to have more red-shifts than blue currently and that does not come to the conclusion that our universe is expanding or this universe could create something out of nothing.
Some might mention that the discovery of many red shift in the galaxies have moving further away in rapid speed, could provide the support of dark matter theory or Big Bang theory. However, there is a possibility that most of the galaxies might well perform their routine movement and it might not give any signal that this universe could be expanding. As most galaxies are travelling in rapid speed, this causes them to bypass us fastest than a few galaxies and this has resulted in more red shifts than blue currently.
Some might have mentioned that the observation could be through 12 billion light years old that the galaxies have been moved in all directions further away from us. However, consideration has to be taken into accounts pertaining to the size of the universe since the size of the universe could be so immense that galaxies might take more than 12 billion light years or even much longer than that, such as, a few trillion years in order for galaxies to make a half turn in rotation in order for us to have most of the galaxies to be in blue shift. As nobody could have the full view of this universe and nobody did see whether there could be a boundary of this universe, we could not reject the possibility of the vast space of this universe. Or in other words, there could be a possibility that galaxies might take more than 12 billion light years or even trillion light years in order that most of the planets could complete their half round turn so that we could have the many blue shift from the time onwards.
Nevertheless, it is too irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by observing the galaxies are advancing further away from us to conclude that our universe is expanding.
By: Jason Tannery on August 19, 2011
at 4:55 pm
I erred. Of the billions of galaxies in the universe, there are a tiny few that show blue shift — most of them, perhaps all of them in our local galaxy group, clustered around an almost-common center.
These few exceptions do not disprove Big Bang.
See the answer from Physlink (a site you should study):
By: Ed Darrell on August 20, 2011
at 2:21 pm
Ed Darrell, I do not know who is Li Kong. You assume that I am Li Kong is simply out of your own speculation. Neither do I have the same email address than she nor I have any similarity with her. Don’t miss out! From the name, Li Kong, I am sure that she is a girl and not a man. The reason that I submit the questionaires due to you have insisted you are right. However, Edwin Hubble’s theory seems to be in speculation.
It might be that Li Kong and I seem to argue the same topic and cause you to think she is me. Honestly speaking, I do not know who is she. However, it seems to be that she is at my side.
I think Li Kong should come out to clarify her point that she is not me, Jason Tannery. From the name, Li Kong, I suspect she might be a Chinese. Never mind! It is just speculation.
By: Jason Tannery on August 19, 2011
at 5:41 pm
Some might argue that there is no boundary in this universe and yet the universe could be expanding to support the Big Bang theory. There are a number of questions have to be raised:
a)As nobody in this world in the past has seen there is a restriction in the space of universe, how could we be so sure that this universe could be in limited space for this universe to expand?
b)As there could be no boundary in this universe and there has been no eye-witnessing that our universe could be restricted in space, how could we be so sure that there could be place for this universe to expand?
c)As there could be no boundary in this universe and there has been no eye-witnessing that this universe could be restricted in space, how could we be so sure that this universe could be expanding since nobody could have eye-witnessed that this universe could be limited in space and that causes it to be able to expand further or even until eternity?
d)As there could be no boundary in this universe and there has been no eye-witnessing that our universe could be restricted in space, how could we determine the diameter of this universe?
e)As there could be no boundary in this universe and there has been no eye-witnessing that our universe could be limited in space, what yardstick has been set to determine that this size of this universe or whether this universe could be itself in infinity?
Edwin Hubble’s theory sounds correctly. However, it does not seem to be realistic when we consider deep enough.
I am a graduate in science and did touch on astronomy. However, I do not support Edwin Hubble’s theory since I feel that it is a bit speculation. The same as for those who study evolution and even take up the course, there are some graduates might oppose and yet they have no choice since it is in their syllabus.
By: Li Kong on August 19, 2011
at 8:01 pm
Kong said:
There is no evidence of such a boundary. Consequently, scientists generally do not speculate that something exists, when there is no evidence for it, and there is no theoretical reason that it should be there.
We can’t assume what we don’t know. You remind me of the probably apocryphal tale of the woman who told the scientist lecturer that ‘everyone knows the Earth is supported on pillars, which rest on the back of a giant turtle, and that turtle on the backs of four others.’ The scientist asked what held up those four turtles, hoping she’d see the error of her case. ‘You can’t fool me, young man — it’s turtles, all the way down!’
Down to what?
You’re proposing turtles here, Kong.
The evidence shows the universe is expanding. Hence, we say “the universe expands.” Maybe there is a boundary, and the universe is really shrinking in such a way that it looks like expansion to us. And maybe I am the Queen of Romania.
I indicated we have photos of stuff occurring about 14 billion years ago. Isn’t that as good as eye-witness evidence? Why do you keep dismissing the evidence that does exist, in favor of stuff you construct of conjecture and vapor, for which there is not a whit of evidence?
Good question. We determine how far out are the farthest objects — and that is the dimension. See for example this answer from the cracker jack astronomers at Cornell University, on whether we can calculate the size of the universe in miles, from the age dimension. It features this mind-boggling question and answer:
Kong said:
Hubble’s work suggests the expansion — which has been observed by Hubble — and it seems “realistic” when we consider the operations of quantum mechanics, especially the effects of traveling at light speed. Big Bang is confirmed by the “echo” radiation we observe, and by the fact that the physics work in explaining what we see and where we see it.
In science, you always have a choice. If you have contrary data, tell somebody.
Of course, you’re not allowed to call Hubble in error if you have no data contrary to his. It’s “in the syllabus” because there is a lot of evidence to support it, not because of some whim of a wizard somewhere. Science is not a democratic process. Evolution is accurate regardless how unpopular it may be with a local religious cult. I don’t like gravity, but I can’t talk my neighbors into repealing it.
By: Ed Darrell on August 22, 2011
at 4:54 pm
Some might mention that they have photos of stuff occurring about 14 billion years ago to support Edwin Hubble’s theory that there were many red-shift in the galaxies in the past. However, there are two possibilities that many red shifts that have appeared about 14 billion light years might not give the proof that this universe could be expanding:
a)There could be a possibility that the universe itself is not expanding. The original size of the universe could be so huge that it might take more than a few trillion light years for galaxies to travel pass from one end of the universe to another. As the size of the universe might be very huge so much so it would take more than a few trillion years for galaxies could be very huge, it turns up that the galaxies would take about 14 billion years to travel and yet they have not yet reach nearly the end of the galaxies in order to make a turn for their return in advancing towards us. As a result, there shows more red-shifts than blue currently. Or in other words, there would be a time in which there could be more blue shifts than red and it should be at more than a number of billions of light years later in which most of the galaxies have completed their half round of travelling in turning to us for advancing.
b)There could be a possibility that the universe could be advancing as supported by Edwin Hubble.
c)There could be a possibility that the universe could be lasted until infinity. If there is no boundary or space limit for this universe, many red-shifts that have discovered in the past would not give us the information that the universe could be expanding due to our universe could be lasted until infinity and there is no space limit at all.
As there are two out of three possibilities that could not come to the conclusion that many red shifts in the galaxies that had been discovered by Edwin Hubble could come to the conclusion that this galaxies could be expanding, to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding is rather speculative.
Some might comment that we could compute the size of the universe in miles from the age dimension to conclude that the size of the universe could be measured. However, by tracing the years backward in which red shifts have been advancing would not tell the size of the universe since it only could tell the number of years from now to then. It could not tell whether there could be size from the galaxies and that is beyond. For instance, if the universe could be lasted to infinity, the method that has been adopted to compute the size of universe would not turn up to be accurate.
By: Li Kong on August 23, 2011
at 2:11 am
Yeah, because they have the photos. See the Deep Field photo above. Follow the links to images of the COBE Project images, above.
The evidence is very solid. You can’t just dismiss the photos as inconsequential.
Evidence supports the expansion — all of the evidence. You’re straying into conjecture again, but conjecture that is contradicted by actual observation.
The Cosmic Background Radiation is exactly where it should be because of Big Bang. You can’t just dismiss CBR as not contradicting claims of no expansion, as it does.
Even Fred Hoyle, the guy who defended Steady State, conceded that CBR indicated expansion.
The original size of the universe could be so huge that it might take more than a few trillion light years for galaxies to travel pass from one end of the universe to another. As the size of the universe might be very huge so much so it would take more than a few trillion years for galaxies could be very huge, it turns up that the galaxies would take about 14 billion years to travel and yet they have not yet reach nearly the end of the galaxies in order to make a turn for their return in advancing towards us. As a result, there shows more red-shifts than blue currently. Or in other words, there would be a time in which there could be more blue shifts than red and it should be at more than a number of billions of light years later in which most of the galaxies have completed their half round of travelling in turning to us for advancing.
The only measured blue shifts are galaxies in our local cluster, orbiting around a center — and the whole cluster expanding, demonstrating Big Bang.
You’re conjecturing stuff that the evidence contradicts.
You offer no evidence. What would be evidence that would support your conjecture here — and why should we dismiss the evidence of expansion that is so clear, including Red Shift, CBR, the existence of matter. the measurement of gravity, the existence of Dark Matter.
You’d think that, with so many confirmations from separate areas of science, your conjectures would have some support, instead of no support.
No, it’s not speculative. Check out the description of the work of Wilson and Penzias, and the work of Alpher and Gamow.
You’re speculating, against the proofs of Big Bang.
The cepheids allow us to measure the distances, and now that we know the relationship of red shift, that, too, allows us to calculate ages and distance — practically the same thing.
What would provide evidence for your claims, falsifying Big Bang? You don’t offer any way to tell why all we see is wrong.
By: Ed Darrell on August 23, 2011
at 11:04 am
The following is the website in which the calculation of the size of universe has been mentioned:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151
The following are the verses quoted from the above websites:
My bright teenage son, after considerable calculation, has concluded that the universe is approximately 68 sextillion miles wide. He based his calculation on the basic 186K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion year age of the universe.
There are a few shortfalls in above computation of the size of the universe:
a)It is a clear cut from the explanation above that the computation of the size of the universe is subjected to the travelling speed of 184 mi/sec speed of light for the movement of the galaxies. However, there is a limitation in the computation of the size of the universe and that is the computation does not take into consideration whether there could be a possibility that this universe could be in infinity and there could be no space limit after its formation. For instance, if size of our universe that has been formed could be in infinity and there would be no space boundary and space limit, the computation of the size of the universe would turn up to be speculative. This is due to we could not use the speed of the advancement of the galaxies farthest away from us to monitor the size of the universe due to the universe could have already been formed in infinity ever since its creation and there could be no reason for the universe to extend further since there could be no space limit in the first place.
b)It is irrational to use the estimated age of the universe as a guideline to determine the size of the universe since there could be a possibility that the size of the universe could have been formed initially with its extension to infinity. If the size of the universe could have been formed initially with infinity, there should not be any boundary or space limit for this universe to extend further since the initial size of this universe could have already been extended to infinity. To fix the age of the universe in the computation of the size of the universe, would not determine the exact size of the universe since the size of it could have been lasted until infinity initially.
Despite Edwin Hubble could produce the photos to prove that many red shifts in the galaxies ever since the commencement of the universe, to jump into the conclusion that the universe could be expanding is rather speculative for the following reasons:
a)One possibility is that this universe might have been created initially with boundary and yet the size of the universe might be so immense that it might take more than a trillion years for the galaxies to travel from one end of the universe to another. As the size of the universe could be so immense that galaxies would take more than a trillion years to travel from one end to another, it turns up that most of the galaxies are advancing further away from this galaxy due to they would take many more years to complete their half turn in order that these galaxies would turn back to us in rotation to show majority to be in blue shift in the future. That could be the reason why there are many red shifts than blue. This possibility is there since nobody ever really sees that there could be a boundary in the galaxies.
As nobody has ever seen the boundary of the universe, we could not deny that there could be a possibility that the universe could be so huge that it would take more than a trillion of years for galaxies to travel from one end of the universe to the other end.
As nobody has ever seen the boundary of the universe, there is no support that the size of the universe could not be so immense that it might take a few trillion light years to travel from one end of the universe to another.
If this universe could be so in reality, many red shifts in the galaxies do not reflect the universe could be expanding since the galaxies would take more than a few trillion of years to travel farthest away from our galaxy before they could make a u-turn so that we could have the view of many blue shifts since then.
b)Second possibility is that this universe might have been created initially with infinite space. Or in other words, there could be no boundary or space limit in the universe ever since its creation. As there could be no space limit in this universe, the observation that there have been many red shifts than blue ever since 15 billion light years ago would not give us the information that this universe could be expanding.
As nobody has ever seen there could be a boundary of the universe, there is no support that there could be any boundary in this universe. Or in other words, we could not deny that there could be a possibility that the universe could have been created in infinity and that this universe could be without space limit initially.
If this universe could be so in reality, many red shifts in the galaxies do not reflect the universe could be expanding since the universe itself could be in infinity and there could be no space limit.
c)Third possibility could be as what was described by Edwin Hubble that the universe could be expanding.
As there are two out of three possibilities that could not come to the conclusion that the universe could be expanding, to jump into the conclusion through many red shifts in the galaxies is a little speculative.
The reason why Fred Hoyle defended steady stage and yet later supported the expansion was merely due to many red shifts in the galaxies. However, there are other possibilities that might not come to the conclusion that the universe could be expanding simply by observing many red shifts in the galaxies ever since the creation of the universe.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43258908/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/four-dark-matter-hunters-shhttp://www.space.com/9405-dark-matter-finally-time.html
The following are some of the explanations pertaining to the websites address from : http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae384.cfm pertaining to the reply of blue-shift:
The fourth paragraph of the reply as listed in the above website address has been listed here for discussion:
A useful analogy here is to take an empty balloon, draw dots all over it to represent galaxies, and pretend that we live on one of the dots. As you blow up the balloon, ALL of the dots move apart from each other. And the ones that are farthest away from us move the fastest.
There are some discrepancies between balloon and the galaxies in which balloon might not be suitable to be used to support Edwin Hubble’s theory:
a)There is a visible boundary in the empty balloon and that is the plastic that is made up of that balloon. However, we do not know whether there is any boundary in this universe or whether this universe could be itself in infinity and there could be no way to talk about expansion since there could be no limited in space. Even if there is a boundary that covers the universe, we do not know what matter that is made up of that boundary. The example that is used for balloon is plastic. The plastic is indeed stretchable. However, we do not know even whether the boundary of this universe is stretchable. As you continue to blow the plastic balloon, it would soon burst. This should not be applicable to the universe. As there are discrepancies between balloon and the uncertainty whether there could be a boundary of this universe, it is irrational to use balloon as an illustration to support Hubble’s theory.
b) As we blow the balloon, all the air would go into one direction to cause the balloon to expand. However, there are a few galaxies are in blue shift that could not go adversely. As there are discrepancies between balloon and this universe, how could we use balloon for the illustration of this universe?
c)As we blow the balloon, all the air would go into one direction. If we assume that there is a strong force from the centre of the earth to blow in all its surrounding, certainly all the galaxies in the surrounding would move farthest away from this earth. As there is a continuous force to push from the centre of the earth to other surrounding galaxies, all galaxies whether they are near or far would move farthest away from the earth and there should not be any reason for some galaxies to have blue shift. This assumption is simply using the earth as the centre to be the force to cause other galaxies to advance away from us.
Let’s assume that the force has come from one of other galaxies far away from us. The force that is directed would cause other galaxies and these include our galaxy to advance further away from that galaxy. Or in other words, our galaxy would also be advancing instead of merely other galaxies. As the force might not be from us and it might be from one of other galaxies, our earth could not be assumed to be the centre to the force to cause other galaxies to move. If that could be so, there should be many blue shift at all time instead of many red. Thus, the assumption that the force could be come from one of other galaxies to cause galaxies to advance could not be acceptable in Hubble’s law.
Nevertheless, it seems to be that Hubble’s theory could not be acceptable if we could use the earth to be the centre as a force that causes the surrounding of the galaxies to advance further. However, there is a shortfall in Hubble’s theory since why blue shift should appear then.
d)As we blow the balloon, all the particles in the balloon is moving in one direction in a constant speed. Let’s assume that there is a force that causes other galaxies to move farthest away from us. There are a few queries to be raised: As there is a constant force to cause the galaxies to be expanded and this has resulted that the galaxies should move farthest away in constant speed from us, why is it that some galaxies could move faster than the other? If there is a force to cause our galaxies to be expanded and this has resulted that the galaxies to move further away from us, our galaxy should indeed join the queue in advancing instead of stationing here and many of other galaxies seem advancing further away from us except that we are not advancing further.
Refer to the thirdth paragraph in the first answer as provided from the website address as listed above has been extracted below:
As you probably know, we interpret the redshifts of galaxies to mean that the universe is expanding. So if you could staple the galaxies to the ‘fabric’ of space, all of them would appear to be moving away from us — the farther away they are, the faster. This is Hubble’s Law.
There is a condition in hubble’s law as mentioned above and that is you should staple the galaxies to be ‘fabric of space instead of unstapling it. Or in other words, condition of stapling the galaxies has to be the assumption in order to substantiate Hubble’s law.
Some might argue that there is no boundary in this universe and
Edwin Hubble’s theory does not provide any support for the Big Bang’s theory since his theory involves speculation since we do not have the full sight of how this entire universe could look like.
Is it true to mention that there is no blue shift in this universe? The following are the websites addresses in which you could locate evidences that there are blue shifts in the galaxies to disprove the argument:
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph-allsky?ra_constraint=Unconstrained&ra_1=&ra_2=&dec_constraint=Unconstrained&dec_1=&dec_2=&glon_constraint=Unconstrained&glon_1=&glon_2=&glat_constraint=Unconstrained&glat_1=&glat_2=&z_constraint=Less+Than&z_value1=0&z_value2=&z_unit=km%2Fs&ot_include=ANY&ex_objtypes1=Clusters&ex_objtypes1=Supernovae&ex_objtypes1=QSO&ex_objtypes2=AbsLineSys&ex_objtypes2=GravLens&ex_objtypes2=Radio&ex_objtypes2=Infrared&ex_objtypes3=EmissnLine&ex_objtypes3=UVExcess&ex_objtypes3=Xray&ex_objtypes3=GammaRay&nmp_op=ANY&out_csys=Equatorial&out_equinox=B1950.0&obj_sort=RA+or+Longitude&zv_breaker=30000.0;
http://www.beskeen.com/gallery/galaxy/m31/m31.shtml
The following are the possible reasons for the above blue shifts to arise:
a) This universe could have an immense space in which it might take more than 12 billion light years or even trillion light years to travel from one end of the universe to another initially. These galaxies might have travelled more than a half round in their usual routine tracks of rotation to its return and that there could be a possibility that there were a period of long time and that could be more than 12 billion light years ago that most of the galaxies might be in blue shift. As some of the galaxies are advancing slower than majority of the galaxies, it turns up that majority might have completed their full turn and moving upward and advancing further away from us and leaving a few galaxies to be in blue shift currently. As nobody could see the universe as a whole from the very past, especially what was beyond 12 billion light years ago or even trillion years ago, there could be such a possibility to occur in this universe. To jump into the conclusion that this universe is expanding simply by seeing many red shift is rather speculative.
b) There could be a reason in which that all the galaxies might have travelled faster than the above-mentioned galaxies bypass our galaxies in numerous years ago and ultimately causes these galaxies to fall behind due to their rotating speed is slowly than most of the galaxies. This assumption includes the possibility that there could be many blue shifts in numerous years ago and that could be beyond 12 billion light years ago, as the galaxies were travelling a rapid speed toward us. As most of the galaxies have bypassed our galaxies in the past and at the same time they have completed a full turn from its rotation, these certainly result in many red-shifts in current world due to most of the galaxies have moved upward following its usual movement tracks for its half turn of its rotation. As a result, this causes us to have more red-shifts than blue currently.
Most of the galaxies might not pass through us to be the centre of the point for rotating. However, it could be the possibility that most of the galaxies could have bypassed us in numerous years ago and this could be the reason to have the result in many red shifts than blue currently.
As some of the galaxies were moving slower than most of the galaxies, this results that there are more red-shifts than blue currently.
c) There could be a reason that some galaxies are moving fastest speed than the other and this causes some galaxies to be in blue shift since they have completed a half round turn in facing our universe in advancing.
d)There could be many other possible reasons that we could think of for the possibilities to have more red-shifts than blue currently and that does not come to the conclusion that our universe is expanding or this universe could create something out of nothing.
Some might mention that the discovery of many red shift in the galaxies have moving further away in rapid speed, could provide the support of dark matter theory or Big Bang theory. However, there is a possibility that most of the galaxies might well perform their routine movement and it might not give any signal that this universe could be expanding. As most galaxies are travelling in rapid speed, this causes them to bypass us fastest than a few galaxies and this has resulted in more red shifts than blue currently.
Some might have mentioned that the observation could be through 12 billion light years old that the galaxies have been moved in all directions further away from us. However, consideration has to be taken into accounts pertaining to the size of the universe since the size of the universe could be so immense that galaxies might take more than 12 billion light years or even much longer than that, such as, a few trillion years in order for galaxies to make a half turn in rotation in order for us to have most of the galaxies to be in blue shift. As nobody could have the full view of this universe and nobody did see whether there could be a boundary of this universe, we could not reject the possibility of the vast space of this universe. Or in other words, there could be a possibility that galaxies might take more than 12 billion light years or even trillion light years in order that most of the planets could complete their half round turn so that we could have the many blue shift from that time onwards.
Nevertheless, it is irrational to jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding simply by observing the galaxies are advancing further away from us to conclude that our universe is expanding.
Edwin Hubble mentioned that the universe is expanding by observing the existence of many red-shifts appear in the galaxies is itself an assumption. One might argue that the universe is not a sphere and that we have no proved to deny it since nobody in this earth did see the boundary of the universe. Some might assume that there is no ‘empty place’ in the universe into which matter expands. If that is true that there is no ‘empty place’ in the universe into which matter expands, questions have to be raised due to the uncertainty about what would go beyond the matter in which the universe itself is expanding: What materials could it be that would make up of that materials? Nobody in this world has ever seen in the past whether there could be any matter that covers the universe. So, nobody in this world would know whether the matter could be stretchable or non-stretchable. What if the matter that covers the universe is not stretchable, how could the assumption that the universe could be expanding to be true? By the way, as nobody could see that there could any matter that covers the universe and this includes Edwin Hubble. His theory that the universe is expanding by observing many red-shifts in the galaxies is just some kind of speculation. If there could be matter beyond the matter, how big could the matter be? Could there be anything or any other universe or anything that is beyond this universe that could block the expansion of this universe in many years later? What could that matter be made up of so much so that it could allow this universe to be expandable? If that could be some matter that covers this expanding, could the thickness of this matter be lasted into infinity? If there could be a matter that covers this universe, could this matter be breakable since the support that the continuous expanding of this universe is true? Would there be any substance after the matter that covers the universe that could be expanding? As there are many uncertainties about this universe and whether there could be any matter that covers this universe since nobody could have a full sight of this entire universe, Edwin Hubble jumps into the conclusion that this universe is expanding by seeing many red-shifts in the galaxies is a little speculation unless he could be certain that there were people in the past did see the matter that would cover the universe so as to make this conclusion. Or else, there could be a possibility that this universe might be lasted until infinity without any matter covering this universe.
The reasons why the discovery of Edwin Hubble does not prove that our universe could be expanding:
Despite his discovery about many red shifts in the galaxies through observations instead of hypotheses or theory drawn from the data, there is a shortfall in his discovery. This is due to his observation about many red-shifts in the galaxies was throughout his limited span of life instead of throughout generations from generations since it might take many years, let’s assume more than 1000 years or even higher, in order to get all blue shifts at that time.
There could be a possibility that there were many blue-shifts in the past, let’s say, more than a few hundred years ago, due to many galaxies might have made a full turn at the same time. As many galaxies might have made a full turn in the past, the current view that galaxies have shown many red shifts do not reflect that the universe is expanding.
As we are living in this small little earth, our perception through telescope could not give a full view pertaining to the situation about how our universe is responding.
Edwin Hubble mentioned that the universe is expanding as if there is a boundary in this universe. If there could be no boundary that could restrict the universe, the universe should be in infinity. As we do not have a full view of the universe as a whole, to mention that this universe is expanding is little speculation in the sense that we do not know whether the universe could be in infinity or not.
For instance, if this universe were in infinity, there should not be any reason for us to mention that this universe is expanding. Many red-shifts that the astronomers gather from galaxies could only show that many galaxies are advancing further away from us and it does not reflect that our universe is expanding since the universe is in infinity.
For instance, if this universe could have a finite space, it is rational to assume that there should be a boundary to restrict the space of this universe. If there could be no boundary to restrict the space of this universe, how could there be a finite space in this universe? If there could be no boundary in this universe, how could the astronomers presume that the universe is expanding by seeing many red-shifts in the galaxies? To jump into the conclusion that the universe is expanding without realizing whether this universe has a finite space is a little speculation.
If this universe has a finite space, it is rational to assume that this universe should look like a sphere or a sphere with oval shape. It is irrational to assume that this universe should look like cube or rectangular shape or whatever. To assume that the universe would look like a sphere, is simply an illustration so to give the possibility of why red shifts do not reflect the truth that the universe is expanding. We could not have a full sight of this universe whether there could be a boundary. What if the universe does have the shape of sphere in reality, giving an example that this universe as a sphere would be the most appropriate approach. As we could not have the full sight of this universe, to jump into the conclusion by seeing many red-shift is rather a little speculation.
The following are the explanations why the discovery of Edwin Hubble does not provide a good evidence that our universe would be expanding currently:
a)Despite many red shifts through telescope from astronomers, it does not provide the proof that this universe could be expanding for the following reasons:
1) The possibility that our universe could be very huge that it would take more than trillion of years to reach the opposite end of the unverse (sphere). The assumption is based upon the following factors: This universe is assumed to be as a shape of sphere with external boundary and all galaxies are assumed to move within the boundary of this universe.
Let’s imagine you stand at one end of the sphere (the universe) to have a full view of all the surrounding movement of galaxies. As all the galaxies were advancing at a high speed from your end to the edge of the sphere that is right opposite from you that form a half complete round, you certainly would visualize that all the galaxies are advancing as if that they are leaving away from you since their movement in speed is a few time faster than your galaxy. As this universe is very huge so much so that it would take a very long time, let’s say, more than a trillion years to reach the point that is right opposite to the point so as to make a half complete turn of this universe. Despite many galaxies have been moving towards the point that is right opposite to the point where you are viewing through telescope, the result would turn up to be many red shifts to have appeared in the universe. As universe is too huge for galaxies to travel from one end to another and only a few have completed a half turn to move than to the starting point of the sphere where you are to the edge of the sphere that is right opposite from you, it turns up that they are many red shifts than blue shifts.
2) The second possibility is that many galaxies might have advanced faster than us and yet many galaxies might have made a complete half turn within the sphere (the universe) and yet the galaxies might not as what we think that they would keep on rotating themselves in a circle. Instead, they might not return to the previous track where they have passed through. These could result that they do not turn back to us.
3) The third possibility is that all the clusters of galaxies could be advancing in the same place and same direction just that most of the galaxies are advancing faster than us as if that their galaxies are moving further away from us. As we are in this tiny world and cannot have the full sight of this universe, we could not reject this possibility since it might be so without our full view of this universe since the astronomers just looked at the sky with a telescope that comes to their conclusion without viewing the universe as a whole. No matter how advance is the technology, it could never be possible to build an advice that could capture the whole view of universe from one end (the earth).
4) The fourth possibility is that majoirty of the galaxies might have made a full complete turn in this universe within the boundary of the universe in many years ago, such as, more than a few thousand years ago. Or in other words, there might be a time in the past in which there were many blue shifts than red. What the astonomers that have seen right now with many red shifts do not reflect the universe might be expanding since there might be a period of times in many years ago that almost all the galaxies have made a complete full turn and it turns up that many galaxies have turned up to be red shifts currently. Or in other words, it would take many years later, such as more than a few thousand years later, in order to have many blue shifts instead of red shifts at that time.
5) The fifth possibility is that universe was created in infinity and that all galaxies are advancing ever since the past. If that is so, it is erroneous to use many red shifts as discovered by astronomers to conclude that the universe is expanding.
There might be other possibilities that you could think of why there are more red shifts than blue shifts and yet it does not come to the conclusion that the universe is expanding. As there are many alternative possibilities, to jump into conclusion that the universe is expanding through many red shifts being discovered is rather a little speculation.
The appearance of many red shifts does not provide a good evidence that our universe could be expanding currently. The following
a) For instance, if our universe were expanding and the galaxies were advancing at a vast speed ever since the creation of the universe, there would be a tendency that this world would be isolated and there would not be any other galaxies nearby us. Even if there were galaxies around us, it would be billion and trillion miles of distance from us due to the gap of distance between the galaxies and us would become broader as the galaxies keep on moving away from us ever since the creation of this universe. Not only that, the scientists have discovered that most of the galaxies are in red shift. Or in other words, most of the galaxies are moving further away at a high speed from us. As there are always galaxies moving away from us as observed by astronomers and yet the galaxies were not trillion miles or even beyond away from us since the movement should be ever since the creation of this universe, it does not give an implication that the universe is expanding.
The discovery of the moving away of galaxies from us by astronomers does not give any implication that there are new galaxies would be created in this universe for the support of Big Bang theory. This is due to the moving further away of galaxies might only give us the truth that galaxies are moving further away from us at vast speed and it might serve no purpose for the proof that new galaxies were created unless astronomers have evidence that many galaxies were created with photographs and they have all the evidence that new galaxies were created and how they were created. As there isn’t any evidence of many new creation of galaxies from this universe, their assumption that this universe could be created through Big Bang theory is just a speculation.
b) For instance, if our universe were expanding and there were a force that might keep on pulling galaxies away from us through expansion, our world should have been influenced by this pulling force to be pulled forward in the same speed as other planets since our world is within the boundary of the universe. Now questions might be raised. As other galaxies have been pulled away Why is it that other galaxies are moving faster speed than us? Why is it that our galaxy would maintain the same distance between earth and moon and sun and other planets despite the external force that causes the galaxies to move at a high speed through expansion?
By: Li Kong on August 25, 2011
at 8:34 pm
Li Kong said:
You would do well to go back to that website, and read the answer. it is not offering the young lad’s calculations as the answer to the question. In the answer the professional astronomers at Cornell gave to the young lad, however, there are answers to your questions. Go read their answers.
No, it’s 186,000 miles per second (approximately) — for the speed of light, not for the speed of the galaxies.
Yes, that was specifically considered. Scientists dismiss it because there is no evidence of something existing prior to the universe being there — you are hypothesizing the existence of a separate universe for ours to expand into. You offer no evidence of such a thing, and no one has found any such evidence.
Again: You would do well to go back to that website, and read the answer. it is not offering the young lad’s calculations as the answer to the question. In the answer the professional astronomers at Cornell gave to the young lad, however, there are answers to your questions. Go read their answers.
But there is no evidence of such an infinite universe existing prior to Big Bang. Why do you make such a hypothesis, with no information to back it up?
No, we know that there was not matter and a universe surrounding the original singularity.
Again, you speculate on the basis of evidence which we know does not exist. It might be that the Great Arkleseizure sneezed the universe into existence — but to suggest that is silly, unless one has evidence to support the claim. Your speculation is no better than Douglass Adams’ Great Arkleseizure hypothesis; he was writing comedy, however, and you don’t appear to be doing that.
No, it’s irrational to assume that the rules of physics operate differently in different times or different places, as you do.
It’s perfectly rational to assume that the universe is what the universe is, what we can see and measure, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Again, You would do well to go back to that website, and read the answer. it is not offering the young lad’s calculations as the answer to the question. In the answer the professional astronomers at Cornell gave to the young lad, however, there are answers to your questions. Go read their answers.
You assume properties of space and matter without any reason to assume that. There is no evidence to back your claims.
Hubble didn’t make any assumption. You assume scientists guess, when they don’t.
What evidence do you have that there is a boundary? Why would there be a boundary, if there was nothing there to make a boundary? How could a boundary exist, if there were nothing to make the boundary prior to Big Bang?
Why do you assume scientists didn’t consider that? (They did.) Have you studied Big Bang?
As there is no evidence of a boundary of the universe, it’s foolish to speculate that one might be there.
Again: You would do well to go back to that website, and read the answer. it is not offering the young lad’s calculations as the answer to the question. In the answer the professional astronomers at Cornell gave to the young lad, however, there are answers to your questions. Go read their answers.
Or read here:
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/public/bb_home.html
As no one has found evidence the universe is much bigger than it is (which is immense enough, thank you), it’s foolish to assume a size for which there is no evidence to support the assumption. As you have not studied why the scientists think the universe is as big as it is, you have no reason to doubt their conclusions, no rational basis for hypothesizing on what you do not know.
Do you have any evidence to back such a claim?
Why not? What evidence do you have that the universe is not expanding? How does your assumption — for it is only that — deal with dark matter? How does your hypothesis explain why Einstein’s theories are in error, as you assume with no evidence at all?
That’s not entirely correct. As I noted earlier, we have good photographs and other images from shortly after Big Bang — there is no evidence of a boundary other than the expansion of the universe itself. We HAVE seen where a boundary should be — and there is none.
Where does the Cosmic Background Radiation come from, then? How can you explain that, except for Big Bang?
Where did you get the idea that scientists didn’t consider your ideas? If you don’t know the history, how can you speculate on what you don’t know at all?
Steady State accounted for the red shift phenomena, it was not in any way opposed to it. You would do well to read on the history of these events. I’ve offered a number of links in the post, in this answer, and in others — you seem bent to ignore all the evidence, in favor of hypotheses that have no evidence whatsoever.
That’s not how science works.
Go back and read the example again. You don’t understand it. There is no boundary ON THE SURFACE OF THE BALLOON, and your assumption of such a boundary doesn’t make it so.
Please reread that example for what it is intended to show, and don’t assume something else.
Don’t tell me where Big Bang MIGHT err, if the universe were different. Tell me of some measurement of the universe which is not explained by Big Bang, and not explainable by Big Bang.
Your conjectures do not rise to the level of Adams’ Great Arkleseizure hypothesis — and that was a joke.
In fact, you’d probably do well to read Adams’ book, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. See if your library has a copy, and start reading it today.
By: Ed Darrell on September 9, 2011
at 12:06 pm
really good information!! this are the themes that i like!!!
By: monserratt aguinaga on September 11, 2011
at 10:00 pm
The reasons why the data that have been gathered for red shift and blue shift from the observation of galaxies through the use of telescope might not be served as a guide that the world would be expanding:
a) The accuracy of the telescope that has been used to determine whether the galaxies would be in red shift and blue shift in order to conclude that the galaxies would moving away or towards the earth could be in question. In short distance of viewing an object, the telescope could identify accurately the change of the size of planet from big to small or small to big so as to give signal whether it should be in blue shift or red shift. However, if the object is placed very far away from telescope, the object that is shown in the screen on the telescope would be very small. The telescope might turn up to show one signal as a result of its inability to identify the accuracy of change of size of the object as if that all the galaxies are moving far away from the earth. Or in other words, it might have given wrong signal that the world would be expanding due to the inaccuracy of the telescope since it might be accurate in short distance with a big object and yet it might not be accurate if if would be in very small and tiny object that would appear on the screen when it would be placed many miles far away from the earth. Thus, the accuracy of the telescope might be in question since it has not been tested whether it could be accurate when objects would appear to be very tiny and small on the screen..
b) The telescope might have been tested on earth to be accurate in short distance and yet it has not been tested from one galaxy to another so as to determine whether it is still accurate to measure the movement of object in the galaxies that is located in many miles far away from the earth.
c) If you would blow a balloon, all the substances in the balloon would be shaken and vibrated. Even if they would be creatures inside the balloon, all the creatures would feel the strong pressure, i.e. wind, pulling them towards the corner of this balloon. Why is it that we that are on earth would not feel the pressure that the earth would be expanding? As we know if we blow the balloon, all the things in the balloon would fly away and would turn up to be in messy order. Question has to be raised. Why is that the air would still remain on earth despite the great pressure that has caused galaxies to advance as a result of expanding? No matter the pressure would externally influence as a result of the world expanding, nothing has affected the earth and it seems to be that something is controlling the earth to make it a secure place. Religious people call it, God.
d) If you blow a balloon, all the substance would go travel towards the corner of this balloon. Let’s use blowing balloon to explain the galaxies. Let’s assume that you blow from the Mars, you would certainly see blue shift as well as red shift since some galaxies would move towards the earth from Mars. If you would blow from the sun, the same, you would still see some galaxies moving towards the earth since there are some galaxies from the sun would move towards the earth from the sun. However, if you would blow from the earth as a centre outwards, you would then see all galaxies would be moving far away from the earth. Now question has to be raised. The assumption that all galaxies would have been moving far away from the earth seems to presume that the earth would be stagnant and all galaxies would be advancing away from the earth. As the earth would turn up to be the centre of the universe, it turns up that a person would view from any side of the earth would turn up to be that all galaxies seem to moving away from earth. This seems to be weird and irrational.
The reliability of data gathered from scientist that the world would be expanding is in question.
By: zuma on August 14, 2012
at 8:56 pm
You might do well to study how red shift is measured. We know the stars are made of hydrogen. The size of the telescope, and the size of the object in the telescope, are rather irrelevant. Light from the star is run through a spectrophotometer, to see the lines that identify the chemicals emitting the light from the star. If that spectrum is shifted to the red end of the spectrum, it is moving away, and the greater the shift, the greater the speed at which it moves away. If the spectrum is shifted to the blue end, the object is moving toward the telescope.
That’s it. The relative size of the object in a viewer is not at issue at all.
One of the oddities of the universe, a result of Big Bang, is that almost all points in the universe are rushing from all other points, as are all objects rushing away from all other objects.
See a simple explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
An image of the spectrum charts is here (with more explanation): http://www.angelfire.com/nt/fairytales/redshift.html
More explanation here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/hubble.html
NASA chimes in: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html
And: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/starsgalaxies/sburst05_pressrelease.html
And: http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/how_l1/spectral_what.html
Hope that helps.
By: Ed Darrell on August 14, 2012
at 11:29 pm
Besides, Hubble used three different telescopes, and we get the same results regardless the telescope used. Red shift is what it is, and there is no known bias due to lack of calibration of telescopes.
By: Ed Darrell on August 15, 2012
at 11:11 am
Let’s assume that all the galaxies are advancing through the expansion of universe. The following are the few possibilities that our galaxy would be:
a)As the universe would be expanding continuously, it is rational to presume that all galaxies, and these include our planets, would be influenced by the expansion of the universe to advance towards the boundary of the universe. As our galaxy would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of the expansion of this universe, our earth could still identify blue shift due to we are not in the centre of the universe. Instead, we would be in the midst of galaxies that facing the same direction to move forward towards the corner of the universe. As all the galaxies (these include us) would be advancing towards the corner of the universe as a result of its expansion, they would be many galaxies that would be many miles behind the earth moving (as the same direction as our galaxy) towards the corner of universe. As there would be galaxies moving behind our galaxy advancing towards the boundary of the universe as us, there would appear blue shift since we could still see some galaxies advancing to us in which its movement could be to bypass our galaxy towards the corner of universe.
b)Those galaxies, that are moving ahead of our galaxy towards the corner of the universe, would reflect blue shift in case if some of these would turn up to be slower in speed. As our galaxy is moving forward towards the boundary of the universe, there would be galaxies that would move slower than our galaxy. If this would be the case, there would appear to have blue shift due to that galaxy would be moving slower than us and cause us to be able to catch up them.
From the above illustrations, it would come to the conclusion that as long as our galaxy was among the galaxies to proceed towards the corner of the universe, we would still be able to identify blue shift.
Let’s assume that our earth would be stagnant in the centre of the universe, the above events would not occur since we would only see red shift instead of blue shift.
To presume that our earth would be in the centre of the universe and all other galaxies would be advancing away from us, is rather irrational and not justifiable.
The above have caused us to question whether it is accurate to use light from the star that is run through a spectrophotometer so as to determine whether it is red shift or blue for the determination whether the universe would be expanding.
By: zuma on August 15, 2012
at 9:09 am
Zuma said:
Part of your problem is assuming things that may or may not be accurate. We can observe what the reality is — and that’s what Hubble did.
Any attempted rebuttal of Hubble that starts with “Let’s assume,” probably assumes error. Bad start.
But, this is the universe. As Haldane famously said, “The universe is not only queerer than you do suppose, it is queerer than you can suppose.” Every part of the universe is expanding away from every other part. Any attempt to find a “center” is doomed to failure, as every point in the universe is that center.
No. If we assume one galaxy (or any other point) is “out front,” it is accelerating in its speed. Consequently, looking at objects “behind” still produces a red shift, because “we” would be moving away even faster than those objects.
In reality, there are a few types of phenomena that can produce massive objects moving toward us — blue shift objects. These few outliers allow us to note that the rest of the red shift is accurate.
Please read the links I offered earlier.
Please read the links I offered earlier.
Please read the explanations in the links I offered earlier.
Yeah, but your “rational assumption” is not what is observed. Reality trumps assumption.
If there were no universal expansion, no Big Bang, that might apply. But that is not what we observe. That’s not how the universe is made.
The physics of Big Bang were worked out by George Gamow and Ralph Alpher, and since then have been experimentally confirmed.
Stick to what is real, and don’t make assumptions that turn out not to be accurate.
See this article on Alpher, and follow the links: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/science-history-slips-away-ralph-alpher-and-big-bang/
Our galaxy is not moving towards a corner of the universe. There is no corner of the universe. Your assumed premises are incorrect, not what we observe in the universe.
And yet, that is what is observed. It would be what any observer anywhere in the universe would observe. Haldane, remember. Here, see Richard Dawkins explaining how the universe sometimes confuses us humans: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308228560462155344
“Us?” You may need a psychiatrist, not an explanation of Big Bang. (Or, are you cutting and pasting from the site of some nutcase?)
If you think that sending light through a device to measure the spectrum is wrong, make a case. The science is over a century old, and it’s been tested a thousand ways from heaven, or hell. I think you fail to understand what the spectrum shows, and consequently you fail to understand the significance of the red shift. Either the elements of the universe all change at great distances, or the red shift demonstrates speed of objects and the shift on the spectrum image is not a change in chemistry and physics of all matter, but merely a demonstration of the speed of matter. Use Occam’s Razor: Which explanation is simplest?
Here is yet one more explanation of how to use spectra — amateurs do this all the time. Try it.
http://suite101.com/article/how-to-measure-the-composition-of-stars-a75714
By: Ed Darrell on August 15, 2012
at 11:32 am
Let’s presume that spectrophotometer could be a reliable source to be used to detect all galaxies would be advancing further away from the earth. It might not give any sufficient reason that this entire universe would be expanding in case if our universe has already been extended into infinity. If that could be so, the red shift that is reflected in spectrophotometer could only reflect the advancement of galaxies and it does not imply the expansion of universe since the space of the universe has already been in the infinity without any end.
Some might have pointed out that the website below, has computed the size of the universe to prove that there could be a boundary of this universe. http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=151 The formula that they use to compute the size of the universe is by means of the basic 184K mi/sec speed of light x the estimated 15 billion years age of the universe. The above computation is based upon the assumption that the universe would be expanding and it is computed by the use of the age of the entire universe to be multiplied by the speed of light that travels in space. Now a question has to be raised. If this world has already been extended to infinity, it is inappropriate to use the speed of light to be multiplied by the age of this universe so as to compute the size of the universe since this universe itself has already been in infinity without boundary.
From the above explanation, it would not be justifiable to conclude that this universe would be expanding simply by observing red shift in the sky since this universe might have already been extended to infinity without end initially.
By: zuma on August 16, 2012
at 10:56 am
Why not? All red shift shows is that the objects are moving away at very fast speed. You assume a lot of stuff that simply is not observed in order to question that conclusion. But you fail to make the basic assumptions (which may be counterintuitive): Light is the same everywhere, and always moves at the same speed, in a vacuum. Unless you’ve got some good evidence that the basic laws of the universe are absolutely wrong, you can’t question simple, rational measurements made of that universe using those basic laws.
By: Ed Darrell on August 16, 2012
at 11:08 am
Let’s assume Hubble theory is true that the entire world would be expanding, the following future outcome would establish:
a) The endless expansion of the universe without ceasing in the future: This universe would still expand after trillions years later.
b) Stars, moons and other planets would turn up not to be dense as compared in in the beginning of the creation of this universe due to wide spreading of planets as a result of unceasing expansion of this universe.
c) In trillions years later, it would turn up to be hard to locate stars, moons & other planets as a result of unceasing expansion of this universe.
d) Gravitational force between stars or moons or other planets would turn up to be weak due to wide spreading of planets in this universe as a result of unceasing expansion.
e) This universe, would, one day, turn up to be huge as if without boundary especially in trillions years later due to unceasing expansion.
By: zumamusa on February 22, 2017
at 9:35 pm
Two possible implication of having more red shifts in this universe:
a) The entire universe might be without boundary. All planets or galaxies would be moving to one end due to some attraction, i.e. strongest gravitational force of an object or whatever, at one extreme end that would cause the attraction and advancing of all planets..
b) The entire universe would be expanding with the assumption that there is a boundary of this unverse.
By: zumamusa on February 22, 2017
at 9:48 pm