This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Misreading the evidence?

Any topic related to science can be discussed here.
Posts: 128
Joined: August 6th, 2016, 2:13 pm

Misreading the evidence?

#1 Postby Zeff » June 6th, 2017, 4:12 pm

(Sources given in case they are required).
Google “expanding Universe” and one might find:

The American astronomer Edwin Hubble made the observations in 1925 and was the first to prove that the universe is expanding. He proved that there is a direct relationship between the speeds of distant galaxies and their distances from Earth. This is now known as Hubble's Law.

From: ... elerating/
Every galaxy [Edwin Hubble] looked at [in 1931] seemed to be moving away from our own. With only a few exceptions, like nearby Andromeda, every other spot in the universe was drifting away. Unquote.
"Every galaxy except Andromeda". That seems a cooincidence since there are about 31 galaxies in the Milky Way's 'local group'.

From: ... y.html#jCp
Astronomers measure this velocity of recession by looking at lines in the spectrum of a galaxy, which shift more towards red the faster the galaxy is moving away. From the 1920s, mapping the velocities of galaxies led scientists to conclude that the whole universe is expanding, and that it began life as a vanishingly small point.

In other words, beyond our galaxy where parallax cannot be used, the light from a galaxy or star (according to where it is on the cosmic ladder) tells us how far away it is in space. However, it also tells us where it is in time relative to Earth. So my question is this: If the age of the light is commensurate with the distance in light years of the object from the Earth, doesn’t that mean the expansion of the Universe is slowing? The light that reaches us from nearer galaxies is younger and the rate at which they appear to be receding is less than those further away. Aren’t scientists simply looking at the question the wrong way around?

Return to “Sciences and pseudo-science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest