Forgive some amateur questions . . .
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Could matter itself be expanding? How could you tell if all the rulers also expand?
According to the proposed uniform expansion theory, (which assumes that the expansion of space does not stop at the boundary of galaxies, but includes matter itself), gravity should be a function of time.
|
Would that not mean that a galaxy, say, 2 billion light yrs away would be very different looking in structure than a nearby galaxy since the increased mass and gravity would cause it to have a different shape/form?
Could a time-change in gravity not be detected when light from a very distant galaxy is bent by a closer galaxy (i.e. 5 billion year-old light is bent by an intervening galaxy 1 billion light yrs away before reaching us)?
Another, more time-consuming, way to test the theory: would the increased mass of Jupiter not have sucked all of the asteroid belt into it or into orbit around it? (Computer modelling would probably be required)
Quote:
|
Regarding the date of formation of Jupiter issue, I think present models have a hard time explaining a 14 to 15 billion year old universe.
|
?? If the models do not explain them adequately then why do most cosmologists go with 14-15 billion years? What are the flaws in current models?
Quote:
|
If our solar system formed 5 billion years ago (plus or minus a half a billion) what happened in the previous 10 billion years?
|
IIRC, other stars formed and died (supernova?), the gas from those stars formed the Sun, which is why the Sun (and the solar system) has elements heavier than lithium in it.
Quote:
|
In the proposed model since the effect of gravity is so intense so early in the evolution of the universe, solar systems and galaxies form right from the very beginning, there is no long big ball of gas phase.
|
See above, wouldn't early galaxies look very different under such intense mass/gravity conditions? Do they? (I don't actually know.)
Quote:
|
This early formation of galactic structures is validated by observation. Quasars are tightly bound gravitational systems that exist only in the very beginning of our universe. Science news (January 25 2003) reports evidence of galaxy formations when the universe was less than a billion years old. If galaxies are observed to be formed this early in the evolution of the universe, shouldn’t other celestial structures such as solar systems be also similarly formed at about the same time? Should our solar system be assumed to dislike those observed in the past?
|
Hmmm, since heavier elements wouldn't have formed until the first stars created them then (logic leap here, no links) wouldn't those early galaxies only have hydrogen and helium in them? In other words, no solar systems could have formed since there were no heavy elements to form anything other than more balls of hydrogen/helium.
I don't know enough about Hubble constant and cosmic time to comment further so I'll stop there.