Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
So it is not “space” that “expands”, the fields become “thinner” or “weaker” in the area of space in-between the galaxies as they separate. So, the real expression should not be an “expansion of space”, but a “weakening of the gravitational fields in-between the galaxies” or an “expansion of the gravitational fields” or a “thinning out of the gravitational fields”.... This would match observation, it would make sense, and it would NOT be “counter-intuitive”.
|
This can't be right because it is actually the opposite of what is observed. Judging from the way the galaxies are moving, there is
more gravity in between galaxies than we can account for by summing the known mass.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
The switch-over in terms occurred mainly in the 1990s, from “big bang” and “moving galaxies” to “expanding space” and “non-moving galaxies being carried along by expanding space”, and I say the switch-over in terms was designed to salvage and save the “c speed limit” of SR theory, AFTER the superluminal (faster than “c”) galaxies were discovered.
|
No, I think the reason is more fundamental than that, and I think it derives from the observed fact that the the farther away an object is, the higher its redshift and therefore the larger its apparent recessional velocity.
Why should this be so if all objects in the universe are just streaming "outward" through space? Why should more distant objects be moving away from us faster? Is there any explanation for this?
But if it's space that is expanding, this easily explains why more distant objects appear to be moving away at proportionately greater rates.