Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cougar
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. |
Well that doesn’t matter. Whatever the gravity strength is of the masses and in-between the masses, if the masses move apart the gravity strength between the masses becomes weaker.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cougar
, 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?
|
Yes, a very simple one.
If you look at any video or old film of an explosion, you’ll see the outer most particles moving faster than the innermost particles. If you put one pound of explosives in a hole 3 feet deep, and set of the explosive, you will see a semi-circle of debris particles move upward from the point of the explosion, and the outermost particles will move faster than the innermost. Some of the particles nearest to the explosion will move only an inch or two. You can see this phenomenon in a simple spherical star-burst fireworks explosion, like this one. The outermost dots are where they are because they moved faster than the innermost dots. This is why the “big bang” was described as a kind of “explosion” for 65 years. This is why Eddington called Lemaitre’s 1927 big bang theory a “fireworks” model.
