Quote:
Originally Posted by brodix
Originally the big bang model simply assumed the universe was expanding, but as galaxies were examined more closely, they were all redshifted directly away from us, with no other direction or flow, suggesting an expansion from some general region.
|
It was because of Edwin Hubble's redshift findings that Lemaitre proposed his Big Bang theory, as it was later coined by Hoyle. Not the otherway around.
Quote:
|
Therefore the impression was that we were at the center of this expansion.
|
I don't think Lemaitre or others thought this way, but I would be curious if any evidence supports this idea.
Quote:
|
...so if space itself is expanding, and the meter is a measure of space, then it is expanding, so the speed of light should stay relative to this dimension, even though it is expanding.
|
I suspect otherwise, but I am, admittedly, pretty low on the totem pole.
Quote:
|
My theory is that radiation negatively curves space, just as mass positively curves space.
|
Yes, per E=mc^2; photons have relativistic mass.
Quote:
|
So light which managed to travel across the universe, without falling in any gravitational wells, would have crossed a lot of negatively curved space and appear as though its source was moving away.
|
I don't think light contributes much to curvature.
My limited view has light appearing to us to redshift because we have gained in relative velocity with respect to the photon emitter due to expansion. This is a pure Doppler approach. The photon remains intact, similar to the fact galaxies and clusters are barely affected.