Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiPhil
If you took a sphere of 'perfect' explosive, one in which every particle of it's mass repelled every other particle with the same force, then the particles on the outer edge would move the fastest due to having the combined forces of everything else pushing against them. This force would get steadily less as you look deeper because there would be less particles to supply the force. Each piece would maintatin its speed. No force would be needed to increase it. Each piece would already be moving in the appropriate way.
|
OK, that’s intresting…
The Big Bang Theory has been developed during an 80-year period (90 or even 100 if you include the Einstein foundations). Over those years it has been refined and proved over and over again. Naturally, that does not exclude the possibility that another theory might one day replace it but, to say the least, the theory has had a good start.
The Big Bang Theory claims that the universe originates in a singularity and therefore is not an explosion of matter inside an existing space but an expansion of space itself.
I have two questions for you:
- Why, in your opinion, is Hubble’s expansion law (that the speed of recession is proportional to distance) considered to be a key evidence in support of the Big Bang Theory?
- If the expansion that we observe (that is expressed in Hubble’s law) can be explained by an explosion of matter in space as described by you, is there any other place our own galaxy can be located than in the dead center of that original explosion?