0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I feel sure that many of you will dispute my hypothesis and say there is lots of evidence for an expanding universe. But is there?
but I don't agree with this:"Why do we think that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating?" The question should be. Why do we think that the expansion of the Universe is accelerating in distance (the SPACE in space-time) and not the TIME in space-time?I don't know why you would adopt a notion of an expanding time and not space. I mean, if we take the Minkowski Space seriously, relativity cannot deal with time alone without space. Of course, we know for certain you can deal with space and not time. This is how relativity was in the beginning.
"In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time.[1] In one dimension, acceleration is the rate at which something speeds up or slows down. However, since velocity is a vector, acceleration describes the rate of change of both the magnitude and the direction of velocity."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccelerationWe normally only consider velocity to be the variable but it is equally true to say that it is still acceleration if time is the variable. That is the time dilation factor is the variable (from the perspective of the future or the past), not elapsed time. From a local perspective as time would still appear to flow as normal so the velocity would appear to change.
Quote from: MikeS on 16/04/2012 17:45:55"In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity with time.[1] In one dimension, acceleration is the rate at which something speeds up or slows down. However, since velocity is a vector, acceleration describes the rate of change of both the magnitude and the direction of velocity."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccelerationWe normally only consider velocity to be the variable but it is equally true to say that it is still acceleration if time is the variable. That is the time dilation factor is the variable (from the perspective of the future or the past), not elapsed time. From a local perspective as time would still appear to flow as normal so the velocity would appear to change.This is what we observe, the universe appears to be accelerating. However, this apparent acceleration may be no more than an illusion caused by continuous time contraction.As the Earth accelerates through time without getting any larger, so the Universe accelerates through time without getting any larger.The point being, the universe expanding and time contracting both look the same from our perspective. What appears to be expansion may simply be a contraction in time.
As I understand it, a static universe and a steady state universe are not the same thing. I don't necessary believe that the Universe is not expanding at the moment, it's just that I don't see any real evidence for it that is not also evidence for time contraction. I am not saying that the universe is static or steady state or not expanding. I am saying that I do not believe there is any real evidence for expansion that is not also evidence for time contraction.Personally I believe that the Universe is closed. That is it expands and will ultimately contract. I also think it is cyclic with matter cycle following antimatter cycle but as yet that is pure conjecture but within the realms of possibility. If cyclic, that leaves much of the big bang theory untouched.
I feel sure that many of you will dispute my hypothesis and say there is lots of evidence for an expanding universe. But is there?The only evidence I have been able to find is firstly the Hubble red-shift. This is only made possible to calibrate by the use of standard candles. Secondly, the CBR.The CBR and standard candles are both affected by red-shift, so it's a circular argument. In which case the only evidence for the expansion of the Universe comes down to the red-shift. The red-shift, as pointed out above, may have another, simpler and therefore more likely reason which is continuous time contraction.To my mind, it all comes down to one very shaky piece of evidence, the interpretation of the red-shift.Does anyone know of any other evidence other than red-shift and that is unaffected by red-shift, to confirm the accelerating expansion of the Universe hypothesis?