0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
But can we please agree that the expansion of the universe is based on Hubble's red shift velocities and that there is cause to question these red shift velocities?
My model describes the contraction of the universe much differently as a very slow and gentle affair that picks up speed as matter further clumps.
I see no contradiction. If the universe is a lot bigger than the Schwarzchild radius then there will be more stuff outside than inside, so it is more likely that bright objects will be sucked away from us than towards, hence Hubble's observation.
So on the basis of your finding this type of contraction to be a reasonable model, can I ask you to make some reference to Hubble's red shift velocities being open to question before I continue?
The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object were to be compressed within that sphere, the escape velocity from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light.
The observable universe's mass has a Schwarzschild radius of approximately 13.7 billion light years
Without the concept of Hubble's red shift velocities, is there any other observation to support the concept of an expanding universe?