The theory that the universe is expanding is based on SR and GR.
A more simple thought is that our tools and methods are improving allowing scientist to see more and further. First there was the solar system. Then the Milkyway galaxy. Then other galaxies were found. After that the galactic super clusters.
I am of the notion that our scientist are getting better at seeing great distances. When we send telescopes outside the solar system where photons are collected before hitting the solar winds and the heliosphere, we will have a far better picture of the universe. Also array telescopes seperated on an orbit between Earth and Mars will bring greater focus and reduce error.
Posts
3 comments:
So... you're predicting that we'll discover the universe isn't expanding after all?
Do you think the margin of error in our current data is so large that it could account for all of the red-shift we see?
New theories by others and myself are looking at other possibilities.
http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/redshift.htm
Generally most galaxies have a redshift except the ones that are closest to us. There are very few blueshifted galaxies or super clusters. That would put us at the center of the universe. That would be statistically impossible.
I have said before in other postings that the universal equations should not have constants, but be a series of ratios.
One more thing.
I think z~=6 is caused by the Zeeman Effect and the Heilosheath. The Heliosheath is the W+/- Boson tail of the sun. Outside the Heilosheath would provide some interesting data to be compaired to Hubble and other telescopes.
Post a Comment