Cosmology: standard universe model confirmed (Introduction)

by David Turell , Friday, August 04, 2017, 15:36 (2667 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony: The problem with red-shift is that it assumes a constant, uniform speed of light, when experimentation shows it can be bent, its path manipulated by gravity, which would by necessity alter travel time.

The math is pretty hairy, but there is some weirdness in the logic. If the CMB is the 'outer elipse' of our universe, it is moving faster than we are because it is further along in its expansion which makes it travel further faster.

• Our universe is accelerating AND expanding, which means that older objects are traveling FASTER than we are.
  
• Not only do you have to know where we are in relation to the 'origin', but also where we are relative to the expansion/acceleration cycle of the universe as a whole.
  
• What's more you have to KNOW how fast the outside edges are ACTUALLY moving. (Otherwise you can't know how fast the universe is actually expanding.)
  
• We do not KNOW the origin point of the universe, we assume it.
  
• We do not KNOW our position relative to the origin, because we do not know the origin.
  
• We can not accurately measure WHERE the CMB is, because we do not have a confirmed point of Origin, only an assumption.
  
• If the radiation from the CMB is what we are detecting, how fast is that radiation travelling by the time it reaches us?
  
• What is the time shift(think doppler effect) on the light because of the fact that it's source is moving away from us at an ever increasing and unknowable speed?
  
• Add to it that the path of light can be 'bent' around one or more objects and gravitational wells, and it no longer can be seen as a straight line distance.
  
• If we do not not know WHAT objects altered its path, or how far it deviated from it's original path, we can not assume a fixed point of origin. If we can not assume a fixed point of origin, we can not determine relative speeds etc, blah blah.

Basically, that theory is still a bunch of "We don't know but we assume that.,..." and "Because we assume our initial assumptions are true, we assume that this information we have confirms our initial assumptions, none of which can, at this point be proven."

Thank you for a great exposition of the problems. A Hubble constant for expansion has been calculated and re-corrected several times. The universe and its parts are expanding. It is not static.