Questioning the Expansion theory

ekeeley

Current evidence shows that (in general) any galaxy a certain distance (D) from Earth will tend to recede from the Earth at speed (S). Also, galaxies at distance 2D tend to recede at speed 2S while those at distance 3D tend to recede at speed 3S. This is cited as evidence that the Universe is expanding ever faster. I take the opposite view.

Let’s take a galaxy and set D at 1X〖10〗^6 Light years (Ly). It will recede at speed S
Then a galaxy at 2X〖10〗^6Ly will recede at 2S.
And a galaxy at 3X〖10〗^6Ly will recede at 3S

However, due to the limit of the speed of light, we are not seeing current speeds or positions the light we see is not current.

So, since galaxy 3’s light is from 3X〖10〗^6 years ago, and since most galaxies that distance are receding at 3S from us, we can say that 3,000,000 years ago the Universe was expanding at rate 3S.

And, since galaxy 2’s light is from 2X〖10〗^6 years ago, and since most galaxies that distance are receding at 3S from us, we can say that 2,000,000 years ago the Universe was expanding at rate 2S.

And, since galaxy 1’s light is from 1X〖10〗^6 years ago, and since most galaxies that distance are receding at 3S from us, we can say that 1,000,000 years ago the Universe was expanding at rate S.

∴ The expansion of the Universe is slowing down.

Chronos

Apparently you are thinking astrophysicists overlooked the fact light from distant galaxies is older than light from nearby galaxies. They did not. I suggest you read up on Hubble's Law, which is used to calculate recession velocity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble'...ional_velocity

cristo

Chronos' response suitably addresses the misconception in this thread. Given that this is a borderline 'personal theory', I will close this thread here.