- #1
gptejms
- 386
- 2
I was reading one of John Gribbin's (popular science)books a few days back when I thought if there could be alternative explanation(s) for the Hubble's law.One simple explanation could be that the value of G(universal gravitational constant) could be changing with time--if G were higher in the past(i.e. G increasing as we go into the past),clocks would be moving slower then(than today).Now since clocks are moving faster,light from distant galaxies would appear red-shifted to us---red-shift would be more for more distant galaxies because they are more into the past when G was still higher.My question is:-how is this explanation ruled out by cosmologists before jumping to the expansion model?
Another observation:-(say) G does not change with time.As we go back into the past,things become nearer and nearer--so gravitational fields become higher and higher i.e. clocks get slower and slower leading to the kind of effect mentioned above(even without G changing).So the redshift is now due to two reasons--expansion and 'change of clock rate'.Is the latter effect taken care of in present theories?
Jagmeet Singh
Another observation:-(say) G does not change with time.As we go back into the past,things become nearer and nearer--so gravitational fields become higher and higher i.e. clocks get slower and slower leading to the kind of effect mentioned above(even without G changing).So the redshift is now due to two reasons--expansion and 'change of clock rate'.Is the latter effect taken care of in present theories?
Jagmeet Singh
Last edited: