- #1
grichblix
- 2
- 0
I'm new to the Physics forum and thought I'd start with a couple of stupid questions.
1) How do we know that black holes are not stellar nuclei that have just collapsed to a volume less than their mass dependent Schwarzschild radius (the radius at which the speed of light is the escape velocity) rather than actual singularities? In terms of physics the two types of objects would behave identically, but the former could actually be quite large in physical volume...
2) For cosmic redshift - we attribute it to an expanding universe, but to me it seems there is another equally plausible explanation. what if the redshift of distant objects, which are also far back in time, refers to the relative velocity of the objects at the time the light was emmitted? It would imply a much larger universe, but one that has gradually slowed in expansion to an almost equilibrium point at present rather than an accelerating expansion.
If there are already answers to these questions could you please point me in the right directions?
Thank you
1) How do we know that black holes are not stellar nuclei that have just collapsed to a volume less than their mass dependent Schwarzschild radius (the radius at which the speed of light is the escape velocity) rather than actual singularities? In terms of physics the two types of objects would behave identically, but the former could actually be quite large in physical volume...
2) For cosmic redshift - we attribute it to an expanding universe, but to me it seems there is another equally plausible explanation. what if the redshift of distant objects, which are also far back in time, refers to the relative velocity of the objects at the time the light was emmitted? It would imply a much larger universe, but one that has gradually slowed in expansion to an almost equilibrium point at present rather than an accelerating expansion.
If there are already answers to these questions could you please point me in the right directions?
Thank you