Difference between expansion of space and objects just moving apart?

[Sundance]

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Expansion of space is a theory that supports the Big Bang Theory.

Observations show us that the galaxies, forming a unit and collide with other galaxies and collect into clusters and those clusters collect into super clusters. Over 100 billion galaxies are known to exist in the observable universe 13.2 Gyrs deep field and we are told that these galaxies took only 500 million years to form. Big ask.

I have been reading all this hoo haa for the last forty years and it seems to go around in circles. Not only that you have groups of people on varies fronts and theories that hold onto their emotional ideas and theories to such an extent if people do not agree are banned from those forums. The end result science goes walking.

 

[Garth]

Sundance there are two sides to scientific investigation, theory and observation.

In the last forty years cosmology has been a science that has progressed from being largely theory to one loaded with observation, as a result the standard \LambdaCDM model has emerged.

There are plenty of questions to be asked of this model, however it does fit the known data very well and on that basis is well established.

We do discuss questions about the standard model on PF, such as on threads I have started, amongst others, here: Critique of Mainstream Cosmology, here: Is there an Age Problem in the Mainstream Model?, here: Cosmological Coincidences and here: The Anomalous Acceleration of the Pioneer Spacecrafts. Reasonable alternative theories are also discussed, especially where they can be tested and falsified such as here: Alternative theories being tested by Gravity Probe B.

The purpose of these Forums at PF is to discussed published theory and observation and not be a venue for wild speculative ideas. That is why people are banned, not because they want to ask questions but because they want to push crackpottery.

If you have a "Big ask" then do so and others will honestly try to answer your question, but you will also have to be prepared to listen to the answer and perhaps, if those answers do not satisfy, respond with a further question.

You will find that most serious questions have been asked already, some of these will have been answered, others may still be open. That is why the subject is so exciting.

Garth

 

[Sundance]

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzz

Hello Garth

I thank you for the links and I shall read them. I'm not a crankpot,,,,,,,smile.

Until than I have to get my head around, what you said:

Quote:
"There are plenty of questions to be asked of this model, however it does fit the known data very well and on that basis is well established".

after reading:

Confirmation of the remarkable compactness of massive quiescent galaxies at z~2.3: early-type galaxies did not form in a simple monolithic collapse
Authors: Pieter van Dokkum, Marin Franx, Mariska Kriek, Bradford Holden, Garth Illingworth, Daniel Magee, Rychard Bouwens, Danilo Marchesini, Ryan Quadri, Greg Rudnick, Edward Taylor, Sune Toft
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4094v1

The evolution of the morphological scale of early-type galaxies since z=2
Authors: P. Saracco, M. Longhetti, S. Andreon, A. Mignano (INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Brera)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.2269v1

The Age of Cluster Galaxies from Continuum Colors
Authors: K. Rakos (UVienna), J. Schombert (UOregon), A. Odell (NAU)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.3665v1