Hubble Trouble: Solving the Big Bang Age and Acceleration Mystery

[KOLYA K]

I've just been thimking of some potenial problems with the "expanding universe" and its supposed acceleration.

Objects further away are traveling faster. Does this mean it is speeding up or was it oroginally traveling faster during the big bang, and that's why it's further away?

The age of the universe has become a confusing concept. Originally Hubble came up with 1.8 billion years, "how could the universe be younger than the earth?" by analysing the furthest objects and background radiation.
Well if the shell of our universe is speeding away at over half the speed of light then time will be slower there, thus it would AGE slower. So the age thing all seems to be getting kind of relative. The Universe could be younger than the Earth, Maybe it would be morte acurrate to look as close as we can and the Geoligists 4 billion years could be the age of the universe. Time will be moving at different speeds all through the universe. So how can we cogently ask how old the universe "really" is?

If we could find the original birth point of the big bang maybe there will be some old remnant matter there that could be age tested?

One test that could prove the acceleration of the universe practically without a doubt would be to develop super sensitive redshift spectrum detectors and see if we can indeed measure a change over time in the spectrum showing that the redshift is increasing.

Any Ideas Anyone?

 

[chronon]

Objects further away are traveling faster. Does this mean it is speeding up or was it oroginally traveling faster during the big bang, and that's why it's further away?

Objects further away were originally traveling faster. The issue of acceleration is something different.

Well if the shell of our universe is speeding away at over half the speed of light then time will be slower there, thus it would AGE slower. So the age thing all seems to be getting kind of relative. The Universe could be younger than the Earth, Maybe it would be morte acurrate to look as close as we can and the Geoligists 4 billion years could be the age of the universe. Time will be moving at different speeds all through the universe. So how can we cogently ask how old the universe "really" is?

Time slowing down is not an intrinsic property of objects - it only happens relative to a particular reference frame. In cosmology the time coordinate is taken to be the proper time of the objects. This does lead to disagreement with the time dilation of special relativity, a disagreement which I try to point out is due to the choice of coordinate system, rather than being physically meaningful: http://www.chronon.org/Articles/stretchyspace.html

If we could find the original birth point of the big bang maybe there will be some old remnant matter there that could be age tested?

There is no such thing as the original birth point of the big bang - or rather every point in the universe could have that claim.

 

[misskitty]

Chrono has a point with the birth place of the Big Bang. It would be like blowing up a balloon really big, tieing it off, and then having you locate the centre inside the balloon.

The aging slower concept you mentioned is intriguing. I have never thought of that before.