- #1
pjn2000
- 4
- 0
One thing that really bothers me about Hubble's law is the question of time. Was this ever taken into account? When we observe large distances in space we are also looking way back in time. Sure Galaxies appear to be moving faster at a greater distance but how do we know how fast they are moving now when really we are just observing them further back in time the further away they are located?
If someone made a slow motion video of a bomb exploding and played it in reverse, sure the speed of particles moving away from the centre of the explosion would be faster the further back we played the video. How can we be certain that this is not what we are seeing when we observe distant Galxies and use these results to derive Hubble's law? It could be argued that a constant value for Hubble's constant is just another way of saying that matter under went constant deceleration after the Big Bang. If so it could easily predict the maximum size our Universe could achieve. How can we prove otherwise?
If someone made a slow motion video of a bomb exploding and played it in reverse, sure the speed of particles moving away from the centre of the explosion would be faster the further back we played the video. How can we be certain that this is not what we are seeing when we observe distant Galxies and use these results to derive Hubble's law? It could be argued that a constant value for Hubble's constant is just another way of saying that matter under went constant deceleration after the Big Bang. If so it could easily predict the maximum size our Universe could achieve. How can we prove otherwise?