Is There Evidence for the Universe's Expansion and a Constant Speed of Light?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Drmarshall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Universe
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on skepticism regarding the universe's expansion and the constancy of the speed of light. One participant argues that if space is expanding, it should affect the measurements of physical objects, suggesting no measurable expansion exists. They also question the evidence supporting a constant speed of light over billions of years, pointing to variable speed theories as speculative. Another participant emphasizes the importance of questioning established science but warns against prematurely dismissing it without thorough investigation. The conversation highlights the tension between challenging scientific norms and adhering to established theories.
Drmarshall
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Every atom in the universe is 99.99% space.
So if space were "expanding" (compared to what!) every atom in my metre rule would be expanding. So there is no MEASURABLE expansion

Where is the EVIDENCE that the speed of light has "stayed constant" over the past 15 billion years. Compared to what?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Variable speed of light theories persist to this day, despite the lack of unambiguous evidence in support of the idea. It is, at best, viewed as highly speculative.
 
Drmarshall said:
The universe CANNOT expand

Uh ... really ?


When you come up against something that flies so utterly in the face of established science, it is not a good idea to start off reaching different conclusions and stating them as correct but rather to start off with the assumption that you have made a mistake somewhere and try to find out where it is. If you have NOT made a mistake you will find the flaw in the established science, but that is very unlikely to happen. If you start off thinking that you have overturned established science you are likely to just end up embarrassed.
 
This is not a valid thread start.

Asking questions is OK, but making a bunch of incorrect statements in the hope of learning that way is not. It's both inefficient and annoying.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top