No Redshift from Distant Galaxies: Implications for Universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter blumfeld0
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Redshift Universe
AI Thread Summary
If no distant galaxies exhibited redshift or blueshift, it would challenge current understandings of cosmic expansion and support the steady state theory, suggesting a static and infinite universe. This scenario would imply that the universe does not have an initial singularity, contradicting the Big Bang model. The discussion highlights that while the steady state theory allows for space expansion, it diverges from established cosmological principles. Additionally, it raises questions about the implications for Earth's understanding of cosmic phenomena. Ultimately, the idea reinforces the complexity of cosmological models and the ongoing evolution of scientific theories.
blumfeld0
Messages
146
Reaction score
0
So what if no distant galaxy showed any redshift of blueshift? what would that mean?
What would this imply about the universe? What-if any –effects would this have on the Earth?

I figure this would support the steady state theory and that it was static and infinite.
anything else??
thanks
 
Space news on Phys.org
Your conclusion is probably right, but what is the point. The red shifts of galaxies has been observed and analysed for over 80 years.
 
According to the steady state theory space does also expand, but without an initial singularity (it makes use of a de-Sitter cosmological model).
 
Last edited:
blumfeld0 said:
So what if no distant galaxy showed any redshift of blueshift? what would that mean?
What would this imply about the universe? What-if any –effects would this have on the Earth?

I figure this would support the steady state theory and that it was static and infinite.
anything else??
thanks
No, it would support Einstein's original 'blunder' with the cosmological constant cancelling gravity (his static model). But we now know that Einstein was wrong on that one and he was (probably) wrong on declaring the cosmological constant a 'blunder' as well!:smile:
 
Abstract The Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) has significantly advanced our ability to study black holes, achieving unprecedented spatial resolution and revealing horizon-scale structures. Notably, these observations feature a distinctive dark shadow—primarily arising from faint jet emissions—surrounded by a bright photon ring. Anticipated upgrades of the EHT promise substantial improvements in dynamic range, enabling deeper exploration of low-background regions, particularly the inner shadow...
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##.
Title: Can something exist without a cause? If the universe has a cause, what caused that cause? Post Content: Many theories suggest that everything must have a cause, but if that's true, then what caused the first cause? Does something need a cause to exist, or is it possible for existence to be uncaused? I’m exploring this from both a scientific and philosophical perspective and would love to hear insights from physics, cosmology, and philosophy. Are there any theories that explain this?
Back
Top