paglren,
My think is that the point of view is contracting in effect. The expansion feel is illusory like the moving of landscape outside the windows of a running train. In this case, though, since mass (where is sited any point of view) is "contracting", the opposite movement is, of course, an illusory expansion of anything that is still.
This I would disagree with. Gravity can only contract the area equidistant to other gravitational sources. Light radiates out at least 13 billion light years. (It's as though gravity is the seed and light is the pollen.)
What I should mention is that I think the Big Bang theory is wrong.
If space expands, but the universe doesn't, the pressure of this expansion would be exerted on gravitational structures, causing the additional spin currently assumed to be caused by dark matter.
Following is an article making that very point;
Things fall apart
Feb 5th 2004
From The Economist print edition
_
THINGS FALL APART
What if the dark energy and dark matter essential to modern
explanations of the universe don't really exist?
IT WAS beautiful, complex and wrong. In 150AD, Ptolemy of Alexandria
published his theory of epicycles--the idea that the moon, the sun and
the planets moved in circles which were moving in circles which were
moving in circles around the Earth. This theory explained the motion of
celestial objects to an astonishing degree of precision. It was,
however, what computer programmers call a kludge: a dirty, inelegant
solution. Some 1,500 years later, Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer,
replaced the whole complex edifice with three simple laws.
Some people think modern astronomy is based on a kludge similar to
Ptolemy's. At the moment, the received wisdom is that the obvious stuff
in the universe--stars, planets, gas clouds and so on--is actually only
4% of its total content. About another quarter is so-called cold, dark
matter, which is made of different particles from the familiar sort of
matter, and can interact with the latter only via gravity. The
remaining 70% is even stranger. It is known as dark energy, and acts to
push the universe apart. However, the existence of cold, dark matter
and dark energy has to be inferred from their effects on the visible,
familiar stuff. If something else is actually causing those effects,
the whole theoretical edifice would come crashing down.
According to a paper just published in the MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL
ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY by Tom Shanks and his colleagues at the University
of Durham, in England, that might be about to happen. Many of the
inferences about dark matter and dark energy come from detailed
observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is
radiation that pervades space, and is the earliest remnant of the Big
Bang which is thought to have started it all. Small irregularities in
the CMB have been used to deduce what the early universe looked like,
and thus how much cold, dark matter and dark energy there is around.
Dr Shanks thinks these irregularities may have been misinterpreted. He
and his colleagues have been analysing data on the CMB that were
collected by WMAP, a satellite launched in 2001 by NASA, America's
space agency. They have compared these data with those from telescopic
surveys of galaxy clusters, and have found correlations between the two
which, they say, indicate that the clusters are adding to the energy of
the CMB by a process called inverse Compton scattering, in which hot
gas boosts the energy of the microwaves. That, they say, might be
enough to explain the irregularities without resorting to ghostly dark
matter and energy.
Dr Shanks is not the only person questioning the status quo. In a pair
of papers published in a December issue of ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS,
Sebastien Vauclair of the Astrophysics Laboratory of the Midi-Pyrenees,
in Toulouse, and his colleagues also report the use of galaxy clusters
to question the existence of dark energy. But their method uses the
clusters in a completely different way from Dr Shanks, and thus opens a
second flank against the conventional wisdom.
Cosmological theory says that the relationship between the mass of a
galaxy cluster and its age is a test of the value of the "density
parameter" of the universe. The density parameter is, in turn, a
measure of just how much normal matter, dark matter and dark energy
there is. But because the mass of a cluster is difficult to measure
directly, astronomers have to infer it from computer models which tell
them how the temperature of the gas in a cluster depends on that
cluster's mass.
Even measuring the temperature of a cluster is difficult, though. What
is easy to measure is its luminosity. And that should be enough, since
luminosity and temperature are related. All you need to know are the
details of the relationship, and by measuring luminosity you can
backtrack to temperature and then to mass.
That has been done for nearby clusters, but not for distant ones which,
because of the time light has taken to travel from them to Earth,
provide a snapshot of earlier times. So Dr Vauclair and his colleagues
used XMM-NEWTON, a European X-ray-observation satellite that was
launched in 1999, to measure the X-ray luminosities and the
temperatures of eight distant clusters of galaxies. They then compared
the results with those from closer (and therefore apparently older)
clusters.
The upshot was that the relationship between mass and age did not match
the predictions of conventional theory. It did, however, match an
alternative model with a much higher density of "ordinary" matter in it.
That does not mean conventional theory is yet dead. The NEWTON
observations are at the limits of accuracy, so a mistake could have
crept in. Or it could be that astronomers have misunderstood how galaxy
clusters evolve. Changing that understanding would be uncomfortable,
but not nearly as uncomfortable as throwing out cold, dark matter and
dark energy.
On the other hand, a universe that requires three completely different
sorts of stuff to explain its essence does have a whiff of epicycles
about it. As Albert Einstein supposedly said, "Physics should be made
as simple as possible, but not simpler." Put Dr Shanks's and Dr
Vauclair's observations together, and one cannot help but wonder
whether Ptolemy might soon have some company in the annals of
convoluted, discarded theories.
_
See this article with graphics and related items at
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2404626
regards,
