Back to Home

Bigbang Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Big Bang | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Hubble's Law And The Big Bang

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Brooks on October 3, 2007 12:43:31 UTC

Hubble’s Law tell us that the universe is expanding and the farther away an object is, the faster it is moving. Using Hubble’s Constant of 65km/s/Mpc, based on the red-shift of electromagnetic energy observed from distant objects, we calculate an object with a red-shift of 108,355 km/s to be 5 billion light-years away. One peculiar thing about this law is that if we assume the Earth is motionless in space then everything is expanding steadily in all directions. However, if we assume the relative velocity of all objects 5 billion light-years to the east of our planet is caused by a mutual recession, with the objects and the Earth both moving at 54,000 km/s in opposite directions, then we end up with the objects 5 billion light-years to the west of Earth all moving at a speed of 162,000 km/s. This would indicate that the Universe is not expanding at a steady rate. Why would all objects travel so much faster in one direction than another. Another point is that this Law works only if the expansion is not accelerating. Recently two independent teams discovered that the expansion of the Universe was actually accelerating. If this is true then Hubble’s Law and Constant would have to be reworked to compensate for the Earth (now) accelerating in some direction away from and toward all other objects whose older light would display the slower acceleration from it’s time of origin. Lastly, Hubble’s Law and constant seem to put a limit on the size of the universe in that if an object is far enough away, it would be moving faster than the speed of light. I read that we use Hubble’s Law and Constant to determine the age of the Universe by calculating how long it would take everything to come back together (the Big Bang). I have read that the Big Bang didn’t happen somewhere but everywhere because no one could determine where it happened. Why would everything have to come back together if the Big Bang didn’t have a location? How could the start of the Big Bang been dense enough if it happened everywhere? If it truly was dense then we should be able to say where it happened. Why would the universe not be infinite? I have also read that objects don’t move through space and that space itself is expanding as a means to overcome the light speed limit but this sounds a bit made up. Please indulge my curiosity and offer me your opinion on these few problems I see with Hubble’s Law and Constant and the Big Bang.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins