Quote:
Originally Posted by Dov Henis
|
Yup, just checked out your link. It's not called the Hubble scale.
It's called the Hubble Law. That really does not matter though. Just terms. As far as sub and super, I didn't read that far. I imagine it is either faster or slower than the standard model predicts.
What did catch my eye was this passage: "...Olber's paradox --- that the sky is dark at night, as one of the cornerstones of modern cosmology."
Olber's paradox is worse than bad joke. That it is a cornerstone of modern cosmology is revolting.
Perhaps, at first glanse this has nothing to do with your question set out in the first post, but it does.
Olber's paradox has come to imply; if the universe were not expanding, the sky at night would be ablaze, bright like the surface of the sun.
That is the bad joke.
Part of the reason that Hubble's Law was accepted as a Law (which it is absolutely not, the reason for which may be beyond the scope of your thread) is because of the paradox (see the above link, second line down, I think).
Olber's paradox, its implications are simply not true, i.e., it is untenable, and it is no paradox. A stationarey, static, non-expanding universe would look precicely as does the night sky right now, dark, with all the objects in it as we see them.
I may also add, the observed redshift of extra-galactic objects, interpreted as a change in the scale factor to the metric (expansion, according Hubble's Law) would also be precisely identical in a stationary rest frame (in a non-expanding universe redshift z would still be observable).
Someone should start a thread about Olber's paradox, it's a great thing to trash. I would do it but I would hate to have the Coldcreation name attached to it on a search engine.
Don't fight the chill
CC
Questions
