If Hubble's law is fulfilled only in a certain narrow, by cosmic standards, area, then how can we rely on it when talking about the expansion of the universe?
I did not know that FTL travel was possible. What evidence can you quote, please?I wonder why it was not realised earlier, that the proportionality which required FTL travel, could be countered by noticing that FTL travel might be used to invalidate Hubble's Law.
The standard response is problematic (?). What response and how is it a problem, please?I would welcome comment/correction on these points, but, please, not repetition of the problematic "explanations"
The question that puts supporters of the big bang in a stupor: where is the immaterial space expanding?See post #2. If speed is proportional to distance, then at "infinite" distance you will get "infinite" speed. After approx. 14 bn years of increasing accelerating expansion, what is the speed of
the expanding material "universe"? What do you say iit is expanding into?
Can immaterial nothing expand? Did the aether expand.?
Cat
I did not know that FTL travel was possible. What evidence can you quote, please?
The standard response is problematic (?). What response and how is it a problem, please?
- Explanation
Hubble's law describes the relationship between the distance of a galaxy and how fast it's moving away from Earth. However, the expansion of space itself is not limited by the speed of light.
Can space exist by itself without matter or energy around?
No. Experiments continue to show that there is no 'space' that stands apart from space-time itself...no arena in which matter, energy and gravity operate which is not affected by matter, energy and gravity. General relativity tells us that what we call space is just another feature of the gravitational field of the universe, so space and space-time can and do not exist apart from the matter and energy that creates the gravitational field. This is not speculation, but sound observation.