The casual acceptance of nonsense

K

kaneda

Actual Cynic
Registered Senior Member
I don't believe anything should be beyond question and continually evaluate what I believe in. But I am appalled at what is taken as infallibly true in science, without any actual evidence.

I believe that endless collisions and interactions could be responsible for redshifting over great distances in space. Maybe right or maybe wrong, but the accepted belief is far less likely.

The Hubble constant has the universe expanding 15-30 km per second for every million light years. Call it 22 km/s. That's 1 part in 4.28x10^17.

We are led to believe that a photon is so weakly held together that about the equivalent gravitational force of a dust mote can stretch it out of shape. More importantly, photons travel at a set speed in a vacuum regardless. Call it 298,051 km/sec. If the space it travels through stretches by an atom's width in that time, light still travels at the same speed.
 
Can you imagine how poor our understanding of astrophysics is going to look a hundred years from now?
 
I think there are a lot of things taken on trust at the moment which may or may not be right. If they are wrong, they could lead us down dead ends which we only find out many decades later or we may never find out as a wrong explanation fits the facts perfectly.

I deliberately ask questions on forums about even what I accept as true to see if there are holes that can be found in my beliefs. It can be hard on others at times but I do find it gives me better ideas of how things work as it makes me think about them more.

I think if we can find out exactly what "space" is, that will help our understanding of the universe significantly. Is it possible that 2.7K is the temperature of the material we know of as space when it is "at rest"?
 
kaneda said:
... More importantly, photons travel at a set speed in a vacuum regardless. Call it 298,051 km/sec. If the space it travels through stretches by an atom's width in that time, light still travels at the same speed.
Click to expand...
kaneda, what was the length of a meter in the early universe compared with a meter in the present universe? The length of a meter has been 'stretched' a thousand-fold since the surface of last scattering. To keep the speed of light set at a constant 299,792,458 m/s in vacuum, we vary the length of a meter, or alternatively, the duration of a second, when different reference frames are directly compared with each other. For instance, a cesium clock beats slower in low Earth orbit than an identical clock beats in geostationary orbit. Both clocks are located in vacuum, so in order for the speed of light to remain as 'c', the length of a meter must vary between the two locations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top