TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

what if redshift theory is incorrect aren't there other ways of detecting or proving expansion?

there are a lot of adjustable parameters needed with redshift, shouldn't an expanding universe be easier to prove or detect by now?

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 8 2012: You have posed a great question Jesse,
    In answer, red-shift isn't a theory – it is a measurement of light from distant stars.
    Expansion (hence the idea that all originally came from a big-bang) is the theory (idea) based on the measurement.

    I think that the idea that all originated from a big-bang requires a large amount of good-will to accept. In order to sustain the idea, it requires a period called 'inflation'. During this period the universe is required to have expanded at faster than the speed of light. In addition the idea requires there to be extraordinary amounts of undetectable (dark) matter. The total amount of dark matter energy required to sustain the current idea of cosmology is 96%. i.e. we can only detect and measure 4% of what they think must be there to sustain the story.

    I think we've got it wrong!
    • Aug 8 2012: Thank you for responding. I know about inflation, and that the term redshift explains incread wave lengths of light and that light traveling away from us has an increased wavelength or is shifted to the red side of the spectrum but I still thought it was a theory because there are many question marks surrounding expansion, the big bang and redshift in general (Einsteins cross)

      I don't know if we've got it wrong, but I'm keeping an open mind... it's all better than any mystery I've ever read.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.