Did Hubble get it wrong?

[Scott S]

I am interested in continuing this discussion. My position is the same as Baryon's.

 

I too am perplexed at the exemption of the velocity of the source object (distant galaxy) at the moment in time when the "red shifted" light was emanated.

 

It is obvious that the Hubble theory only considers the stretching of the universe and omits any possible velocity contribution to the red shift in observed light.

 

yes?

[Simpleton]

Ok but didn't the Hubble graph show the velocity of receding galaxies. Whether they are moving through space (no) or moving with expanding space (yes) the effect is the same; the distance between us and them increases.

 

 

"Because expanding space stretches all light waves they propogate" I can see that makes sense, I'm not saying that space is not expanding. Really what I'm saying is the universe was expanding faster in the past than it is now. The problem I have with Hubble theory is, as I understand,

 

1) The Hubble constant isn't predicted from theory, it is chosen to fit observations.

2) That gallaxies are accelerating away from us.

2) There must be some sort of force causing this and it's called dark energy (though if gallaxies are not accelerating through space then do we need a force?)

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you say I think that is the sticking point.

 

Anyway, if my graph appears below the righthand side shows Hubble's graph of velocity plotted against distance and, if 1 lightyear away = 1 year ago, the lefthand side shows my graph of velocity plotted against time ago. You'll notice the dots representing galaxies are mirrored (as best as I could) does this not show the expansion slowing down with time. The further back in time you lokk the faster space was expanding??

It all seems so right and makes so much sense. It scares me. It just has to be wrong somehow. I is wrong that a nobody just might be right.