On Jul 17, 11:40*am, dlzc wrote:

Why are we still getting the CMBR light...http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/photons_outrun.html


Excellent animation to describe the view of Standard Model. That
clarifies quite a bit thank you.

In the first frame or two, the expansion of space is much greater than
the speed of light, but then it quickly slows under light speed, and
then to a crawl.

It comes from the assumption that the matter in the universe is all
evenly distributed and stationary, and for fulfilling those
assumptions, it does an incredibly good job.

On the other hand, one should NOT assume that all the matter in the
universe is stationary, because that runs counter to our
observations. Our observations indicate that farther galaxies are all
moving away from us. I guess Standard Model proponents would say that
is my naivete in assuming that redshift is entirely due to recession
velocity.

I don't hink I'm the one who has made a false assumption though. I
think the false assumption is the assumption of the Standard Model:
that all of the matter in the universe is comoving.

The standard model's assumption that all the matter of the universe is
comoving is a counterfactual; "If only the matter of the universe were
not spreading apart.... then..."

The data of luminosities and redshifts says the universe IS spreading
apart, and if you accept the counterfactual, then the actual data must
be explained AWAY by some other mechanism (the stretching of space)
when you make the standard model's counterfactual assumption.

Explaining away the redshifts of distant galaxies, reminds me of
Ptolemy's geocentric model explaining away retrograde motion It made
reasonable predictions, but it did not really introduce a mechanism.
"each planet required an epicycle revolving on a deferent, offset by
an equant which was different for each planet. But it predicted
various celestial motions, including the beginnings and ends of
retrograde motion, fairly well at the time it was developed."

The standard model's stretching of space is, indeed, a mechanism, so
it is one better on Ptolemy's idea. However, it is a mechanism
designed to explain away data, after making an unjustified assumption,
and it is a mechanism that is only ever used to explain the Standard
Model of Cosmology--nothing else.