Our Expanding Universe

BluMax wrote:
On 2004-11-30 11:24:50 -0500, jacob navia said:

BluMax wrote:

I have always wanted an answer that I can understand to the following
question.

Simply asked, "What is our Universe expannning into"?

Please explain it assuming I am an *ordinary* 13 years old.

I finally found this question and its answer, in a FAQ called
"Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology":

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

It is all "%^$@^$%@^" to me. :-(

Thanks in advance to "anyone/everyone" who can explain it to
me so that I understand.

BluMax

Hi BluMax
Objects in space, in our normal space, grow by taking
*more space*.

But for Space itself to do that, Space must take more of
Space, and in order to do that, Space must be larger than it is.

Hence, the notion of space expansion is self-contradictory
and can't exist. There can be no expansion of Space itself,
only of an object in Space.

Your intuition is 100% right BluMax, do not let the talk lead you
astray.

Furthermore, there is no such thing as the Universe. The
Universe denotes no special object; in fact, it denotes no
object of any kind. The fact that all things have a cause does
not mean that the Universe has a cause any more than the
fact that all men have a mother means that Humanity has a
mother. Hence the Universe does not have a cause. The
Universe does not have an age.

The universe is a short hand, comprehensive reference
to all things that exist.

And things being many, they have many ages . Hence, there is no
such thing as the age of the universe, unless we mean an
...average age. The Universe is just an inventory word, an
inventory meant to be exhaustive. And inventories have no
size. (I guess.) Hence, the universe has no size either.

References:

Apeiron, Vol 10 Nr 1, January 2003
"A Bang into Nowhere"
Constantin Antonopoulos
National Technical University of Athens


Wow, hmmm..... maybe now I might be *Starting" to understand.

So, if I understand correctly, the volume (so to speak) of space is
already there and the Universe is merely expanding into it.

Right?

No, wrong. Jacob Navia is a Big Bang denier who has just demonstrated
with his post above that he does not understand the theory. I strongly
suspect that he merely knows popular science accounts of it and
has not ever bothered to look at the actual math behind it.

Actually, a more appropriate model is that the universe is infinite,
hence its volume does not increase with time - the only thing that
happens is that the distance between any two points in it increases
with time.

Do I also extrapulate from your answer then, that the volume of Space
would be endless (to infinity) ?

That is one (likely) possibility, but we are not sure yet - and
obviously can't ever be, since all that we can ever observe
is a finite part of the universe!



Bye,
Bjoern

jacob navia wrote:
BluMax wrote:

I have always wanted an answer that I can understand to the following
question.

Simply asked, "What is our Universe expannning into"?

Please explain it assuming I am an *ordinary* 13 years old.

I finally found this question and its answer, in a FAQ called
"Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology":

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

It is all "%^$@^$%@^" to me. :-(

Thanks in advance to "anyone/everyone" who can explain it to
me so that I understand.

BluMax

Hi BluMax
Objects in space, in our normal space, grow by taking
*more space*.

Wrong. They do not grow *by* taking more space. It's the
other way round: *because* they grow, they occupy more space.


But for Space itself to do that, Space must take more of
Space, and in order to do that, Space must be larger than it is.

Non sequitur. Why should space behave in the same way as objects
in space?



Hence, the notion of space expansion is self-contradictory
and can't exist.

No, it isn't. Perhaps you should look at the actual equations
of GR and the math behind it (Riemannian geometry) instead of
relying on poor analogies, don't you think?


There can be no expansion of Space itself,
only of an object in Space.

Starting with a false premise, you can arrive at any conclusion
you like...



Your intuition is 100% right BluMax, do not let the talk lead you
astray.

Intuition is very often misleading in physics. My intuition tells
me also that the sun goes around the earth, that heavy things fall
faster than light ones, and that when I shoot particles at two
slits, they will go only through one of them.


Furthermore, there is no such thing as the Universe.

Ouch.


The Universe denotes no special object; in fact, it denotes no
object of any kind.

Beside "everything there is", you mean?


The fact that all things have a cause

Even that is not right. What is the cause of the decay of
an unstable particle? (please note that "its instability" is
not in any way a sufficient answer)


does not mean that the Universe has a cause any more than the
fact that all men have a mother means that Humanity has a
mother. Hence the Universe does not have a cause.

Non sequitur. The only logical conclusion you can draw is
"the universe does not need to have a cause". It does *not*
follow that the universe indeed has no cause.


The Universe does not have an age.

And that follows even less.


The universe is a short hand, comprehensive reference
to all things that exist.

Just above you said "there is no such thing as the Universe".
So you want to said that "there is no such thing as 'all things
that exist'"? Interesting statement.

Or do you want to quibble now that in one case, you wrote "Universe" and
in the other only "universe"?


And things being many, they have many ages. Hence, there is no
such thing as the age of the universe,

This is sophistry. And rather bad sophistry even.


unless we mean an
...average age. The Universe is just an inventory word, an
inventory meant to be exhaustive. And inventories have no
size. (I guess.)

You mean that we can't assign a size to the collection of
"all things which exist"? Why not?


Hence, the universe has no size either.

Again, starting from a false premise...



References:

Apeiron, Vol 10 Nr 1, January 2003
"A Bang into Nowhere"
Constantin Antonopoulos
National Technical University of Athens

Does Antonopoulos also use such strange arguments as the one
you presented above?


Bye,
Bjoern

* BluMax:
I have always wanted an answer that I can understand to the following question.

Simply asked, "What is our Universe expannning into"?

Please explain it assuming I am an *ordinary* 13 years old.

Oh, well.


I finally found this question and its answer, in a FAQ called
"Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology":

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

Presumably you mean


url: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#XIN


You might also want to visit


url:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/expanding_universe.html



It is all "%^$@^$%@^" to me. :-(

Thanks in advance to "anyone/everyone" who can explain it to
me so that I understand.

To be honest there are issues regarding that expansion that I don't
understand -- I mention some of them in the discussion below.

First off, let's dispense with the incorrect idea that the _Universe_,
also known as "everything", is expanding. If everything were expanding,
then there would be nothing to measure the expansion against, and it
would look like a non-expanding Universe to us. So what's not expanding
is ordinary matter, like atoms, planets, solar system, galaxies and so
on up to some limit (and don't ask, because the nature of that
non-expansion and the limit to it is one of those issues that neither I
nor anyone I've ever asked understand; generally it's sweeped under the
carpet by some handwaiving and a selection of exorcist phrases like
"bound system"). And what's expanding is space, the distances between
particles, above the expansion limit. So summing up this paragraph: the
apparent expansion is not an expansion of the Universe, because that
would be impossible to measure, but a continuing
internal-to-the-Universe change of proportion between matter and space.

If you already have a nice, Newtonian "through space" view of the
expansion you might find it hard to believe that's correct, but read on.

Now consider a finite Universe. OK, I don't think it's on as physical
reality, but consider it. The question here is (regarding your "into"):
can a finite Universe exist without having a boundary, an outside?

The answer to that question is yes. If the Universe were
two-dimensional it could then be like the surface of a ball. If some
Flatlanders on that surface started expanding a small circle it would
get larger and larger until it circumscribed the ball (equator), and
then when they expanded it even more it would get _smaller_ and smaller
until it shrunk to just a point at the opposite side of the ball.

With three dimensions the analogous situation is a kind of wrapping of
space where, if you cut the finite Universe in two, the cut is the
surface of a ball, and each half is a ball. Instead of a circle you can
here expand a ball. When you have expanded it to half the size of the
Universe it's of the greatest size and corresponds to a half-and-half
cut, when you expand it even more it shrinks (like the circle)...

Possibly you fell off the wagon here, but such a warped space _is_
possible to visualize also for three dimensions, just very difficult.

For an infinite Universe it's not necessary to wrap/warp space to avoid
having a boundary, and that's partly why an infinite Universe is so much
nicer to think about (for those who are not shy about infinities).

Even those who are not thirteen might find it amusing at this point to
consider the idea of a fixed-size space where all matter is _shrinking_.
Instead of a Big Bang blowout the Universe (or any particular region of
it) stays the same size all the time. Only the matter is shrinking,
yielding apparently ever greater distances as measured by us... Instead
of the Big Bang, the Big Implosion (viewpoint). Or BIMP, as I call it.

Now to the question you could have been asking. If the Universe is
expanding at a fixed rate (Hubble's law), uniform constant expansion,
how come we say it's 13.6 billion years old (or whatever)? Wouldn't it
_always_ have been expanding, then?

Well, the "local expansion" idea is probably the most common
misconception about the universal expansion, and the question above the
most common never-asked natural question about that misconception.
Here's the misconception: that for any given time inverval, distances
between things are multiplied by some factor proportional to the time
interval. That _not_ how uniform constant expansion works. This is how
uniform constant expansion works: above the expansion limit things (such
as superclusters of galaxies) are speeding away from each other at, for
each pair, constant relative velocity, and the Big Bang is the time
where, if you run the film backwards, they would have collided at a
single point which then would have been the whole Universe (or in the
BIMP view: the point in time when space was so small compared to matter
that every little particle filled out the whole infinite Universe).

As you can see, constant expansion is not really constant like every
local little bit of space expanding on its own, being that many percent
larger each second: the universal rate of expansion of space is varying
_just so_ that it maintains constant relative speed between things that
are far away from each other (and yes: I don't understand that). That
speed increases with distance because it was always greater (at least,
that's the theory) between things that are now at greater distance. If
the relative speed between thing X and thing Y is now, say, V m/sec,
then it was V m/sec also at the Big Bang -- or thereabouts.

There is now firm evidence, e.g. from Hubble's ultra deep view, that the
expansion is not really really constant but a bit varying, and currently
accelerating. That's difficult to swallow because it dispenses with any
classical notion of how the Universe works, and makes it even more
difficult to visualize. But for practical purposes it can still be
regarded as constant, which means just Newton's law of inertia: when two
things have some relative speed, and nothing acts on them, they will
continue to have that relative speed (a comfortable "through space"
picture that is not and can not be true, but is, well, comfortable).

Here's how accelerated expansion could be a fundamental problem: mostly
everything is space, including your body, the inside of the atoms in
your body, and the inside of the particles in each atom. With
accelerated expansion that space is expanding, right now. Which means
that at every level -- fundamental particle, atom, molecule, human
body, planet Earth, solar system, our local galaxy, and so on up to the
expansion limit mentioned earlier -- there is an exact compensation.
Various systems are bound by different forces (depending on the system
size) that counteract the expansion. Just like you're now in the grip
of a balance of forces that keeps you on the surface of the planet
instead of sinking into it or sailing freely out into space. But there
could be measurable effects, especially over, say, 5 billion years.

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:

[snip]

First off, let's dispense with the incorrect idea that the _Universe_,
also known as "everything", is expanding. If everything were expanding,
then there would be nothing to measure the expansion against, and it
would look like a non-expanding Universe to us. So what's not expanding
is ordinary matter, like atoms, planets, solar system, galaxies and so
on up to some limit (and don't ask, because the nature of that
non-expansion and the limit to it is one of those issues that neither I
nor anyone I've ever asked understand; generally it's sweeped under the
carpet by some handwaiving and a selection of exorcist phrases like
"bound system").

Perhaps the following does help you: one derives the expansion of
the universe using the assumption of homogenity and isotropy. But
obviously, on small scales (like atoms, planets, and galaxies)
the universe is anything but homogeneous and isotropic - this
is only valid on very large scales. Hence the statement of the
theory that the universe should expand is only valid on these
large scales, but does not apply on smaller scales.

A more formal way to express this is that for describing e.g.
solar systems, one needs to embed a (local) Schwarzschild metric into
the (global) Robertson-Walker metric.

Does this help in any way?


And what's expanding is space, the distances between
particles, above the expansion limit. So summing up this paragraph: the
apparent expansion is not an expansion of the Universe, because that
would be impossible to measure, but a continuing
internal-to-the-Universe change of proportion between matter and space.

A bit strange formulated, but essentially right.


[snip]

With three dimensions the analogous situation is a kind of wrapping of
space where, if you cut the finite Universe in two, the cut is the
surface of a ball, and each half is a ball.

Sounds rather strange. Where did you get this from? I would say
that the cut is a ball, and each half is again a curved
three-dimensional object (manifold).


[snip]

Even those who are not thirteen might find it amusing at this point to
consider the idea of a fixed-size space where all matter is _shrinking_.
Instead of a Big Bang blowout the Universe (or any particular region of
it) stays the same size all the time. Only the matter is shrinking,
yielding apparently ever greater distances as measured by us... Instead
of the Big Bang, the Big Implosion (viewpoint). Or BIMP, as I call it.

That would be consistent with the observation of (apparent) expansion,
but we don't have a physical theory describing such a process (in
contrast to GR, which can describe the expansion of space).


Now to the question you could have been asking. If the Universe is
expanding at a fixed rate (Hubble's law), uniform constant expansion,
how come we say it's 13.6 billion years old (or whatever)?

(13.7 +- 0.2) billion years. ;-)

[snip]

This is how
uniform constant expansion works: above the expansion limit things (such
as superclusters of galaxies) are speeding away from each other at, for
each pair, constant relative velocity, and the Big Bang is the time
where, if you run the film backwards, they would have collided at a
single point which then would have been the whole Universe

Well, if the universe is infinite, it obviously could never have
been a single point.


[snip]


As you can see, constant expansion is not really constant like every
local little bit of space expanding on its own, being that many percent
larger each second: the universal rate of expansion of space is varying
_just so_ that it maintains constant relative speed between things that
are far away from each other (and yes: I don't understand that). That
speed increases with distance because it was always greater (at least,
that's the theory) between things that are now at greater distance. If
the relative speed between thing X and thing Y is now, say, V m/sec,
then it was V m/sec also at the Big Bang -- or thereabouts.

Sorry, but where did you get this idea from???

The (apparent) recession velocity between two objects at time t is the
Hubble parameter at that time multiplied with the distance between
the objects at that time. For the distance, one can write the
distance at a certain time t0 times ratios of the "scale factor" at
times t and t0.
v(t) = H(t) * d(t) = H(t) * d(t0) * a(t) / a(t0)
But H is defined as the time derivative of a (adot) divided by
a, hence this gives:
v(t) = adot(t) * d(t0) / a(t0).
Since adot(t) is not constant (or did you mean that with "constant
expansion" above? If yes, then you use the word rather strange.), v
obviously changes with time.


[snip]


Bye,
Bjoern

* Bjoern Feuerbacher:

With three dimensions the analogous situation is a kind of wrapping of
space where, if you cut the finite Universe in two, the cut is the
surface of a ball, and each half is a ball.

Sounds rather strange. Where did you get this from? I would say
that the cut is a ball,

As opposed to the surface of a ball.

That's incorrect.

A cut through a two-dimensional object cannot itself be a two-
dimensional object; it is a one-dimensional line (try it out with some
paper and scissors). Likewise, a cut through a three-dimensional object
cannot itself be a three-dimensional object; it is a plane or more
generally a 2D surface (try it out with an apple and a knife).


and each half is again a curved three-dimensional object


That's right.


(manifold).

That's could be right or wrong depending on what you meant; if right it
would not be meaningful so I think it's techobabble gibberish.


Even those who are not thirteen might find it amusing at this point to
consider the idea of a fixed-size space where all matter is _shrinking_.
Instead of a Big Bang blowout the Universe (or any particular region of
it) stays the same size all the time. Only the matter is shrinking,
yielding apparently ever greater distances as measured by us... Instead
of the Big Bang, the Big Implosion (viewpoint). Or BIMP, as I call it.

That would be consistent with the observation of (apparent) expansion,
but we don't have a physical theory describing such a process (in
contrast to GR, which can describe the expansion of space).

We do have the theory: it is the same theory with a different (and
somewhat amusing but also clarifying) point of view.


Well, if the universe is infinite, it obviously could never have
been a single point.

That is incorrect.


v obviously changes with time.

That is incorrect.


Hope this helps,

- Alf

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Bjoern Feuerbacher:

Could you please mark your snips?

And could you please tell me if what I wrote about the expansion
on large and small scales was in any way helpful for you?


With three dimensions the analogous situation is a kind of wrapping of
space where, if you cut the finite Universe in two, the cut is the
surface of a ball, and each half is a ball.

Sounds rather strange. Where did you get this from? I would say
that the cut is a ball,


As opposed to the surface of a ball.

That's incorrect.

A cut through a two-dimensional object cannot itself be a two-
dimensional object; it is a one-dimensional line (try it out with some
paper and scissors). Likewise, a cut through a three-dimensional object
cannot itself be a three-dimensional object; it is a plane or more
generally a 2D surface (try it out with an apple and a knife).

Well, I was thinking of the universe as a four-dimensional object.
But since you were only talking about space, which is three-dimensional,
you are obviously right.



and each half is again a curved three-dimensional object



That's right.

And it's *not* a ball.



(manifold).


That's could be right or wrong depending on what you meant;

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Manifold.html


if right it
would not be meaningful so I think it's techobabble gibberish.

It's "technobabble", right - but it's not gibberish. And it's very
meaningful - hey, the whole of General Relativity is essentially
based on treating spacetime as a curved manifold!


Even those who are not thirteen might find it amusing at this point to
consider the idea of a fixed-size space where all matter is _shrinking_.
Instead of a Big Bang blowout the Universe (or any particular region of
it) stays the same size all the time. Only the matter is shrinking,
yielding apparently ever greater distances as measured by us... Instead
of the Big Bang, the Big Implosion (viewpoint). Or BIMP, as I call it.

That would be consistent with the observation of (apparent) expansion,
but we don't have a physical theory describing such a process (in
contrast to GR, which can describe the expansion of space).


We do have the theory: it is the same theory with a different (and
somewhat amusing but also clarifying) point of view.

Well, GR uses the metric to describe distances. In the Robertson-Walker
metric, the spatial parts have a function a(t) growing with time.
The natural interpretation is that distances grow with time. How
could you interpret this as matter shrinking?


Well, if the universe is infinite, it obviously could never have
been a single point.


That is incorrect.

Please enlighten me how this could be possible. How can something
with volume zero (a point) grow in a finite time to something
with an infinite volume? Do you want to suggest an infinite expansion
speed, or what?


v obviously changes with time.

That is incorrect.

I notice that you conveniently snipped my proof that it does
change with time (for adot being not constant)!


Hope this helps,

No, your snipping and snide comments are not helpful.


Bye,
Bjoern

* Bjoern Feuerbacher:
Alf P. Steinbach wrote:
* Bjoern Feuerbacher:

Could you please mark your snips?

?


And could you please tell me if what I wrote about the expansion
on large and small scales was in any way helpful for you?

It could have been helpful (in order to understand that position) if I
wasn't already aware of it, so thank you. Basically it asserts that
that the expansion rate can vary locally, that conglomerations of mass
reduce the local "elasticity" of space, sort of stiffens it. The main
feature is that this cannot be refuted or confirmed experimentally.


Well, I was thinking of the universe as a four-dimensional object.
But since you were only talking about space, which is three-dimensional,
you are obviously right.

and each half is again a curved three-dimensional object

That's right.

And it's *not* a ball.

That is incorrect for a spherical finite Universe, which you can see
simply by expanding a ball until it fills half of that Universe.

If that doesn't do it for you, imagine also someone at a point maximally
away from you doing the ball inflation experiment.

Your two balls will then, at maximum size, share all their surface; the
"inside" of your ball, from your point of view, is a ball, and the
"inside" of the other person's ball, also a ball.


...
The natural interpretation is that distances grow with time. How
could you interpret this as matter shrinking?

You might as well ask, how could one possibly see the Moon as the static
center of the Universe? It's easy, just a coordinate transformation. In
that transformed view the laws of motion become pretty complicated, but
all you have to do is to transform back and forth. Seeing the Moon as
the center of the Universe does not yield much new insight, however.
Seeing distances as static and matter shrinking can yield new insight.


Well, if the universe is infinite, it obviously could never have
been a single point.


That is incorrect.

Please enlighten me how this could be possible. How can something
with volume zero (a point) grow in a finite time to something
with an infinite volume? Do you want to suggest an infinite expansion
speed, or what?

Enlightenment, part I: how can something with volume zero (a point) grow
in finite time to something with a _finite_ volume?


v obviously changes with time.

That is incorrect.

I notice that you conveniently snipped my proof that it does
change with time (for adot being not constant)!

Yes, it wasn't very clear to me.

But if I understood the gist of what you meant correctly you applied v =
Hd (velocity, Hubble constant, distance) as pertaining to an _object_
at distance d.

It does not. It pertains to whatever object is at distance d.
Going back in time what is at distance d will be other objects. To
follow a particular object back in time, keep v constant. If you do the
math for constant speed you end up with Hubble's law. _But_: you then
have a time-varying Hubble constant (this is a FAQ, see the physics FAQ
reference I gave in my first posting) -- Hubble's constant is constant
in space, not in time, and "the" H is just the current value.

One problem with explaining this is that "constant speed" is
an oversimplification -- it is incorrect at _two_ levels (;-)) -- but
it is the zeroth, basic level of understanding that must be grasped.

The first level of incorrectness is that v for any particular object
should be _decreasing_ over time (see the physics FAQ reference I gave
in the first posting). Assuming I understood your intended proof
correctly, thas was opposite: speeds that increase over time instead of
speeds that decrease. Classically one might say that the decreasing
speed is due to gravitation pulling the objects together.

The second level of incorrectness is, as I mentioned but didn't discuss
further, that there is now relatively firm evidence that the expansion
is currently accelerating. Now this effect is, by coincidence, in the
direction of what I think you ended up with. In contrast to constant or
decreasing speed it is not commensurate with any classical view.

Again, hope this helps,

- Alf

--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

BluMax wrote in message news:2004112913055116807%alsimcoe@alsimcoecom...
I have always wanted an answer that I can understand to the following question.

Simply asked, "What is our Universe expannning into"?

Please explain it assuming I am an *ordinary* 13 years old.

I finally found this question and its answer, in a FAQ called
"Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology":

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

It is all "%^$@^$%@^" to me. :-(

Thanks in advance to "anyone/everyone" who can explain it to
me so that I understand.

BluMax

Blu,
Your intuition is VERY probably correct. If it smells, looks like, and
tastes like rubbish, then it VERY likely is. The BB theory is a result
of "we don't have anything else", arising from questions on how
Hubble's data on redshift may be produced. You may have to "learn" GR
in order to get a physics degree, as they are only awarded by the
wardens who MUST stay with the theory, to preserve their own habitats.
Armed with this "knowledge", hopefully you will apply yourself to
finding the REAL REASON for the apparent loss of speed/energy of EMR.

Good hunting

Jim G
c'=c+v

In message , Jim
Greenfield writes
BluMax wrote in message
news:2004112913055116807%alsimcoe@alsimcoecom.. .
I have always wanted an answer that I can understand to the following
question.

Simply asked, "What is our Universe expannning into"?

Please explain it assuming I am an *ordinary* 13 years old.

I finally found this question and its answer, in a FAQ called
"Frequently Asked Questions in Cosmology":

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

It is all "%^$@^$%@^" to me. :-(

Thanks in advance to "anyone/everyone" who can explain it to
me so that I understand.

BluMax

Blu,
Your intuition is VERY probably correct. If it smells, looks like, and
tastes like rubbish, then it VERY likely is. The BB theory is a result
of "we don't have anything else", arising from questions on how
Hubble's data on redshift may be produced. You may have to "learn" GR
in order to get a physics degree, as they are only awarded by the
wardens who MUST stay with the theory, to preserve their own habitats.
Armed with this "knowledge", hopefully you will apply yourself to
finding the REAL REASON for the apparent loss of speed/energy of EMR.

Note to new readers, - only kooks post in capital letters (SHOUTING :-)

"Jonathan Silverlight" ha
scritto nel messaggio ...

Blu,
Your intuition is VERY probably correct. If it smells, looks like, and
tastes like rubbish, then it VERY likely is. The BB theory is a result
of "we don't have anything else", arising from questions on how
Hubble's data on redshift may be produced. You may have to "learn" GR
in order to get a physics degree, as they are only awarded by the
wardens who MUST stay with the theory, to preserve their own habitats.
Armed with this "knowledge", hopefully you will apply yourself to
finding the REAL REASON for the apparent loss of speed/energy of EMR.

Note to new readers, - only kooks post in capital letters (SHOUTING :-)

ThE SamE thINg haPPens iF YoU haVe a BrokeN KeYboARd LiKe Me... :-)

Luigi Caselli