Hi all,

this is my first post. I have a couple of straight-forward questions to start, and look forward to talking with you. All I ask is that you view these questions as not as stupid as they might sound :)

Hubble, when he claimed that (I paraphrase) "... the further away the light object is, the more it is shifted (in spectroscopy) to the red end of the light spectrum.." meaning to all who read this (including me) that the universe is expanding, and expanding at an increasing rate..

OK, now the "dumb" question(s).

1. Obviously Hubble accounted for the temporal (time) shifts, as the further one observes away from self, the more the thing being presented to the observer is back in time. He did? How exactly did he adjust the shifts, to be according to the time shifts? On that, my simple understanding of Einstein's "curved space-time continuum" is that if we have a linear space metric (say distance between observer and observation), then the time dimension is non-linear; or vice-versa. I am confident that Hubble did consider all this, simply because Stephen Hawkings, and many others endorsed this statement by Hubble; and I know none of these esteemed scientists would have got it wrong. I guess I want to hear some feedback on this from this community..

2. Hawking's is known to have said "...the universe is infinite and expanding..", and I agree, with my understanding of infinite being "of unknown dimension" or "unbounded" as opposed to "limitless". And in that sense of infinite, did anyone else consider the idea that Hubble's statement that "..the universe is expanding, and expanding at a greater rate.." is really undefined (at least to me) given the idea that the universe is itself "of unknown dimension", "unbounded"? Again, my simplistic view under a space-time system that is non-linear is that if the universe (at least the space component) is expanding relative to time, but that it is undefined, then I view this as an attempt to impose a linear system on one that is not defined (linear in that the first and second order derivatives of space-metrics being constant relative to t, and the derivative of t, respectively).. anyways, I am starting to stream. Hope some of you guys feel like discussing this.

regards,

Justin

PS There has been some speculation backed by observations by scientists in Australia that the speed of light is not constant. This ties in really well with these ideas I have.

I think you will find when you delve further that Hubble didn't really believe the universe was expanding and at an increasing rate. It was his associate, a catholic priest, who advocated this and proposed a creation theory, the big bang.

Good insights, Vern.

So much of science seems to be influenced by beliefs, or religion.

I know that in my work for government, it is most often the best when I don't know what my boss wants before I conduct an analysis (otherwise, bias can easily and less-than-consciously creep in).

You might like my ideas on Schrodinger's Cat - which, put simply, is the problem of knowing the truth outside of observation, or outside of us..

regards

Justin

On #1: When you examine the light from a source far away that is at rest with respect to you, the light is not redshifted regardless of how long it took the light to get to you. The percentage of redshift tells the percentage by which the universe expanded during the time the light traveled to get to you.

On #2, the word “universe” is commonly and misleadingly used as shorthand for “observable universe.” The patch of universe that we see is expanding, and presumably the part we cannot see is expanding identically.

On #1: When you examine the light from a source far away that is at rest with respect to you,.... .

I doubt that in an expanding universe, any faraway objects will be at rest relative to each other.....ever.

Sure. I mention that just to show that the redshift is not a function of distance per se.