RE Hubble Constant

<...they...>?

There are three types of redshift. Light will be redshifted if it is emitted by a source moving away (doppler redshift). It will be redshifted if it is emitted by a source deep inside a gravity well (gravitational redshift). Finally, it will be redshifted if space is expanding (hubble redshift). Of course, it can be redshifted for any combination of these.

My understanding is that the redshift is not due to distant galaxies actually moving away, but due to the expansion of space itself. The wavelength of the light emitted by a distant galaxy stretches with space as it expands, so that it is shifted to the red now (longer wavelength).

"There are three main causes of redshifts in astronomy and cosmology:

1. Objects move apart (or closer together) in space. This is an example of the Doppler effect.
2. Space itself expanding, causing objects to become separated without changing their positions in space. This is known as cosmological redshift. All sufficiently distant light sources (generally more than a few million light-years away) show redshift corresponding to the rate of increase in their distance from Earth, known as Hubble's law.
3. Gravitational redshift is a relativistic effect observed due to strong gravitational fields, which distort spacetime and exert a force on light and other particles."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

There have been many other theories tested to account for the cosmological redshift other than the expansion of space itself. But they all have more significant complications and unnoticed but expected attributes than the few problems of space itself expanding.

The discredited theory I liked was the idea the speed of light in a vacuum changed over time. If I remember correctly the primary complication in this debunked theory is a lack of change in the spectral line intervals. The emitter or absorber lines were uniformly shifted instead of becoming closer to each other if the localized value of the speed of light was different.

How can objects become separated without changing position?No matter the cause of the red shift when looking at a distant galaxy,we are looking at a light source that left the galaxy billions of years ago,hence we are looking at the way it was billions of years ago, closer to the big bang event,not as it is now.The expansion rate may be actually slowing now(now as in our local time frame).

First, you have to accept that when one deals with intergalactic space/time our terrestrial views of space and time don't apply. They often mislead. More, new space is being created/appearing between objects that are not moving through old quantities of space.

Second, the light from distant galaxies were closer to the big bang in time than we are but not closer in space. We are both just as close in space because spatially we are all still part of the big bang.

Third, space is presently expanding far slower than the earliest inflationary period but space expansion is presently increasing.

Our terrestrial 3D views are the only views that we are actually capable of.

The rest is speculation or hypothesis or theory.

How can you separate the space from spacetime?

How would the universe look if we could step out of our current time and space?

I can accept that which I do not understand,but I cannot help but try to find a way to connect the dots logically (even though the dots are moving away from me).

There are many things I do not understand,and never will;Women for instance..but I still enjoy them immensely.

The ratio of the distance from the sun to the Andromeda galaxy divided by the distance between Washinton DC and Baltimore is 2.536*10^6 light yrs / 41 miles ≅ 364*10^15. The ratio of the distance between Washington DC and Baltimore divided by the nominal diameter of the carbon atom is 41 miles /2.2*10^-8 cm ≅ 300*10^12. I don't expect my spatial experiences of traveling between those two cites to relate at all to intergalactic or atomic space. Remember, the Andromeda galaxy is a close neighbor to us in this discussion.

How can objects become separated without changing position?

The expanding balloon analogy, galaxies don't move in space, but space becomes larger resulting in galaxies becoming more separated.

https://futurism.com/does-the-universe-have-a-center-2

As space expands, light in transit becomes larger (longer wavelength or redshift).

There are "standard candles" that provide an estimate of distance.

"Type Ia supernovae are also normally classed as standard candles, but in reality they are more standardisible candles since they do not all have the same peak brightness. However, the differences in their peak luminosities are correlated with how quickly the light curve declines after maximum light via the luminosity-decline rate relation, and they can be made into standard candles by correcting for this effect."

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/S/Standard+Candle

By comparing redshift with distance estimated by standard candles, they can determine whether the expansion is constant, slowing down, or speeding up.

Ok,let me see if I've got this:The red shift of the light received from distant galaxies is greater than the measured distance to the galaxies,therefor space itself must be expanding.The measured distance is calculated using known values of brightness of Cephid stars and type 1a supernova.

Even though the galaxies are not moving,they appear to be moving.

Yet light still has to follow the curvature of spacetime.

They have done many adjustments to make the numbers agree with the outcome they desired.

If you know the answer,it is easy to develop a question to agree with it.

If I use the balloon analogy,and I place a grid on the surface of the balloon,and place the Milky Way on the intersection of 2 grid lines,and another galaxy on the intersection of 2 grid lines that are far away when the balloon(space time ) expands,the galaxies will stay on the grid at the original position but the grid will expand as the balloon expands, and the 2 galaxies will move apart.

So the galaxies are moving,but moving with spacetime,not through it?

Reminds me of the railroad engineer that would set his watch everyday at 2 minutes till 12 and blow the whistle at noon precisely.

He would call the operator on the phone and ask for the time,and make corrections to his watch as necessary.

Years passed,and the engineer and telephone operator both retired.

The engineer met her one day on the street,and thanked her for keeping his watch correct for all of those years.

She blushed,and told him that she had been setting her watch by his whistle.

I see a similarity here,and one day they may find out that they were wrong.

In the meanwhile,I will accept the current theory,although I do not fully agree with it,I do not have a better answer at this time.

"They have done many adjustments to make the numbers agree with the outcome they desired."

I don't agree with that. This is science, not politics. There are groups testing other theories to explain the data another way, but not successfully yet.

"So the galaxies are moving, but moving with space-time, not through it?"

Galaxies are moving through it and with it. A galaxy moving toward us (from gravity) faster than away from us (by space expanding) will have a blue shift.

I see no relevance to your story of time setting.

Science is full of politics.Consider the Sphinx.The erosion on the base is definitely water erosion,not wind erosion,but water has not been in the area for over 10,000 years,and there are no traces of a civilization older than 5000 years,therefor,it must be wind erosion even though the characteristics are wrong for wind and spot-on for water.Careers have been built on this presumption,and anyone that challenges it are relegated to the outskirts of their profession.Likewise with the Brontosaurus with the wrong head for many years.The analogy with time is that once a standard has been set,it is always relied upon as a reference point,and the error is repeated and sometimes amplified.

That may or may not be the case here,but there will always be the human ego-equity in science.

Given the formula E = MC² and the universes expansion is accelerating, is the E value increasing, and therefore does that mean the mass of the universe is increasing, and is that possible?

From what I understand,which admittedly is very little,the energy density of the universe is remaining constant as it expands.

So if the universe is expanding,there must be more energy entering the universe to account for this.

There are two methods to inflate the hypothetical "balloon".

Increase the internal pressure,or decrease the external pressure.

There is no "spacetime" outside of our "bubble",so I will simply call it the VOID.

Our laws of physics do not apply in this void.

We are confined to the laws within.

The internal pressure tries to achieve balance with the external resistance of the void,so if the "Void Pressure" is decreasing or the internal energy pressure is increasing,there will be expansion.Maybe both are occurring simultaneously.

Perhaps there is an external(to our bubble) source energy leaking into our bubble,or some heretofore unknown energy source within our bubble.

Maybe matter and Anti-Matter repel each other.

Maybe matter and Anti-Matter reached a critical mass and caused the big bang,which is still occurring.

Perhaps gravity becomes repulsive at a certain point or time.

We,as humans,only have a snapshot of the universe,due to our limited life span as a species,and our limited abilities of observation.

Our species has not even completed a galactic day,and all of our information is millions of years old,so we really only know what happened in the past.

We do the best we can with the information available,and struggle for more knowledge,and pure science places no seniority on previous theories if new knowledge contradicts it.

Advances are made by those that challenge the status quo,but not all rebels make worthwhile contributions.Most don't.

Fear of challenging "experts" inhibits science.

Einstein even doubted his initial discovery of expanding spacetime.

It took a while to realize he was right after all.

I ask questions to better my understanding of our universe,as presently observed, and I struggle to understand some current ideas,and the fault may very well be mine.

To paraphrase Neil deGrasse Tyson; One of the great difficulties in this world is to know enough about a subject to think you are right but to not know enough about that subject to know when you are wrong. (From his Master Class opening sentence introductory teaser.)

I disagree with your assertion that the energy density of the universe is constant. The energy density on the corona of any active star is vastly different from the cloud of a globular cluster.

Hypothetical balloons do not require any pressure gradient to inflate, real balloons at sea level do.

Matter and antimatter are attracted to each other. That has been demonstrated many, many times. (Why there is more matter than antimatter in the universe is one of the great cosmological conundrums.)

Every scientist I've ever met relishes defending an intelligent, informed challenge. However, too many sophomoric challenges will quickly stifle future dialog with that scientist.

The study of Cosmology and the greater field of Astrophysics requires a large amount of formal training to know if an appealing idea is wrong.

You can find very plausible answers to your questions in John Macken's book "The Universe Is Only Spacetime" (see http://onlyspacetime.com). The book is about a wave-based explanation of the universe and everything in it is very interesting - it explains inertia, gravity, other fields/forces and the particle/wave duality in a very original (but very logical) way, solving also some problems to which the standard theory fails to give answers. It also includes other ideas, like the "immature gravity" concept which gives a surprising (but again, very logical and plausible) explanation of the expansion of the universe.

Download the book and read it - I did it 3 times until now (and the first time I read the entire book in just a few hours). I would like to know your (and everyone else's) opinions related to these ideas.

I used to think that mass was a measure of the amount of matter in an object. It is not. Mass is whatever value the Higgs field assigns to it. With the universe expanding, the Higgs field is likely changing, therefore the total mass would be changing.

With the universe expanding, the Higgs field is likely changing, therefore the total mass would be changing.

I don't know, Higgs or no Higgs, I would bet that the Conservation of Mass + Energy is still valid.

One of the interesting speculations of the relatively recent increase in the expansion rate is this might be an indication of the existence of other universes. This is still an early speculation. Those scientists proposing this idea have yet to produce a finished idea that others can look for supporting or refuting data.

Check out the theory of helical particle waves.

http://heliwave.com/Helical.Particle.Waves.pdf

Maybe you find some new ideas here and also an alternative explanation for Redshift.

I am not smart enough to verify this, but I am intrigued by it and think there is yet so much we do not know for sure.

Thanks for your eloquence and inquisitiveness.