3 ms·
The article doesn't even explain how they come to the conclusion that the universe has been there forever from the "rainbow gravity" concept.
by terabytest 13y ago
The article doesn't even explain how they come to the conclusion that the universe has been there forever from the "rainbow gravity" concept.
- lkrubner 13y agoRewind the tape to 1900. Everyone who is non-religious assumes the universe has been around since forever: it is eternal. Then people like Edwin Hubble and Georges Lemaître notice that distant galaxies are red-shifted, and they calculate the amount. From this they conclude that the universe is expanding. From this they conclude that the universe must have at one point been compressed to a single point, and then exploded: a Big Bang. But if there is no red shift, then there is no Big Bang, and the Universe is not expanding. Therefore we go back to where we were in 1900, when everyone assumes that the universe is eternal.
- ExpiredLink 13y agoGreat! Just one detail is missing to complete the picture: explain eternity.
- Myrth 13y agoI know it is hard to accept that there might be things humans might not be able to explain.
- millstone 13y agoProponents of a static universe have a lot of explaining to do. For example, older galaxies tend to look lumpy and amorphous, because they interacted and collided with other galaxies more often in our early, dense universe. Symmetric elliptical galaxies and our structured Milky Way tend to be younger. Also, you can have a static universe with a beginning, or an expanding universe with no beginning. Rainbow gravity falls into this latter category.
- trumbitta2 13y agoGlad you too noticed that. I was feeling extremely stupid and ignorant for not having understood the correlation between rainbow gravity and an eternal universe.