Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Y2K" data-source="post: 10948561" data-attributes="member: 35049">Here is the argument / prof for “the entire universe would have been a single point” The Discovery of the Expanding Universe<img src="http://skyserver.sdss.org/dr1/en/astro/universe/images/hubble.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /> Edwin Hubble In 1929 Edwin Hubble, working at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, California, measured the redshifts of a number of distant galaxies. He also measured their relative distances by measuring the apparent brightness of a class of variable stars called Cepheids in each galaxy. When he plotted redshift against relative distance, he found that the redshift of distant galaxies increased as a linear function of their distance. The only explanation for this observation is that the universe was expanding. Once scientists understood that the universe was expanding, they immediately realized that it would have been smaller in the past. At some point in the past, the entire universe would have been a single point. This point, later called the big bang, was the beginning of the universe as we understand it today. The expanding universe is finite in both time and space. The reason that the universe did not collapse, as Newton's and Einstein's equations said it might, is that it had been expanding from the moment of its creation. The universe is in a constant state of change. The expanding universe, a new idea based on modern physics, laid to rest the paradoxes that troubled astronomers from ancient times until the early 20th Century.God bless Mr.Hubble  <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/D.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D" data-shortname=":D" /><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/default/yes.gif"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":yes:" title="Yes    :yes:" data-shortname=":yes:" /></blockquote>

Verification: Nawa warak dahaya keeyada? (Namaya wadi kireema dahaya)

Top Bottom