There are two equally plausible ones.
The galaxies are moving further away (universe is expanding)
We are moving further from the galaxies (we are collapsing into the singularity of a Black Hole)
There are two equally plausible ones.
Dunno about equally plausible. I can't work out why the planets behave as if the major local source of gravity is the Sun. Why the redshift is apparently greater for more distant galaxies. Why there is no obvious gravitational lensing that a local black hole would surely create. Don't get me wrong; the expansion hypothesis isn't nailed on, but it explains the data reasonably well, without recourse to an apparently undetectable black hole.
The biggest gap in the "expansion" hypothesis is ontological. Where does all the spacetime keep coming from?!?!uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:34 pmDunno about equally plausible. I can't work out why the planets behave as if the major local source of gravity is the Sun. Why the redshift is apparently greater for more distant galaxies. Why there is no obvious gravitational lensing that a local black hole would surely create. Don't get me wrong; the expansion hypothesis isn't nailed on, but it explains the data reasonably well, without recourse to an apparently undetectable black hole.
To start, Is there only an "apparent" galactic redshift, or is there a real galactic redshift?
If a person asks a question with the "apparent" word in it, then I ask for clarification, of what they are actually asking.
Looks like you are lining up an argument from ignorance-No one knows, therefore any alternative explanation is equally plausible. Having said that, I do have an hypothesis which is in the story The whirlpool and the wave, which starts on p15 https://willybouwman.blogspot.com
Looks like you've already lined up an argument from 'plausibility' which is a false dichotomy
It is demonstrably the case (which I would call a 'fact') that the smaller a galaxy appears, the redder it also appears. One explanation is that they appear smaller, because they are more distant, and they appear redder because they are moving away faster. This is demonstrated in The Belgian Priest and the tiny dot, which starts on p6 https://willybouwman.blogspot.com It is conceivable that there is a better explanation, but whatever your idea is, if it doesn't account for the observational data, sorry me old China, but it's wrong.
If you mean 'observed data' then yeah, but note that I refer to the arguments as 'stories'.
True. And when that data arrives, any hypotheses will be adjusted accordingly.
Ah, the utility of Occam's Razor.
The universe owes you no simple explanations. It gets to be as complex as it wants to be!
Well, look - seeming as gravity is the elephant in the room for General Relativity and QM, and seeming as black holes are the biggest of gravity elephants I am merely recognizing the incompleteness of our knowledge and the bias of our data sample.
Maybe, but it seems to me that it would require a black hole that has very selective gravitational effects, as I stated above:
Why have you CHOSEN not to acknowledge that?uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:34 pm I can't work out why the planets behave as if the major local source of gravity is the Sun. Why the redshift is apparently greater for more distant galaxies. Why there is no obvious gravitational lensing that a local black hole would surely create. Don't get me wrong; the expansion hypothesis isn't nailed on, but it explains the data reasonably well, without recourse to an apparently undetectable black hole.
Because it follows from our current model of/bias in understanding.uwot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 5:50 pm I can't work out why the planets behave as if the major local source of gravity is the Sun. Why the redshift is apparently greater for more distant galaxies. Why there is no obvious gravitational lensing that a local black hole would surely create. Don't get me wrong; the expansion hypothesis isn't nailed on, but it explains the data reasonably well, without recourse to an apparently undetectable black hole.
Why have you CHOSEN not to acknowledge that?