In the voids, time would be faster than in the inertial frame of reference of the galaxies. I would think that time distortion would follow the same inverse square law as gravity. Or has this been accounted for in the calculations?

Ever since I first read about the experiments to measure the expansion, this bit about relativity and time distortion near masses has been bugging me, but unlike cosmologists, my math skills are nowhere near good enough to work out Einstein’s field equations for myself.

Am I noggin-grasping the concept with this (layman’s and very rudimentary!) analogy?

I have a blue marble on a 15-degree-right-inclined plate o, and a green marble on a 15-degree-left-inclined plate o/. The blue and green marbles are rolling toward each other, yet the plates are separating; the plates are moving farther apart faster than the marbles are rolling toward each other, thus netting the universal expansion result above. IIUC, that involves only one local reference frame (a point on an equivalent plane to the plates) vs two (the former point, plus a point on an equivalent plane as the marbles) from which to deduce the theory.

ATM, I’m at a loss to better explain what I hope to further understand. Fascinating, all!

It seems to me that if you want to know about what is causing an expansion of a body (say creation itself) it would only make sense to know what that body is expanding into. To me it seems that the Universe is expanding because the area its expanding into is well…..nothing. If that is the case isn’t it possible that its expanding due to wanting to have equilibrium? As for acceleration its accelerating due to the surface area that needs to expand is constantly growing. As the universe grows so does the surface area that is bordering the nothingness and hence the acceleration increases.

Its a simplistic approach to the topic but one I wanted to at least throw out for debate.

I’m not entirely convinced on this “theory” of an expanding universe.

Well, lucky for you it ain’t a theory. It’s a conclusion. A conclusion drawn by logical reasoning from hard data.

Even proponents of the “steady-state” universe (such as Fred Hoyle, who coined the term “big bang” as a derogatory nickname for the theory that the universe had a beginning) accepted that the universe was expanding. Why? Because the measurements are irrefutable.

An analogy would be a nat sitting on the south end of a north bound elephant, trying to explain the trunk. As we all are aware, light can be deceptive.

Er, no. Not when one understands general relativity.

Your analogy fails, because the trunk is not expanding, and is not covered in sources of information that are sending that information to the gnat.

Hey…wait till we discover that there are multiple unverses (perhaps billions) out there. That will put a whole new perspective on things. Just a thought.

And, until there is evidence on which to base some conclusions, your “just a thought” will remain a piece of idle speculation.

I have no answer for that, other than the immortal words of Hazel O’Connor:

What’s done has been done
And I won’t be the one
Who despairs in the wheelchair
At the sight of “if only”

So I’ll stand up again, and I’ll run
I’ll jump up ’til I touch the sun
Because I won’t be the one to be bound
By the sound of “if only”.

Now if only we could synthesize quantum theory with relativity theory!

There’s hope, though. Here’s what Tom Siegfried says in his book Strange Matters; Undiscovered Ideas at the Frontiers of Space and Time (I hope this quote falls under Fair Use laws, or at least that Tom and his publisher will permit me this indulgence, purely for educational purposes or as free advertising for the book — read it, people!). This is from his exposition on Unity and Harmony and “the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics”:

“Poincaré understood how this process works. Imagine, he says, a chart depicting all ‘the variations of the world.’ At each point in time everything in the universe is in a particular arrangement. At the next instant the arrangement will be slightly different. (The differences from one instant to the next would be the result of the combined operations of all the laws of physics.) A graph of those changes over time would take the shape of a curve. A good mathematician could figure out an equation to describe that curve.”

“But earthbound mathematicians can never see the whole curve. Human theories are always based only on one arc, one piece of the universal curve. Two theories based on different arcs might deduce different equations to describe the whole curve. (Quantum mechanics and general relativity describe different aspects of reality exquisitely well, for example, while appearing to be incompatible.)

“However, Poincaré notes, a greater intellect, or a similar intellect with a wider field of view, could perceive the region between these two arcs and construct a better equation. That equation could describe not only both arcs but also the part of the curve in between. And sometimes human scientists can figure out that better equation before they see the whole curve. If they get the right equation, it will then tell them things about regions of the curve that have not yet been measured.”

Science is about filling in the missing points on that larger universal curve, one tiny dot at a time. It is the epitome and acme of being human, of what makes us intelligent beings.