>Mike,
>
>>No, but that's not the question I was asking.
>>
>>What experiments on the moon urgently must be be done?
>>
>
>There's no end to what can be determined by the exploration and settlement of the moon. Can mankind survive in space living off the land, for example. Can we convert Helium 3, which is abundant on the moon, to fusion power? Are there others out there, which a radio telescope base on the farside of the moon could really help with.

Hmmmmmm.

Wouldn't a moon based telescope be much worse than a satellite based telescope?



>>I'm all for research into big bang alternatives.
>
>Ummm....like what?


Well, we can agree that light from cosmological distances takes longer to get here for some reason.

Redshift is a loss in frequency, f = 1 / t, and the expansion of space means more space for light to travel through, which means it takes longer to get there.

It's mathematically consistent with the observation of Hubble redshift.

That is based on the assumption that the EM force has an infinite range and light never slows down even over cosmological distances.


But, what if, instead of having more space for the light to travel through, the light simply slows down.

That means it would take longer.

Give then velocity of a wave, v = fw, it makes sense that if the EM force actually had a finite range, it would slow down and one result would be the loss in frequency we observe in deep space.



>>I probably heard about it in 3rd grade or something like that and never questioned it.
>>
>>Now it seems pretty silly.
>>
>>Light takes longer to get here because space is expanding?
>>
>>Nah. You really believe that?
>
>Absolutely. You are confusing the expansion of spacetime with the speed of light. The expansion of the universe has nothing to do with c.

The expansion of the Universe allows physicists to maintain a constant speed of light in light of the fact that the light takes longer to get here than it would without expansion (or, my preferred explanation: the deceleration of light near the end of its range).


>What the speed of light imposes is the limit of the observable universe, not the universe itself which is probably 10 times larger than that observable.
>
>So what's the alternate theory, Mike? I'm all ears.

The alternate theory is that the Universe itself is infinitely larger than observable space.