1) Why should the stars on the inside of your postulated shell be deceleration? It can't be gravitational pull.

2) The speed of galaxies is measured by their redshift.
As far as I know the redshift of distant galaxies shows a velocity of much more then lightspeed (several times of c).
Conventional this ist explained as not beeing the real velocity.
Instead it is theorized the expansion of space itself is stretching any lightwave on its way. So a lightwave emitted 7 billion years ago (at a time the universe was half ist current size) will be "stretched" by a factor of 2, so the apparent velocity will doubled.
The redshift by expanding space is exceeding the redshift by doppler-effect for distant objects.


Your hypothesis arises the following questions:
a) some objects are still decelerating, for unknown reasons.
b) some objects are still accelerating, for unknown reasons.
c) objects (including ourself) are capable of velocities much higher then lightspeed. (Since we measure distant objects moving away faster then lightspeed in any direction we have to conclude, in your hypothesis. that in fact we are moving away from the "inside shell" with several times c, the "outside shell" is faster yet.
d) Apparently there has to be some mismatch between "local physic" (objects can't move faster then light in our vicinity) and "large scale physics" (our galaxy is moving faster then light)
e) Postulating the possibility of higher velocities then c, also means changing the interactions of other forces - and yet distant galaxies seem to consist of the same elements as our.


3) The Big-Bang-Theory postulates an expansion of space. At the beginning there was almost no space (so to speak), the big bang happend not in some distant point of the universe, but *everywhere* at once.
Expanding space will lead to the same observation *in every place* in the universe: all distant objects are moving away, the more distant they are the faster they move away.
This explains why it seems like we are the center of universal expansion and yet we don't have to assume we have any special position in the universe.

Your theory at least requires a careful arrangement of acceleration/deceleration and positioning of our place (roughly in the middle of the shell)?

4) The microwave background radiation is thought of beeing emitted 400.000 years after the big bang, when the temperature decreased to ~3000K and electrons and protons recombined.
This radiation was emitted *everywhere* in the universe and expansion of space has stretched the wave length of this 3000K-light to the current temperature of 3K.
This radiation is isotrop.

In you hypothesis this radiation should be non-existing (moving faster then any other object it would surround the matter-sphere in an expanding light shell moving through the empty pre-existing-space), or it should be anisotrop, coming from the direction of the "Big-Bang-Point"?



Edited by Momos (03/03/10 11:27 AM)