By making observation
He used detailed observations to prove that other galaxies existed beyond the edge of our galaxy. His data confirmed that the universe is much larger than our own galaxy, the Milky Way.
Hhjehdb
Edwin HubbleAnswer2:Hubble did not believe the universe is expanding. The universe is not expanding like the big bang, it is excited like an atom. The electrons jump to a higher level and lower their speed. The lower speed is a lower energy state, the max energy is when v=c.Hubble;s relationship v=HD indicates the distance D from the max energy state, where v = c.Hubble's Constant is dR/Rdt =c/R =H = 300M/150TT = 2E-18 m/s x31E21 = 62km/s/Megaparsec.
Expansion, run in reverse, is contraction. The universe gets larger as it moves into the future, and smaller as we examine its past. If we go back to the time when the expansion originally began, which was the Big Bang, the universe was very small, perhaps only the size of a proton, or even a singularity of zero volume.
Someone claimed that my claim that the size of the universe is not falsifiable is not correct. Their answer is for the visible universe whose size is falsifiable. My UNFALSIFIABLE size is for any postulated universe larger then the Hubble radius (distance where expansion of space rate becomes the speed of light). We CAN'T measure or deterct anything in space (or know, in physics, if such regions of space even exist) that is expanding faster than the speed of light. Therefore we can't falsify a measurement that is impossible to make.
It is more likely that we derived the age of the universe from its present size. The age depends upon the value of the Hubble Constant, which probably isn't really a constant in the strictest sense.As for the area of the universe, regarding it as a sphere is probably a mistake. The topology of the universe is different from that of the 3 dimensional objects with which we are familiar. ---- The answer is No. According to Astrophysicist David Palmer, we cannot currently determine the actual size of the Universe; but only attempt to determine the size of the "known" Universe which is that part of the Universe that we can see. It's analogous to standing in a stationary position in the middle of a dessert. We will be able to view sand all around us; but will have no idea how much more sand may lie beyond that which we can see.
Currently we can't. It seems quite certain that the Universe is, at the least, several times the size of the OBSERVABLE Universe. However, this is just a lower bound, and the actual size of the Universe may be anywhere between that, and infinity.
It was named after Edwin P. Hubble (1889 - 1953) for his pioneering work in astrophysics. The Hubble constant is the basis for the determination of the size of the universe and an essential piece of the foundations of the Big Bang theory.
Edwin HubbleAnswer2:Hubble did not believe the universe is expanding. The universe is not expanding like the big bang, it is excited like an atom. The electrons jump to a higher level and lower their speed. The lower speed is a lower energy state, the max energy is when v=c.Hubble;s relationship v=HD indicates the distance D from the max energy state, where v = c.Hubble's Constant is dR/Rdt =c/R =H = 300M/150TT = 2E-18 m/s x31E21 = 62km/s/Megaparsec.
This is true but you need to expand on what your saying it increased but the theory's from Edwin Hubble supports the information of the redshift and the relates to the expanding of the earth and the size increased in mass. And that relates back to The Big Bang theory
Prior to Hubble's discovery scientists generally believed that our galaxy was the entire universe. Hubble found that the Andromeda galaxy was, then called the Andromeda Nebula, was not a part of our galaxy but a galaxy unto itself far beyond the edge of the Milky Way. This discovered demonstrated that the universe is much larger than scientists have believed.
The Shapely-Curtis debate over the size of the Milky Way Galaxy and the universe occurred in 1920, laying the groundwork for Hubble's discoveries later on that decade. The evidence Hubble gathered using the 100 inch Hooker telescope pretty firmly established Curtis as the winner of this debate. His research was easily confirmed by other astronomers, and thus most were quickly persuaded. Hubble's results dovetailed with other areas of science, such as Einstein's General Relativity.
Edwin Powell Hubble discovered that our galaxy was not the extent of the universe. Hubble was also the one to first realize that the universe is expanding. The Hubble Space Telescope was named in his honor.
Expansion, run in reverse, is contraction. The universe gets larger as it moves into the future, and smaller as we examine its past. If we go back to the time when the expansion originally began, which was the Big Bang, the universe was very small, perhaps only the size of a proton, or even a singularity of zero volume.
Expansion, run in reverse, is contraction. The universe gets larger as it moves into the future, and smaller as we examine its past. If we go back to the time when the expansion originally began, which was the Big Bang, the universe was very small, perhaps only the size of a proton, or even a singularity of zero volume.
it is the size of half of space by itself and the controlls are the size of a penguin
No. The Hubble Space Telescope was built on Earth and launched into space. It is about the size of a bus.
Someone claimed that my claim that the size of the universe is not falsifiable is not correct. Their answer is for the visible universe whose size is falsifiable. My UNFALSIFIABLE size is for any postulated universe larger then the Hubble radius (distance where expansion of space rate becomes the speed of light). We CAN'T measure or deterct anything in space (or know, in physics, if such regions of space even exist) that is expanding faster than the speed of light. Therefore we can't falsify a measurement that is impossible to make.
It is more likely that we derived the age of the universe from its present size. The age depends upon the value of the Hubble Constant, which probably isn't really a constant in the strictest sense.As for the area of the universe, regarding it as a sphere is probably a mistake. The topology of the universe is different from that of the 3 dimensional objects with which we are familiar. ---- The answer is No. According to Astrophysicist David Palmer, we cannot currently determine the actual size of the Universe; but only attempt to determine the size of the "known" Universe which is that part of the Universe that we can see. It's analogous to standing in a stationary position in the middle of a dessert. We will be able to view sand all around us; but will have no idea how much more sand may lie beyond that which we can see.