posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 05:38 PM
Well, let's see if I understand you correctly, and hopefully I can answer you in either case.
If you mean that stars were simply redder back then, then you're mistaken. Stars were likely bluer back then because, with more materials around,
bigger stars existed - and the biggest are blue-white supergiants. A fascinating possibility is a star that becomes so massive that it undergoes
gravitational collapse before its core turns to iron. The amount of energy that would be released would be phenomenal, and a supernova of
unparralleled size would be unleashed as the core turned into a black hole. The abundance of materials likely don't exist anymore for such an
However, if you mean that the stars were simply moving away from us FASTER back then than they are now, due to the universe speeding up during the
initial phases of its expansion, then it is possible you are right. We have determined an acceleration by means of looking at increments of distance
and a star's redshift in accordance to that distance. The numbers seemed to indicate that the further away, the faster it was, but more so than the
same distance between the next closest star.
So, perhaps you are right, and it may have been overlooked. Consult a local astronomer and astrophysicist - University Professors are, for the most
part, useful... but they sometimes seem blinded by numbers and recent studies rather than accept that somebody might have made a mistake. If you're
right, then many new studies would need to be done to prove your theory - but they should all be doable using most observations already recorded.