Such counteract action will make lot of side effects, which can be measured. For example, trajectories of separating or oscillating bodies will be slightly curved. Do you have any experimental support for this theory?
This isn’t Certhas’s personal theory. It’s part of standard cosmology, called the metric expansion of space. That term should get you pointed in the right direction if you want to learn more about the evidence for it.
The effect of the expansion of the universe on bound systems is far to small to be observed. Two objects 1 meter apart would move at a speed of 10^-17 m/s. Utterly unobservable. But we know space is expanding by looking at things that are super far away from us and that are not bound.
It's independent of mass because it's just a little extra space being created everywhere all the time. It's not exactly a force. First, there was 1 meter between them. Now there's 1 meter and a tiny bit more. The amount of space being created is, in theory, the same everywhere. It's not a repulsive force- space is just being created.
It can actually end up making things very far away appear to move faster than light away from us, since there's a lot of space in between.
We can directly measure distance to stars which are near us, using trigonometry and waiting half of year for Earth to make half of distance around Sun. Distance to thousands of stars is already measured with ±5% precision.[0] Yes, it's true that at least some stars, which are near to us, are moving away from us. However, it can be explained in number of ways, without inventing of Bing Bang or other epic events.
We cannot measure distance to super far away stars directly. Period.
10^-17 m/s is very high speed. Distance to Moon is 0.385E15 mm, and it can be measured at sub-millimeter accuracy, so this effect can be spotted. However, it will violate Conservation of Energy principle: no force applied, but job is done.
What's your point? Do you want me to explain the basics of GR and Cosmology, including the vast amounts of evidence we have for everything in HN comments? Do you think you are pointing out subtle errors in reasoning that none of the tens of thousands of physics students since the early twentieth century spotted?
You don't have the decency to try to learn the basics but presume to lecture me/expect explanations? Take a course. Show a little humility. Even reading Wikipedia thoroughly would have informed you that it's galaxies, not stars that confirm the expansion of the universe. The expansion (not the acceleration of the expansion) is beyond doubt. Conservation of Energy is not a priory defined for the question at hand because in GR you can not just add the energy at different points in space.
Measuring the perturbation to the moon's trajectory from expansion would require knowing all parameters that enter the trajectory to this accuracy, not just the average distance.
This is all basic if you want to learn, but you seem to have a different agenda...
I'm trying to point out, that current evidence can be explained in different way: by kind of Tired Light Theory. TLT plays well with Pilot Wave Theory and it doesn't need epic events in the past just few galactic hours ago. I'm familiar with evidence used by expanding Universe theories and with problems in them.
So yeah, your agenda is not to learn or discuss but to push falsified fringe theories, that were exhaustively discussed until the eighties, when better data ruled them out...
Yep. I was too young in eighties to participate in these discussions, so I can read about them only, and watch some lectures, which is not satisfying enough for my curiosity.
Can we discuss something easier?
Why you think that photon is immortal?
Why we have rule of right hand in EM?
Why we see star formations older than BB?
WTF is "physical vacuum"?
What is waved by gravitational waves?
What is happen in linear Sagnac interferometer?
How photon is formed (it requires FTL to form)?
What happens in double slit experiment?
And so on.