this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2025
21 points (95.7% liked)

Ask Science

13875 readers
2 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The way I understand it is the farther away a object is the faster it is moving away from us, but also the farther away something is the older it is. So could that mean things were moving apart faster in the past but are slowing down?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] A_A@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago (7 children)

no. Expansion of the universe is accelerating.

[–] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago (6 children)

Yes that is what I've always heard which is why I asked this question. I was hoping for bit more detail. My assumption is that we measure expansion through red-shift, and distance doesn't matter in that measurement? My thought was that red-shift tells you that light waves have been stretched out, but how do you know when or where most of that stretching occurred?

[–] lemming@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 days ago

The distance does matter. There are ways of measuring/estimating distances other than red shift. So basically you plot the distances against the red shift and if the relation is linear, the rate of expansion is constant, and that isn't the case. Interestingly, it seems lately that the rate is different based on which way of measuring you use. Something is probably wrong and nobody knows what. That is exciting, because this is how you discover new things.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)