Hubble and Gaia team up to fuel cosmic conundrum

July 12, 2018 by Ann Jenkins, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
Using two of the world's most powerful space telescopes -- NASA's Hubble and ESA's Gaia -- astronomers have made the most precise measurements to date of the universe's expansion rate. This is calculated by gauging the distances between nearby galaxies using special types of stars called Cepheid variables as cosmic yardsticks. By comparing their intrinsic brightness as measured by Hubble, with their apparent brightness as seen from Earth, scientists can calculate their distances. Gaia further refines this yardstick by geometrically measuring the distances to Cepheid variables within our Milky Way galaxy. This allowed astronomers to more precisely calibrate the distances to Cepheids that are seen in outside galaxies. Credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Feild (STScI)

Using the power and synergy of two space telescopes, astronomers have made the most precise measurement to date of the universe's expansion rate.

The results further fuel the mismatch between measurements for the expansion rate of the nearby , and those of the distant, primeval universe—before stars and galaxies even existed.

This so-called "tension" implies that there could be new physics underlying the foundations of the universe. Possibilities include the interaction strength of dark matter, dark energy being even more exotic than previously thought, or an unknown new particle in the tapestry of space.

Combining observations from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and the European Space Agency's (ESA) Gaia space observatory, astronomers further refined the previous value for the Hubble constant, the rate at which the universe is expanding from the big bang 13.8 billion years ago.

But as the measurements have become more precise, the team's determination of the Hubble constant has become more and more at odds with the measurements from another space observatory, ESA's Planck mission, which is coming up with a different predicted value for the Hubble constant.

Planck mapped the primeval universe as it appeared only 360,000 years after the big bang. The entire sky is imprinted with the signature of the big bang encoded in microwaves. Planck measured the sizes of the ripples in this Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) that were produced by slight irregularities in the big bang fireball. The fine details of these ripples encode how much dark matter and normal matter there is, the trajectory of the universe at that time, and other cosmological parameters.

These measurements, still being assessed, allow scientists to predict how the early universe would likely have evolved into the expansion rate we can measure today. However, those predictions don't seem to match the new measurements of our nearby contemporary universe.

"With the addition of this new Gaia and Hubble Space Telescope data, we now have a serious tension with the Cosmic Microwave Background data," said Planck team member and lead analyst George Efstathiou of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology in Cambridge, England, who was not involved with the new work.

"The tension seems to have grown into a full-blown incompatibility between our views of the early and late time universe," said team leader and Nobel Laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute and the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. "At this point, clearly it's not simply some gross error in any one measurement. It's as though you predicted how tall a child would become from a growth chart and then found the adult he or she became greatly exceeded the prediction. We are very perplexed."

In 2005, Riess and members of the SHOES (Supernova H0 for the Equation of State) team set out to measure the universe's expansion rate with unprecedented accuracy. In the following years, by refining their techniques, this team shaved down the rate measurement's uncertainty to unprecedented levels. Now, with the power of Hubble and Gaia combined, they have reduced that uncertainty to just 2.2 percent.

Because the Hubble constant is needed to estimate the age of the universe, the long-sought answer is one of the most important numbers in cosmology. It is named after astronomer Edwin Hubble, who nearly a century ago discovered that the universe was uniformly expanding in all directions—a finding that gave birth to modern cosmology.

Galaxies appear to recede from Earth proportional to their distances, meaning that the farther away they are, the faster they appear to be moving away. This is a consequence of expanding space, and not a value of true space velocity. By measuring the value of the Hubble constant over time, astronomers can construct a picture of our cosmic evolution, infer the make-up of the universe, and uncover clues concerning its ultimate fate.

The two major methods of measuring this number give incompatible results. One method is direct, building a cosmic "distance ladder" from measurements of stars in our local universe. The other method uses the CMB to measure the trajectory of the universe shortly after the and then uses physics to describe the universe and extrapolate to the present . Together, the measurements should provide an end-to-end test of our basic understanding of the so-called "Standard Model" of the universe. However, the pieces don't fit.

Using Hubble and newly released data from Gaia, Riess' team measured the present rate of expansion to be 73.5 kilometers (45.6 miles) per second per megaparsec. This means that for every 3.3 million light-years farther away a galaxy is from us, it appears to be moving 73.5 kilometers per second faster. However, the Planck results predict the universe should be expanding today at only 67.0 kilometers (41.6 miles) per second per megaparsec. As the teams' measurements have become more and more precise, the chasm between them has continued to widen, and is now about four times the size of their combined uncertainty.

Over the years, Riess' team has refined the Hubble constant value by streamlining and strengthening the "," used to measure precise distances to nearby and far-off galaxies. They compared those distances with the expansion of , measured by the stretching of light from nearby galaxies. Using the apparent outward velocity at each distance, they then calculated the Hubble constant.

To gauge the distances between nearby galaxies, his team used a special type of star as cosmic yardsticks or milepost markers. These pulsating stars, called Cepheid variables, brighten and dim at rates that correspond to their intrinsic brightness. By comparing their intrinsic brightness with their apparent brightness as seen from Earth, scientists can calculate their distances.

Gaia further refined this yardstick by geometrically measuring the distance to 50 Cepheid variables in the Milky Way. These measurements were combined with precise of their brightnesses from Hubble. This allowed the astronomers to more accurately calibrate the Cepheids and then use those seen outside the Milky Way as milepost markers.

"When you use Cepheids, you need both distance and brightness," explained Riess. Hubble provided the information on brightness, and Gaia provided the parallax information needed to accurately determine the distances. Parallax is the apparent change in an object's position due to a shift in the observer's point of view. Ancient Greeks first used this technique to measure the distance from Earth to the Moon.

"Hubble is really amazing as a general-purpose observatory, but Gaia is the new gold standard for calibrating distance. It is purpose-built for measuring parallax—this is what it was designed to do," Stefano Casertano of the Space Telescope Science Institute and a member of the SHOES team added. "Gaia brings a new ability to recalibrate all past distance measures, and it seems to confirm our previous work. We get the same answer for the Hubble constant if we replace all previous calibrations of the ladder with just the Gaia parallaxes. It's a crosscheck between two very powerful and precise observatories."

The goal of Riess' team is to work with Gaia to cross the threshold of refining the Hubble constant to a value of only one percent by the early 2020s. Meanwhile, astrophysicists will likely continue to grapple with revisiting their ideas about the physics of the early universe.

The Riess team's latest results are published in the July 12 issue of the Astrophysical Journal.

Explore further: Improved Hubble yardstick gives fresh evidence for new physics in the universe

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Supersharp images from new VLT adaptive optics

July 18, 2018

ESO's Very Large Telescope (VLT) has achieved first light with a new adaptive optics mode called laser tomography—and has captured remarkably sharp test images of the planet Neptune and other objects. The MUSE instrument ...

Jupiter's moon count reaches 79, including tiny 'oddball'

July 17, 2018

Twelve new moons orbiting Jupiter have been found—11 "normal" outer moons, and one that they're calling an "oddball." This brings Jupiter's total number of known moons to a whopping 79—the most of any planet in our Solar ...

Astronomers find a famous exoplanet's doppelgänger

July 17, 2018

When it comes to extrasolar planets, appearances can be deceiving. Astronomers have imaged a new planet, and it appears nearly identical to one of the best studied gas-giant planets. But this doppelgänger differs in one ...

Dawn mission to gather more data in home stretch

July 17, 2018

As NASA's Dawn spacecraft prepares to wrap up its groundbreaking 11-year mission, which has included two successful extended missions at Ceres, it will continue to explore—collecting images and other data.

Brown dwarf detected in the CoRoT-20 system

July 16, 2018

An international group of astronomers has discovered a new substellar object in the planetary system CoRoT-20. The newly identified object was classified as a brown dwarf due to its mass, which is greater than that of the ...

51 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

grandpa
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2018
The obvious conclusion is that the gravitational attraction of universes, on light, outside our universe and the rotation of our universe are affecting the results.
Gigel
5 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2018
The obvious conclusion is that the gravitational attraction of universes, on light, outside our universe and the rotation of our universe are affecting the results.

That may be one possibility, but it is not obvious at all. Many other explanations may work.
fourinfinities
1 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2018
The standard model is causally incomplete. Specifically, it fails to incorporate the principle of action/reaction. Local collapse—that is, star and galaxy formation—constitute "action," which causes an oppositely-directed "reaction": expansion. Yet this expansive force is entirely absent from the standard-model. Dark energy may represent this missing piece of the puzzle, but until until the action/reaction terms are included, expect problems. A more realistic model is needed.
rossim22
2.5 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2018
Lmao it's amazing what scientists will do to preserve an erroneous underlying dogma. Now we need ad hoc explanations to support an ad hoc theory in order to keep GR afloat.

What if redshift is caused by ANY other mechanism other than recessional velocity? Then there may be no need for dark energy or 'tension.'
jonesdave
3.1 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2018
Lmao it's amazing what scientists will do to preserve an erroneous underlying dogma. Now we need ad hoc explanations to support an ad hoc theory in order to keep GR afloat.

What if redshift is caused by ANY other mechanism other than recessional velocity? Then there may be no need for dark energy or 'tension.'


Given the crap that you believe, I don't think I'll take that post seriously.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2018
The obvious conclusion is

Please look up the words "obvious" and "conclusion". I'm pretty sure they don't mean what you think they mean.
rossim22
2 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2018


Given the crap that you believe, I don't think I'll take that post seriously.


Assume I believe nothing and am instead skeptical of everything we think we know... as all scientists should be.

GR assumes gravity 'should' be pulling everything together. But it's not.

The consensus interpretation of redshift shows everything moving away from each other, and that velocity is accelerating. This goes against GR so something 'must' be providing the energy to make that happen.

Invent dark energy. Never predicted to exist for any reason in any science ever, but it's needed to explain this one indirect observation.

But dark energy doesn't work in the way that was forced into our current dogma so now what? Invention of tension.

Ad hoc on top of ad hoc. Do you disagree?

jonesdave
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 12, 2018
Assume I believe nothing and am instead skeptical of everything we think we know... as all scientists should be.


So you don't believe all that electric universe crap, then?

Anonym262722
2 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2018
The discussed contradictions have been well known and repeatedly explained since 1995 Suntola reworking of physics foundations by removing the blunders in some 5-10 starting points of GRT and quantum theories, see books and papers collected for public view at 'Suntola Dynamic Universe' web site. My field of surveying sciences has developed many technical and computational technologies enabling systematic 4/5 (and 10/11)-D cosmic mapping based on the extended cosmic photogrammetric and GPS principles. Sad to see the repeat of Nobel level mistakes and waste of resources piling up due to the 'confirmations' of DE/DM, BB etc mistakes to misinterpret the recent SN1a and GW intergalactic data.
arcmetal
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2018


Ad hoc on top of ad hoc. Do you disagree?


Epicycles was the ultimate ad hoc based on the "proof" that the Earth did not move, an example of ad hoc on top of ad hoc. ... Since they can't explain why everything in the universe has not been compressed due to gravity the ad hoc solution is "expansion", now its "tension". Its epicycles all over again. This will continue until sanity invades cosmology.
Anonym262722
1.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2018
The discussed issues are resolved with convincing proofs in literature collected at 'Suntola Dynamic Universe' web site and explained in my recent posts of phys.org based on the 'directional or scale invariant distance and multi-ray parallax' mensuration of conformal photogrammetry and geodesy enabled by the new math of array calculus. Sorry, I give up further commenting.
wduckss
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2018
So, 360,000 ly (by BB) begin radiation (light). Space is expanding slower than the speed of light. How do we register radiation today when the radiation immediately left the universe? Which math uses NASA and ESA? Do NASA and ESA scientists understand (in general) maths? Are the readers fools for NASA and ESA?
The figure shows that the radiation coming out of the universe, not coming from the inside (one point).
http://www.svemir...bles-law
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2018
So, the science isn't quite settled within the Astrophysics community after all. I love a good mystery. And one of the mysteries that I find interesting is this:
"Planck mapped the primeval universe as it appeared only 360,000 years after the big bang. The entire sky is imprinted with the signature of the big bang encoded in microwaves."

The CMBR is mum wrt the true age of the Universe. Planck would have had to travel back in time to determine it.

"...primeval universe as it appeared only 360,000 years after the big bang."

That 360K years. Is that in Cosmic Years? It cannot possibly be determined in Solar Years with a 24 hour day/night period that consists of 60 well-spaced minutes per hour, for the simple reason that the Sun did not exist at that time. And even if it did, the Earth's orbit around the Sun and its spin was faster or slower than it is currently. But as neither one existed at that time, by which time standard was the 360K Year age decided upon?

Just askin'
lupus
5 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2018
"Invent dark energy. Never predicted to exist for any reason in any science ever"

Actually dark energy (in the form of a cosmological constant) was predicted by general relativity. Einstein initially thought it was zero then he changed his mind and though it must have some value then he decided again that it was zero.
cantdrive85
3.3 / 5 (12) Jul 13, 2018
The standard theory is dead, the DM/BB religionists just don't get it yet.
wduckss
2.3 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
@ lupus
Please explain (your math). How Dark Energy Affects. that matter travels (or moves) faster than the radiation rate? Take for example Sun (Sun imitates "Early Universe" 360,000 ly after BB). How can. radiation with Sun (5 bn ly before). come to Sun after 5 bn ly? The galaxies and everything else is inside the body, which began to radiate and light up.
https://www.acade...eory.doc
theredpill
1 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2018
The observation of the CMB vs. the interpretation of why it is there....

We see a continuous microwave emission in the sky. If this emission was generated by one event, the event must still be going on in order for particles that travel at the speed of light to still be hitting receiver units we have constructed to view them. How did we get "here" before the light did? How can particles travelling at the speed of light "hang around" for 13.4 billion years?

"Assume I believe nothing and am instead skeptical of everything we think we know... as all scientists should be."

This person can still learn, and understands what "science" does. It looks like Duckss does too...I think.

One has to ignore far too many observations and accept far too many untestables to obtain an astrophysics degree these days.
billpress11
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
What if redshift is caused by ANY other mechanism other than recessional velocity? Then there may be no need for dark energy or 'tension.'

I think you are probably right, here is a link to a possible explanation of the observed redshift of light without mumbo jumbo or magic:
http://www.scribd...of-Physi
cs
rossim22
3 / 5 (2) Jul 13, 2018
Assume I believe nothing and am instead skeptical of everything we think we know... as all scientists should be.


So you don't believe all that electric universe crap, then?



I'm certainly skeptical of it.

Now I'll try again...

Assume I believe nothing and am instead skeptical of everything we think we know... as all scientists should be.

GR assumes gravity 'should' be pulling everything together. But it's not.

The consensus interpretation of redshift shows everything moving away from each other, and that velocity is accelerating. This goes against GR so something 'must' be providing the energy to make that happen.

Invent dark energy. Never predicted to exist for any reason in any science ever, but it's needed to explain this one indirect observation.

But dark energy doesn't work in the way that was forced into our current dogma so now what? Invention of tension.

Ad hoc on top of ad hoc. ** Do you disagree? **
wduckss
2 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
"Assume I believe nothing and am instead skeptical of everything we think we know.."

Why Take Religion Instead of Evidence? We have indisputable evidence to deny BB. BB is the church "thought" construction. By contrast, we have thousands of proofs. Why (do) we discuss the Bible (And God said, Let there be light. The universe began to brighten 360,000 ly after God's BB ...). Science, instead of the Bible, seeks and finds evidence. What or What evidence does the Bible offer (sorry BB)? - Believe us on the word because it is the Holy Scripture!?
Let's discuss the evidence and the scientific approach.
arcmetal
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 13, 2018
The last few comments reminds me of a quote I once found:

IMO it's worth recalling Wittgenstein's remark on the aether subject.
"Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural
for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that
the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because
it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth."
Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had
looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

We can now ask as well: "How the universe would appear if it had looked
like being eternal and infinite and the red shift would be a consequence
of the dispersion of light at vacuum fluctuations"?

Apparently, many people today aren't willing to even think about it at all,
thus effectively behaving in the same shortsighted way, like the opponents
of Galileo in his era.

Zephir November 17, 2011
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
@Rossim,
No, it doesn't go against GR. The observations show us that the universe is, indeed, expanding. Therefore, there must be something causing that expansion. For want of a better phrase, it has been dubbed 'dark energy'. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative. The GAIA and HST measurements at differing distances disagree. That is something that will have to be investigated further. And will be.
What gets on my tits, is the number of cranks who come on sites like this, and believe that anything that can't immediately be explained by real science, must be something to do with the unscientific woo that they believe. I have seen your posts on here, at BAUT/ Cosmoquest, and on the Rosetta blog. So, I know for a fact what you believe, and I know that it has nothing to do with science, and far more to do with mythological woo invented by loons like Thornhill. So forgive my dismissive attitude to all cranks of various stripes.
jonesdave
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 13, 2018
...............***Zephir*** November 17, 2011


AKA Zoe Bell, Mackita et al. Safe to ignore that, I'd say.
ShotmanMaslo
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
Invent dark energy. Never predicted to exist for any reason in any science ever, but it's needed to explain this one indirect observation.


As someone else already mentioned, dark energy was introduced in 1917 by Einstein himself, shortly after the invention of GR. It is over hundred years old idea by now. We still know very little about the nature of dark energy, but lets not act like it is something completely unprecedented.

https://en.wikipe...constant
Whart1984
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2018
Cosmological constant is not dark energy. The cosmological constant is a mathematical fudge factor that was invented by Einstein to force a static universe, but it was unstable. When it turned out that our universe was not static, Einstein wisely rejected it as his biggest blunder.
jonesdave
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 13, 2018
Cosmological constant is not dark energy. The cosmological constant is a mathematical fudge factor that was invented by Einstein to force a static universe, but it was unstable. When it turned out that our universe was not static, Einstein wisely rejected it as his biggest blunder.


And rejecting it became one of his biggest blunders. Along with his refutation of QM and Schwarzschild's work on the inevitability of his own maths. Observation beats hypothesis, and the Universe is seen to be expanding. Nobody has a viable alternative hypothesis. If you believe differently, then link us to it. Einstein was not infallible.
grandpa
1 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
Cosmological constant is not dark energy. The cosmological constant is a mathematical fudge factor that was invented by Einstein to force a static universe, but it was unstable. When it turned out that our universe was not static, Einstein wisely rejected it as his biggest blunder.


And rejecting it became one of his biggest blunders. Along with his refutation of QM and Schwarzschild's work on the inevitability of his own maths. Observation beats hypothesis, and the Universe is seen to be expanding. Nobody has a viable alternative hypothesis. If you believe differently, then link us to it. Einstein was not infallible.

I would say that dark energy is just the kinetic energy of matter and dark matter that is rotating due to the rotation of the universe, that we cannot see, because we cannot see this rotation relative to adjacent universes, because those points of contact are just points of contact.
jonesdave
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2018
^^^^^Have you met Granville? Why not start a conversation that will be indecipherable to most humans on the planet?
granville583762
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2018
NASA's Hubble and ESA's Gaia -- astronomers have made the most precise measurements to date of the universe's expansion rate
Nothing new here, this is inevitable as instruments are getting ever more accurate the original Hubble constant measurements were obviously going to fall to the wayside - soon these latest measurements will be old and outdated
We want accurate results; I hope that is not a dissenting voice holding science back
What does it matter how fast galaxies are moving through the vacuum of space, at 74 Km/s M Parsec implies the galaxies started at 15billion light years instead of 13billion light years
In point of fact the expansion rate is directly proportion to gravitational mass and velocity which in this case is the galactic velocity and galactic mass.
ShotmanMaslo
1 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2018
Cosmological constant is not dark energy.


Cosmological constant is the simplest model of dark energy.
wduckss
3 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2018
@ grandpa
There is evidence (measurements). http://www.svemir....html#18
@granville583762
You have not read my introductory article. "At the distance of 52 ± 3 (M86) there is a blue shift (-244 ± 5 km/s) that is also present with the galaxy M90 at the distance of 58.7 ± 2.8 (−282 ± 4), while the other galaxies at the same distance (Messier 61, NGC 4216 , Messier 60, NGC 4526, Messier 99 (except NGC 4419 -0,0009 (-342)) are with a positive sign and completely different speeds."
Read the article and try to explain the constant "at 74 Km/s M Parsec".
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2018
Galaxies in Motion
Taking 74 Km/s M Parsec at a distance of 13.8GLys and 3.262Lys is a parsec = 1.044C
Does this mean the galaxies have not moved as far as we have thought

What is, given the mass and energy of an average galaxy the maxium velocity a galaxy can travel?
For a kg to travel at C requires more energy than all the galaxies that exist

Then we go down the scale converting the trillions of tons of single galaxies matter to accelerate the remaining galaxy at say 0.9C effectively the galaxy is getting lighter with distance as velocity increases
This implies it is possible to convert every proton bar one in the galaxy into energy to accelerate that single proton to close to the speed of light 0.9999....C

Back to the real, world for a galaxy to exist as matter and not as 90%kinetic energy, propelling the remaining 10%mass - The galaxy converting 10%mass into KE propelling the remaining 90% mass of the galaxy you have got the maximum galactic velocity!
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2018
Formulating the Hubble Constant
The speed of light is the key to the maximum velocity a galaxy can travel while remaining substantially intact as a recognisable galaxy
The Hubble constant has restrictions placed upon it by natures natural laws of mass, energy and the speed of light
The outer most galaxies are travelling at nature maximum velocity that practicalities dictates
This implies discovering the maximum Hubble constant is a formulaic constant derived mathematically from mass, energy and the speed of light and not necessarily from observations and measurements
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2018
Real World Galactic Velocities
"The galaxy converting 10%mass into KE propelling the remaining 90% mass of the galaxy you have got the maximum galactic velocity"
With these ratios:- 90%mass, 10%KE to maintain the integrity of the galaxy, the velocity does not enter the realms of relativistic velocities
wduckss
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2018
We came back from the evidence, to the stories, which are for themselves purpose.

I will repeat the proof: "At the distance of 52 ± 3 (M86) there is a blue shift (-244 ± 5 km/s) that is also present with the galaxy M90 at the distance of 58.7 ± 2.8 (−282 ± 4), while the other galaxies at the same distance (Messier 61, NGC 4216 , Messier 60, NGC 4526, Messier 99 (except NGC 4419 -0,0009 (-342)) are with a positive sign and completely different speeds."
Second:
Q0906 + 6930 Redsfift (z) 5,47; Distance billion ly 12,3; speed Km/s to Earth 299,792,
Z8 GND 5296...7,5078±0,0004.....13,1.....291.622 ± 120,
GN-z11.............11,09....................13,4.....295.050 ± 119.917. The story can not undo the evidence.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2018
wduckss > At the distance of 52 ± 3 (M86) there is a blue shift

M86 of the 1300 galaxies of the Virgo cluster at 244km/s has a blue shift falling towards the centre of the Virgo cluster linked to with filamentary ionisation and undergoing ram pressure stripping.
But what is this supposed to show, all galaxies exhibit Doppler shift, whether blue, red or combinations in between while their interacting with each other, orbiting each other collapsing and joining with each other
While in orbital velocity they cannot be expanding from each other, galaxies orbit galaxies where each space is not growing due to orbital distance is a function of velocity - and velocity doesn't change due to expansion where as galactic dimensions are not expanding
Are we supposed to be demonstrating some fallacy of the Hubble constant that galactic dimensions are not expanding wduckss.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2018
Viewing M86 in the Virgo cluster at 12.3GLys, M86 will follow the Hubble constant rule and be moving relative to earth at 299,792km/s according to your calculations wduckss, or doesn't it work the other way round when viewing close galaxies from the view point of distant galaxies
But for one major omission wduckss, where is the galaxy extracting the kinetic energy to propel M86 at 0.9999984723C – there's not that much energy in all the galaxies combined
wduckss
5 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2018
Expansion = red shift. How for you and the blue shift = expansion? And the opposite is, not "falling towards the center of the Virgo cluster". It falls to Earth. It's a blue shift. In the article is a list of all 65 galaxies with a blue shift from the Virgo cluster. You forget (and) evidence that the cluster is rotating. You also miss seeing a whole large range of galaxies at the same distance have different speeds.
Another example is comparison (z) red shift and so-called departure speed. Closer objects have higher speeds .. etc. Faith in authority or actual evidence (question is now)?
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2018
There is insufficient KE to propel the galaxies at 0.9999984723C
wduckss:- The consequence of galaxies interacting and orbiting, they're individually exhibiting a large rage of velocities at apparently similar distances.
The Hubble constant is not individual galactic velocities, but the average galactic velocities progressively receding with distance. Pick any small galactic group and their velocities will appear random, but as a whole a pattern emerges
Galactic rotation and orbital galaxies exhibit Doppler shift, but this Doppler shift is not a hard and fast rule, or an exact science because there are so many velocities are involved it has an unpredictability about it.
But all this is academic because the main point is; when recession reaches C there is insufficient KE to propel one galaxy at 0.9999984723C never mind billions at 0.9999984723C
wduckss
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2018
1. I did not even claim that galaxies have that speed. I use only official evidence. Yes they are, speeds, different from the evidence you can see in the introductory article. (These collisions indicate it is an illusion that the speeds of moving away or rotations only increased, because a collision stands for a blue spectral shift for the colliding objects. The illusion appears only from the observation of galaxies through the increase of speed.
There is an increase of speed along with the weakening of the intensity of waves, but by no means in numbers that are these days taken as an undeniable evidence. http://www.svemir...f-colors ).
2. The facility at distance billion ly 12.3 is faster than facilities at 13.1 and 13.4 Gly. (z 5.47 is faster than z 11.09). Billion ly distance difference!
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
In 13.8billion years a distance between two galaxies has appeared of 32billionLys
wduckss:- In a universe that is 13.8billion years old I have never catalogued Doppler shifts of individual galaxies with their velocities and distance
GN-z11 in Ursa Major, where z = 11.09, which corresponds to a proper distance of approximately 32billionLys
It might be just me but I prefer to know a galaxies actual distance not the age of the photons that were receiving
This creates a problem; GN-z11 is not travelling at the speed of light, presumably GN-z11 emitted its photons 13.8billion years ago which puts the maximum distance of GN-z11 at 27.6billionLys but the Milkyway is also receding from the moment of the universe which is 13.8billion years old.
This means in 13.8billion years a distance between two galaxies has appeared of 32billionLys
Whart1984
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2018
two major methods of measuring Hubble constant give incompatible results
It could be an example of Malmquist bias. Distant objects must be more luminous for being observable in average and many distant quasars already exhibit a red shift anomaly. Because they're bright, these anomalies will be more preferably selected into an observations like Gaia.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
Another of Albert's theoretical creations of the spirit world
These distances need some clarification, because according to Albert, the distance between two galaxies in motion over 13.8billion years that have moved 32billionLys cannot exceed 13.8billionLys

We all know motion does not cease after 13.8billion years and we can see the distances increasing between galaxies with neutrinos ejecting out of blazars spin axis outflows which are diametrical apposed where the neutrinos are increasing the distance of apposing neutrinos at 372,564 miles a second and it is not imaginary because the neutrinos pass unhindered through the existing intervening galactic mass, as this is another of Albert's theoretical creations of the spirit world (the vacuum of space) in real world applications.
Whart1984
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2018
Observation beats hypothesis, and the Universe is seen to be expanding. Nobody has a viable alternative hypothesis
But ... is it really seen to be expanding? It looks reddish at distance, yes - but the most distant galaxies observable should be ten times more densely packed/crowded, than these nearby ones. Hubble himself was first who doubted this expectation. The morning Sun also appears reddish, but nothing expands during it. The distant galaxies should also look way less luminous than we are observing: their light should get diluted by expanding space-time between them. For example this hypothesis looks viable from this perspective.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
Hobson's choice on Malmquist bias
two major methods of measuring Hubble constant give incompatible results

Whart1984 > It could be an example of https://en.wikipe...ist_bias a red shift anomaly. Because they're bright, these anomalies will be more preferably selected into an observations like Gaia.

After looking at your link I'm not surprised there is so much confusion of galactic velocities at greater distances if the scientific solution is to discard distant galaxies because they are difficult to see because they are dimmer, for bright stellar objects. At least with average galaxies you know its average distance by its average brightness with a high degree of certainty
With arbitrarily bright objects it's Hobson's choice
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
The steady state theory
Observation beats hypothesis, and the Universe is seen to be expanding. Nobody has a viable alternative hypothesis

Whart1984 > But ... is it really seen to be expanding? It looks reddish at distance, yes - but the most distant galaxies observable should be ten times more densely packed/crowded, than these nearby ones. Hubble himself was http://www.scienc...ss-85962 looks viable from this perspective.

In the 60s there was discussions on the wireless of exactly that point Whart1984, that in the early universe all the galaxies were crowded together, but of late I get the impression that there was more distance between the galaxies than the present day which now you mention it, this is the steady state theory -
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
The Milkyway, Andromeda and infinitely more galaxies were around in their present form at 400,000 years from the begging and some are at the 100,000 year threshold
You are correct Whart1984, are galaxy is 13.5billion years old, the light we are receiving is when our galaxy was 400,000 years old which means all the photons we are observing that are 13.8billion years old should be showing an extremely crowed seething mass off galaxies.
granville583762
5 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2018
Gravitational red-shift
Concerning the redshift of galactic photons, the vacuum of space is permeated with matter emanating the gravitational force, and as everyone knows photons lose their energy in a gravitational field - such that photons travelling through a 13.8billionLy gravitational field are red-shifted during their journey because of gravity
Whart1984
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2018
are red-shifted during their journey because of gravity
Gravity leads to blue shift too..
wduckss
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
All the information in my article is from official sources and have a link to the source of the data. Use the link.
In the article you have a shorter list of galaxies that can not be within BB: "P.S. Something stinks in the state of Denmark. (From Hamlet) "originally from http://www.svemir....html#4b "Here are two possibilities.
-This measurement completely change the diameter of our Universe (with 13.7 (8) x 2 billion light-years, to over 32 x 2 billion ly.). or
-Give examples of galakxies are neighboring Universes." Measurements are always from Earth.
Let's go back to the starting point 360,000 ly by the so-called BB. What travels faster than radiation (the light in the universe does not travel because the universe is dark) (http://www.svemir...relation )? Why are there any measurement results outside of 13.8 Gly?
..
granville583762
not rated yet Jul 15, 2018
granvile583762> are red-shifted during their journey because of gravity

Whart1984> Gravity leads to https://en.wikipe...eshift..

Blue shift to, I forgot that equally opposite point - I must be seeing a red mist

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.