Mystery of the universe's expansion rate widens with new Hubble data

New Hubble measurements confirm universe is expanding faster than expected
Ground-based telescope's view of the Large Magellanic Cloud, a satellite galaxy of our Milky Way. The inset image, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, reveals one of many star clusters scattered throughout the dwarf galaxy. Credit: NASA, ESA, Adam Riess, and Palomar Digitized Sky Survey

Astronomers using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope say they have crossed an important threshold in revealing a discrepancy between the two key techniques for measuring the universe's expansion rate. The recent study strengthens the case that new theories may be needed to explain the forces that have shaped the cosmos.

A brief recap: The universe is getting bigger every second. The space between galaxies is stretching, like dough rising in the oven. But how fast is the universe expanding? As Hubble and other telescopes seek to answer this question, they have run into an intriguing difference between what scientists predict and what they observe.

Hubble measurements suggest a faster expansion rate in the modern universe than expected, based on how the universe appeared more than 13 billion years ago. These measurements of the early universe come from the European Space Agency's Planck satellite. This discrepancy has been identified in scientific papers over the last several years, but it has been unclear whether differences in measurement techniques are to blame, or whether the difference could result from unlucky measurements.

The latest Hubble data lower the possibility that the discrepancy is only a fluke to 1 in 100,000. This is a significant gain from an earlier estimate, less than a year ago, of a chance of 1 in 3,000.

These most precise Hubble measurements to date bolster the idea that new physics may be needed to explain the mismatch.

"The Hubble tension between the early and late universe may be the most exciting development in cosmology in decades," said lead researcher and Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) and Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, Maryland. "This mismatch has been growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss as a fluke. This disparity could not plausibly occur just by chance."

New Hubble measurements confirm universe is expanding faster than expected
This illustration shows the three basic steps astronomers use to calculate how fast the universe expands over time, a value called the Hubble constant. All the steps involve building a strong "cosmic distance ladder," by starting with measuring accurate distances to nearby galaxies and then moving to galaxies farther and farther away. This "ladder" is a series of measurements of different kinds of astronomical objects with an intrinsic brightness that researchers can use to calculate distances. Credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Feild (STScI)

Tightening the bolts on the 'cosmic distance ladder'

Scientists use a "cosmic distance ladder" to determine how far away things are in the universe. This method depends on making accurate measurements of distances to nearby galaxies and then moving to galaxies farther and farther away, using their stars as milepost markers. Astronomers use these values, along with other measurements of the galaxies' light that reddens as it passes through a stretching universe, to calculate how fast the cosmos expands with time, a value known as the Hubble constant. Riess and his SH0ES (Supernovae H0 for the Equation of State) team have been on a quest since 2005 to refine those distance measurements with Hubble and fine-tune the Hubble constant.

In this new study, astronomers used Hubble to observe 70 pulsating stars called Cepheid variables in the Large Magellanic Cloud. The observations helped the astronomers "rebuild" the distance ladder by improving the comparison between those Cepheids and their more distant cousins in the galactic hosts of supernovas. Riess's team reduced the uncertainty in their Hubble constant value to 1.9% from an earlier estimate of 2.2%.

As the team's measurements have become more precise, their calculation of the Hubble constant has remained at odds with the expected value derived from observations of the early universe's expansion. Those measurements were made by Planck, which maps the cosmic microwave background, a relic afterglow from 380,000 years after the big bang.

The measurements have been thoroughly vetted, so astronomers cannot currently dismiss the gap between the two results as due to an error in any single measurement or method. Both values have been tested multiple ways.

"This is not just two experiments disagreeing," Riess explained. "We are measuring something fundamentally different. One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don't agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we're missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras."

How the new study was done

Astronomers have been using Cepheid variables as cosmic yardsticks to gauge nearby intergalactic distances for more than a century. But trying to harvest a bunch of these stars was so time-consuming as to be nearly unachievable. So, the team employed a clever new method, called DASH (Drift And Shift), using Hubble as a "point-and-shoot" camera to snap quick images of the extremely bright pulsating stars, which eliminates the time-consuming need for precise pointing.

"When Hubble uses precise pointing by locking onto guide stars, it can only observe one Cepheid per each 90-minute Hubble orbit around Earth. So, it would be very costly for the telescope to observe each Cepheid," explained team member Stefano Casertano, also of STScI and Johns Hopkins. "Instead, we searched for groups of Cepheids close enough to each other that we could move between them without recalibrating the telescope pointing. These Cepheids are so bright, we only need to observe them for two seconds. This technique is allowing us to observe a dozen Cepheids for the duration of one orbit. So, we stay on gyroscope control and keep 'DASHing' around very fast."

The Hubble astronomers then combined their result with another set of observations, made by the Araucaria Project, a collaboration between astronomers from institutions in Chile, the U.S., and Europe. This group made distance measurements to the Large Magellanic Cloud by observing the dimming of light as one star passes in front of its partner in eclipsing binary-star systems.

The combined measurements helped the SH0ES Team refine the Cepheids' true brightness. With this more accurate result, the team could then "tighten the bolts" of the rest of the distance ladder that extends deeper into space.

The new estimate of the Hubble constant is 74 kilometers (46 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 74 kilometers (46 miles) per second faster, as a result of the expansion of the universe. The number indicates that the universe is expanding at a 9% faster rate than the prediction of 67 kilometers (41.6 miles) per second per megaparsec, which comes from Planck's observations of the early universe, coupled with our present understanding of the universe.

So, what could explain this discrepancy?

One explanation for the mismatch involves an unexpected appearance of dark energy in the young universe, which is thought to now comprise 70% of the universe's contents. Proposed by astronomers at Johns Hopkins, the theory is dubbed "early dark energy," and suggests that the universe evolved like a three-act play.

Astronomers have already hypothesized that dark energy existed during the first seconds after the big bang and pushed matter throughout space, starting the initial expansion. Dark energy may also be the reason for the universe's accelerated expansion today. The new theory suggests that there was a third dark-energy episode not long after the big bang, which expanded the universe faster than astronomers had predicted. The existence of this "early dark energy" could account for the tension between the two Hubble constant values, Riess said.

Another idea is that the universe contains a new subatomic particle that travels close to the speed of light. Such speedy particles are collectively called "dark radiation" and include previously known particles like neutrinos, which are created in nuclear reactions and radioactive decays.

Yet another attractive possibility is that dark matter (an invisible form of matter not made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons) interacts more strongly with normal matter or radiation than previously assumed.

But the true explanation is still a mystery.

Riess doesn't have an answer to this vexing problem, but his team will continue to use Hubble to reduce the uncertainties in the Hubble constant. Their goal is to decrease the uncertainty to 1%, which should help astronomers identify the cause of the discrepancy.

The team's results have been accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal.


Explore further

Hubble and Gaia team up to fuel cosmic conundrum

More information: "Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Beyond LambdaCDM," Adam G. Riess et al., 2019, Astrophysical Journal, arxiv.org/abs/1903.07603
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal Letters

Citation: Mystery of the universe's expansion rate widens with new Hubble data (2019, April 25) retrieved 24 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-04-hubble-universe-faster.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
6408 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 25, 2019
Riess explained, "If these values don't agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we're missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras."

The new Dark Energy Dialogue contends that something indeed is missing. The equations (1) are intimidating, but they are built upon simplifying assumptions. These simplifications—usually swept under the rug—are put to the light. Arguments are made, both for and against, a more complex model (2). Illustrated in a clear and engaging manner.

DED link: https://youtu.be/4goInwbOix4

References:
1) Friedmann, A., Z. Phys., 1922
2) Ahmed Ali and Saurya Das, Physics Letters B, 2015.

Apr 25, 2019
I read somewhere on here a while ago that space is not expanding, that it was an illusion, so is it now expanding or not ?

Apr 25, 2019
This Vacuous Vacuum of Space is not expanding or contracting

Space is a vacuum, vacuum does not expand
as
neither does space expand
because
space is vacuum so cannot expand

As space cannot expand
it
is the distance between one proton and the next proton
so
to say the Universe is expanding
is
saying all the mass that occupies this vacuum
that
is made up of atoms stars increase the distance to the next atom or the next star
the
universe is not expanding
it is the atoms and stars moving spatially to one another
because
this Universe is another word for vacuum
because
this is science
vacuum is space, vacuum is Universe, matter and energy occupies this vacuum
because
once this distinction is made
that vacuum cannot be stretched squashed or subdivided
as
you cannot have half a vacuum as the vacuum in the lab is the same vacuum between galaxies
then
It is possible to discuss this matter occupying this vacuum that is in acceleration from each other

Apr 25, 2019
I read somewhere on here a while ago that space is not expanding, that it was an illusion, so is it now expanding or not ?
says thomasw2

Space as a vacuum has the ability to expand (as needed), but it is not an infinite expansion without reason. If new Matter/Energy was constantly being created, then Space itself would have to expand in order to accommodate not only the existing Matter/Energy, but also the new. That expansion would be for the purpose of maintaining a decent expanse between all objects.
It is still unclear whether or not NEW Matter/Energy is still being created or its creation has ceased and will not resume or start up again.
The vacuum of Space is not an illusion, at least not to those who are observing Space and its effects on Matter/Energy. But even without the Mind of a sentient observer, Space is still a substantial and valuable commodity without which Matter/Energy would be completely chaotic and random - and without a formal place.

Apr 25, 2019
Cepheid variables

A star that pulsates radially
varying in diameter temperature and brightness
with defined period and amplitude.
luminosity is proportional to pulsation period
established Cepheid's as indicators
of extragalactic distances
discovered in 1908 by Henrietta Swan Leavitt in the Magellanic Clouds
Enabling to know the true luminosity of a Cepheid by observing its pulsation period
determining the distance to the star
by comparing its known luminosity to its observed brightness.

In this life nothing is perfect
nature is not a machine
these Cepheid variable's luminosity and pulsation period
change with time as this Cepheid ages as these Cepheid variable's luminosity varies
as Cepheid variable's period slows
the distance that is related to luminosity and period are all interrelated
this Cepheid variable is only a guide with a reasonable accuracy in distance and velocity
as
this accuracy is not even in single percentages figures
Cepheid variables are simply a guide

Apr 25, 2019
Thinking of Space as a vacuum is like confusing Reality with a vacuum.

Sure, when you are in outer space?
Hopefully in a pressure suit?
Your reality is, you are surrounded by a modestly real vacuum.
Don't go spoiling the illusion by removing your helmet!

This choice of words is the problem. Ordinary people expect commonly used words to have the meaning they are use to.

However, scientists as with a million other professions & specialized trades.
Each have their own specific meanings for the vocabulary used in their specialties.

Those words, their meanings, the grammatical methods, overlap. conflict, contradict, collide violently with the public's expectations.

In the preceding comments it is obvious that the commentators do not understand the language used in the article by the researchers.

Not their fault, not anybody's fault.
We just have to take the time, make the effort to understand what the researchers are trying to tell us.

Apr 25, 2019
The Eternal One lives in this Eternity of vacuum

Vacuum is without beginning or end
SEU> Space as a vacuum has the ability to expand (as needed)

This is where it gets tricky
because
SEU, space is vacuum - vacuum cannot be stretched squashed or subdivided
this is where mental gymnastics are required
because
if follows as vacuum cannot be stretched squashed or subdivided
this
meaneth, vacuum is unlimited in its dimension
vacuum is without beginning or end
or
This infinite vacuous vacuum of space

Apr 25, 2019
rrwillsj, you know not how much that you are in a privileged position
rrwillsj> Thinking of Space as a vacuum is like confusing Reality with a vacuum

If you stay he course, rrwillsj
one day
you will realise the secret of your privileged position
so
as you freely state your view
that not so far removed from this house
well
lets say, rrwillsj
it would take your breath away
which
is why to counter years hence of previous circular conceptions of years long past
is
where this infinite vacuous vacuum of space emergethed
because
of the Michelson Morley Aether experiment
proving
space is not Aether
Space is simply vacuum

Apr 25, 2019
The Eternal One lives in this Eternity of vacuum

Vacuum is without beginning or end
SEU> Space as a vacuum has the ability to expand (as needed)

This is where it gets tricky because
SEU, space is vacuum - vacuum cannot be stretched squashed or subdivided
this is where mental gymnastics are required
because if follows as vacuum cannot be stretched squashed or subdivided
this meaneth, vacuum is unlimited in its dimension
vacuum is without beginning or end
or This infinite vacuous vacuum of space
says granville

It is true that Space cannot be squashed or subdivided, but I believe that it can be "stretched" with some limitations. Einstein's conceptualisation of what was referred to as "the Fabric of Space" indicates that a 'gravity well' occurs in the presence of a Matter/Energy object such as Star, planet, etc. The Gravity Well seems to be the Particles of Space which hold up and support the Particles of which Matter/Energy is made.
-contd-

Apr 25, 2019
SEU, with all the turmoil of preconceived conceptions
where selfie has disappeared without trace
changing this landscape forever in the process
even as we are none the wiser and we still have no selfie of our own
as SEU, singularities have quietly disappeared under the carpet
the point being pointed out
when the imaginative aspects of these theories got a selfie
selfie is not the impenetrable star it was thought to be
When this vacuum gets a selfie, that will be one large step for science!

Apr 25, 2019
-contd-
@granville
Both the Gravity Well and the Mass (Earth), being made of quantum Particles, atoms, etc. have the abilities to interact with each other in a supportive role. The small expansion of the Gravity Well process, IMO, would necessarily carry BOTH around the Star that it is orbiting as a Unit - not being able to separate one from the other. In other words, the Space is locked onto the Mass just as all other forms of Mass have each one's own Space. Not even a Solar or Cosmic Wind can knock the Space off or away from its Mass.
This might seem funny when compared to a flow of water or a gas that can spread out everywhere, eg, but I don't think that the Space/Gravity Well in which Earth is firmly settled is swirling/moving away from its 'confined location'. The Earth's Magnetic Field is also locked onto that Space.

Apr 25, 2019
After the bang, when elements began to sort themselves out, couldn't 'dark matter' just be what was left in the primordial soup, as it were, the broth? Maybe an ion of Nitrogen?
As to expansion, I still say we're all expanding with the Universe and it's why we age. We deconstruct. It starts with the rigid parts, then it all goes to pot, as it were. Nobody so far can tell me why not. It is a bit of a biological mystery, this aging thing.....

Apr 25, 2019
After the bang, when elements began to sort themselves out, couldn't 'dark matter' just be what was left in the primordial soup, as it were, the broth? Maybe an ion of Nitrogen?
As to expansion, I still say we're all expanding with the Universe and it's why we age. We deconstruct. It starts with the rigid parts, then it all goes to pot, as it were. Nobody so far can tell me why not. It is a bit of a biological mystery, this aging thing.....


Oxygen that is used by organic matter such as humans, animals and plants, along with excessive sunlight and other factors are the primary cause of aging of the cells. Cells divide into daughter cells, grow old and die. Before their death, they lose the ability to continue the processes which they had previously. Iron rusts from the effects of Oxygen and moisture exacerbates the rusting.
Living organisms are made of Trillions of individual cells that get old and die. It's a natural process. Just try to remain healthy.

Apr 25, 2019
@mollycruz, the hard data indicates that all elements above lithium must have been created in stars by nucleosynthesis, long after the BB. And even at that, most of the helium and lithium is also.

@thomasw2, wiki "Hubble's Law" for expansion.

From the above article:

"The space between galaxies is stretching, like dough rising in the oven. "
Now this is simply not true. Why do these people represent expansion like this?

Many (most?) galaxies are converging. The local group we live in is condensing onto itself, as is the entire Virgo supercluster which we are a part of. And even it appears to be condensing with Abell 3627, which I will call a super-duper cluster.

https://en.wikipe...dynamics

Anyone know what is actually expanding away from what? Anything that is red-shifted is moving away from us, so it must be related to distance rather than form (ca. 10 megaparsecs +). Does this mean everything closer is contracting?

Apr 25, 2019
The periodicity of any observed Cepheid should vary as a multiple of (1+z), due to special relativity time dilation. Incidentally, the time to peak luminosity of all standard Type 1a supernova should vary by a multiple of (1+z). Otherwise, space is not expanding. Unfortunately that is not observed.

Einstein's special theory of relativity is confirmed daily in supercolliders. If we don't see time dilation multiples of 1+z in the astronomy then something is wrong with the red shift interpretation. Time for a full stop.

Hubble originally suspected the red shift might indicate some other property of the light or the medium besides relative velocity. Maybe god has a red paint brush?

Apr 25, 2019
I read somewhere on here a while ago that space is not expanding, that it was an illusion, so is it now expanding or not ?
You should know that, if you really want answers to your questions, you shouldnt be asking them here. Because youre liable to get drivel like this
The vacuum of Space is not an illusion, at least not to those who are observing Space and its effects on Matter/Energy. But even without the Mind of a sentient observer, Space is still a substantial and valuable commodity
-from genuine loonies. Safer to do your own research.

Of course gaining experience with loonies is also somewhat valuable isnt it?
Anyone know what is actually expanding away from what?
Well look at that - a bonafide phd is asking others to research for him. Isnt that what postgrads are for doc?

Apr 25, 2019
"One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today", but also then only observing the local universe. Scientists mostly expect there is something wrong on this single type of complex measurement, not on all the others sometimes simple aggregated data that covers large time and volumes.

Here is the current go-to article in this: https://www.forbe...roversy/ .

It starts out by noting the issues and that one, or the other, or both groups, may be incorrect.

It ends:

"But before we jump to these exotic scenarios, we have to make sure that neither group has made a mistake. Even a small bias could account for the entirety of this current controversy, despite the multiple independent checks. Our understanding of the very Universe we inhabit is at stake. The importance of performing every due diligence, and making sure we've got it right, cannot be overstated."

- tbctd -

Apr 25, 2019
The nature of the physical space seems the most important subject in physics. A present paper proceeds from the assumption of physical reality of space contrary to the standard view of the space as a purely relational nonexistence - void. The space and its evolution are the primary sources of phenomena in Mega- and micro-worlds. Thus cosmology and particle physics have the same active agent - physical space.
https://www.acade...osmology
https://www.acade...he_World

Apr 25, 2019
- ctd -

Some quotes:

"It is possible, however, that something is incorrect or biased about our analysis of the small angular scales [i.e. out to long ago and far away]. It would have to not only affect Planck, but other independent CMB experiments. Even if you eschew the CMB entirely, you still get a result showing that an early relic method yields a much lower expansion rate from what the distance ladder indicates.

Although we don't think this is likely — and the independent early relic technique of baryon acoustic oscillations (or "inverse distance ladder") also yields consistent results — it's important to keep in mind that a small error that we haven't properly accounted for could dramatically shift our conclusions."

- tbctd -

Apr 25, 2019
- ctd -

"Can we develop a pipeline for distance ladder inputs the way we have for early relic inputs? Right now, there are plenty of programs that can either take a set of cosmological parameters and give you the expected cosmic microwave background, or can take the observed cosmic microwave background and give you the cosmological parameters those measurements imply.

You can see how, as your data changes, parameters like the matter density, dark energy equation of state, or expansion rate vary, along with their error bars.

The distance ladder teams are seeking to develop a similar pipeline; one does not exist yet. When it is complete, we should be able to get an even more accurate read on their systematics, but in a superior fashion to what we have today."

- tbctd -

Apr 25, 2019
- ctd-

"We cannot disentangle which class of supernova we're seeing when we look in Cepheid-rich regions. But if we look in a location where there are no young stars, we can be certain we're seeing supernovae from merging white dwarfs. There are good reasons to believe this systematic is small compared to the overall discrepancy, but not everyone is convinced. Using a different intermediate distance indicator, such as evolving stars at the tip of the asymptotic giant branch found in the outer halos of galaxies, will eliminate this potential systematic error. There are currently about a dozen measurements from various distance ladder teams that show good agreement with Cepheids, but more work is still necessary."

Apr 25, 2019
I read somewhere on here a while ago that space is not expanding, that it was an illusion


This is a science site that mostly presents press releases of peer reviewed published science. That is material from the edge of science that has passed some basic quality tests but has yet to be fully criticized or vetted by a reader against earlier publications. It will in itself will not tell you what is the current mainstream science.

If you want to know if space is expanding, I recommend starting out with Wikipedia. It is 80 % correct as most encyclopedias (but make sure the article you read has plenty referenced material).

"The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe[1][2][3] from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.[4][5][6] The model describes how the universe expanded from ..."
[ https://en.wikipe...Big_Bang ]

Apr 25, 2019
"The space between galaxies is stretching, like dough rising in the oven. "
Now this is simply not true. Why do these people represent expansion like this? Many (most?) galaxies are converging. The local group we live in is condensing onto itself, as is the entire Virgo supercluster which we are a part of.


The oven dough, with raisins as galaxies, is the go-to factually representative illustration. Space is expanding at the rate of 10^-10 parts length/year. That is so small that gravity can bind large systems, it took a while due to galaxy intrinsic velocities but we now know that the Local Group is gravitationally bound.* The Virgo group is not, you are mistaking intrinsic movements against the background expansion. The latter gives the cosmic [expansion] redshift (there are others) that you ask the right questions about.

*) The "condensing" part is iffy since eventually a bound system will condense to a black hole, which will eventually evaporate.

- tbctd -

Apr 25, 2019
- ctd -

But those time scales are much longer than the current universe life time, and the observable universe will be empty of all galaxies but the Local Group long before those events happen. Personally, I would not confuse that with the expansion of space, which is the global cosmological behavior - that we all have known for a century by now to boot.

After the bang, when elements began to sort themselves out, couldn't 'dark matter' just be what was left in the primordial soup, as it were, the broth? Maybe an ion of Nitrogen?
As to expansion, I still say we're all expanding with the Universe


No, we know from several independent observations such as cosmic background and galaxy cluster behavior that dark matter is not normal atoms.

No, against 10^-10 times expansion/year even weak gravity can bind a system up to groups of several galaxies, such as our Local Group. Chemical binding in our bodies caused by electromagnetic interactions is much, much stronger than that!

Apr 25, 2019
I'd like to ask scientists to consider confirmation bias. That is, once a person has a belief about anything, all new data - no matter what it is - is used by the person to confirm that belief.

Is that what science is? Data is presented. A theory is formed. Enough scientists believe in it to create what amounts to faith in it. Then every new discovery that challenges the theory requires that the theory be modified to account for the new data and confirm the theory. Eventually the theory becomes hopelessly complex.

Consider 2 points on a graph. Draw a straight line through them. The theory is that all points fall on that line. Add a 3rd point. Fit a parabola. Add more points and you can always come up with higher degree polynomial that fits the points. It's just that the formula gets more and more complex until it's clearly useless.

If a theory needs constant tweaking, it's probably wrong.

Apr 25, 2019
I read somewhere on here a while ago that space is not expanding, that it was an illusion, so is it now expanding or not ?
You should know that, if you really want answers to your questions, you shouldnt be asking them here. Because youre liable to get drivel like this
The vacuum of Space is not an illusion, at least not to those who are observing Space and its effects on Matter/Energy. But even without the Mind of a sentient observer, Space is still a substantial and valuable commodity
-from genuine loonies. Safer to do your own research.
gaining experience with loonies is also somewhat valuable isnt it?
Anyone know what is actually expanding away from what?
Well look at that - a bonafide phd is asking others to research for him. Isnt that what postgrads are for doc?
says spookyOtto1923

Stalking people again, Otto? I notice that you don't seem interested in posting your OWN knowledge of any science, only criticising others for theirs. Bad

Apr 25, 2019
Space is the result of forces + time + geometry. Here's a simple way to explain it. You can only fit so much matter within a baseball. What happens if the threshold was forcibly crossed? A singularity happens, a 4 dimensional object. "Even light cannot escape a black hole, they boast" "Hey hello, 3D matter vs 4D matter, who do you think wins?" We live in a singularity that hosts God knows how many galaxies and how many singularities. So then what is the purpose of a singularity? To partition matter, period. So all matter in the universe is partitioned. The 4th dimension, Time, is responsible for the expanding universe. It is simply a matter of age for the singularity (time within is slow compared to its actual age). We know the universe as 13 Billions years old, but the singularity that is everything is much younger. From our perspective the universe is expanding. We can only see space as 3D, so to us it is boundless in every direction which further proves there is 4D.

Apr 26, 2019
With that knowledge, what do you think happens when 2 black holes collide? Nothing spectacular at all, the bigger black hole simply absorbs all matter of the smaller black hole into 4D space. In other words, the universe within the bigger black hole just got another injection of matter. Now if two 3D objects collide and the resulting energy doesn't cross the 4D threshold, now you got fireworks.

Apr 26, 2019
I'd like to ask scientists to consider confirmation bias. That is, once a person has a belief about anything, all new data - no matter what it is - is used by the person to confirm that belief.
...
If a theory needs constant tweaking, it's probably wrong.

An excellent point. That right there has been the problem from the start. For those that are stuck in the fishbowl which they created for themselves will not be able to derive anything different.

Space does not expand, its just an idea, a concept. One can make something that occupies space, but space is not a thing, and so it doesn't expand. ... Begin with this idea and we might get better theories.

Apr 26, 2019
Unfortunately, torbjorn is a troll.

Apr 26, 2019
Mass Energy Dimension Time occupying this Vacuum
SEU> In other words, the Space is locked onto the Mass just as all other forms of Mass have each one's own Space. Not even a Solar or Cosmic Wind can knock the Space off or away from its Mass

Every one
has their own unique way
of
looking at this connection mass has with this vacuum as it occupies this vacuum
but
if you suppose mass is connected with this vacuum
that as two protons move relative to each other
in other words
vacuum grows and shrinks
this meaneth it is possible to compress vacuum
effectively vacuum
has
become a medium, an Aether
such that
as these protons move
as
space is vacuum
space moves as protons move
so
space is Aether
such that
as space moves it is this Aether wind
the very wind, SEU
Michelson Morley set out to prove
but Michelson Morley
disproved this Aether wind
because
Space is Vacuum, SEU

Apr 26, 2019
Our known visible universe is but a speck in the midst of the far more vast De Sitter universe. The singularity that contained the mass of our universe also compressed the space of our universe. That space is now expanding and being drawn back out into the larger region of space surrounding it. Once that space is no longer expanding and carrying everything apart, then all the dead and dying matter floating around can collapse into another singularity and start the process over.

Apr 26, 2019
Phase-shifting of light can also be caused by a magnetic field. Didn't see it mentioned in the article.

Apr 26, 2019
If a theory needs constant tweaking, it's probably wrong.

@Bob Sage That is not how science works that is how faith works.

Apr 26, 2019
The universe is not expanding. It's our measurement of its size that is increasing. The Red Shift is caused by General Relativity, not the Doppler effect. Want to make the universe smaller? Move closer to a super-massive object.

Apr 26, 2019
"A brief recap: The universe is getting bigger every second. The space between galaxies is stretching, like dough rising in the oven."

The space between galaxies is stretching due to the fact that they are all headed towards an unimaginably large black hole, which is what you would expect to exist in an ancient universe of gravitational fields.

Galaxies are accelerating. There is only one known force of nature which can account for this, and that's gravity. Not so called 'dark energy'.

Apr 26, 2019
What is is about this site that attracts so many crackpots?

Apr 26, 2019
Wherever truth is warped by politics, both trolls and crackpots congregate. On this website, that pertains mostly to anything touching upon anthropogenic global warming or Big Bang theory.

Apr 26, 2019
Many (most?) galaxies are converging. The local group we live in is condensing onto itself, as is the entire Virgo supercluster which we are a part of.


Wrong, most galaxies have a redshift to them. Very very few blue shifted galaxies we see.
Where do you get your bogus info?

Apr 26, 2019
What is is about this site that attracts so many crackpots?


You are such a true blue A-hole. Is this why your JonesDave name got canned?

Apr 26, 2019
The biggest difference between Scientists & the looneyricls?
Scientists have the personal courage & moral character to admit they are fallible Human Beings.

Scientistsface their mistakes, misjudgements, conclusions based on incomplete & misunderstood data.

Then learning from their errors.
Finding new evidence out of accidental failures.
Persevering at enduring.

The Looneyticks? I just went through the comments from articles posted 5 years ago or more.

It was amazing, many of the same wooloons, posting the same gibberish, they still post today!
With no changes that I could see.
Any bets?
That if I went back ten years? Their comments would still be repetitious nonsense?

Tthey flat-out refuse to learn from new results of new evidence based on new data. They refuse to learn anything new.

I find this confirms my opinion that they must be incompetent to learn.
& Too lazy to male any effort to improve their minds as the knowledge base evolves.

Apr 27, 2019
The reason that the Hubble constant has been so hard to elucidate is that it doesn't exist. Cosmologists are right to assume that galactic redshifts indicate recessional velocity (except for quasars, which are a combination of gravitational redshift and recessional velocity). However, the redshift values vary according to the direction in the sky. Many surveys have concluded this, but they are either ignored, or the gravitational effects of huge galactic superclusters are invoked to explain them, despite the fact that no such superclusters have been detected.

Apr 27, 2019
@KenFine, what do you define as "huge galactic superclusters"? It seems there are a lot of rather large ones, and they appear to be collapsing rather than expanding if their center of gravity is high enough to prevent expansion in that local region, or so I have read.

Any redshifting of a distant object defines whether a location is expanding away from where the observer is. Blue-shift indicates local contraction. Pehaps Abell 3627 is our local "huge galactic supercluster" still in formation.

Apr 27, 2019
These most precise Hubble measurements to date bolster the idea that new physics may be needed to explain the mismatch.


Say it ain't so! Merger maniacs. Rise up and demand a recount!

Any thinking person would look at the recent archeological evidence pointing to advanced construction techniques requiring modern machining methods having existed here many thousands of years ago, together with the overwhelming evidence of ongoing visitation of our alien watchers likely living mostly on the far side of the moon, and conclude that faster than light must be possible. This would then imply a new physics exists in nature, if not in the minds of physicists.


Apr 27, 2019
Unfortunately, torbjorn is a troll.
says JaxPavan

That appears to be true and tbgLarsson is firmly seated on the side of FAUX SCIENCE for the main purpose of validating Einstein's GR and SR with the added result of pushing out and knocking down any NEW SCIENCE that might 'rock the boat' that he so fervently believes in.
Pseudoscientists are like that.

Apr 27, 2019
But which one, SEU
Unfortunately, torbjorn is a troll.
says JaxPavan

That appears to be true and tbgLarsson is firmly seated on the side of FAUX SCIENCE for the main purpose of validating Einstein's GR and SR with the added result of pushing out and knocking down any NEW SCIENCE that might 'rock the boat' that he so fervently believes in.
Pseudoscientists are like that.

SEU, take your choice

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM April 8, 2009
torbjorn_b_g_larsson August 28, 2015
TorbjornLarsson December 9, 2016

They swap around randomly depending which way the wind blows
but
SEU, you are the expert in these matters!

Apr 27, 2019
But which one, SEU
Unfortunately, torbjorn is a troll.
says JaxPavan

That appears to be true and tbgLarsson is firmly seated on the side of FAUX SCIENCE for the main purpose of validating Einstein's GR and SR with the added result of pushing out and knocking down any NEW SCIENCE that might 'rock the boat' that he so fervently believes in.
Pseudoscientists are like that.

SEU, take your choice

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM April 8, 2009
torbjorn_b_g_larsson August 28, 2015
TorbjornLarsson December 9, 2016

They swap around randomly depending which way the wind blows
but
SEU, you are the expert in these matters!
says granville

LOL I had been impressed with Torbjorn's general knowledge a few times in the past, at least until he attempted to come down from his 'high horse' and join with the vicious unholy alliance of physorg, such as jonesdave, Da Scheibo, CaptainDumpy and a host of other scientist wannabes who hang tough in the phorums. Not anymor

Apr 27, 2019
But which one, SEU

SEU, take your choice

Torbjorn_Larsson_OM April 8, 2009
torbjorn_b_g_larsson August 28, 2015
TorbjornLarsson December 9, 2016

They swap around randomly depending which way the wind blows
but
SEU, you are the expert in these matters!
says granville

So the Swede has 3 sox and has now concentrated on only one of the three. Impressive, but not as impressive as SpookyOtto1923's infamous zoo of hundreds of sox which are taken out of his sox drawer occasionally so that he might agree with himself and downvote those commentators of whom he dislikes. Going through many years' worth of comment phorums has given me the advantage of learning of Otto's predilection for trying to enhance his menacing bearing here in physorg by creating sox and more sox. Some others do the same, but I wonder how they can keep tabs on who said what and which of their roles to play. This is almost as good as Hollywood with Otto in the role of Dracula.

Apr 27, 2019
Perhaps the title should have been, "Tension between Hubble and Planck results increases with further analysis."

As usual with such tensions, further data will resolve them.

Pretending that it will not happen is whistling in the wind.

Apr 27, 2019
Perhaps the expansion of the Universe is decelerating. Still expanding from sheer momentum but decelerating nonetheless.

What would be our first clue that the expansion is slowing down? The farthest reaches would appear to be accelerating away from us. Just as observed.

It would explain the difference in the observed velocity of the expansion of the early universe versus the calculated velocity.

Quoting Riess above: "One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don't agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we're missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras."

By overlooking the possibility that the expansion is decelerating, they are missing the obvious. It is certainly a much simpler and elegant solution than invoking even more exotic particles and forces.

Apr 27, 2019
Unfortunately for this conjecture, the expansion is not decelerating.

Apr 28, 2019
And so, the baroque monstrosity that is Big Bang theory, has another gargoyle added - 'early dark energy'. You couldn't make it up . . . . oh wait, they just did.

Apr 28, 2019
Noticed you don't have a response for further data. Nor for why all the best data we have still says the universe is expanding no matter how fast. The argument here is 67% vs. 76%, not if it's expanding. Maybe you forgot.

Apr 28, 2019
And so, the baroque monstrosity that is Big Bang theory, has another gargoyle added - 'early dark energy'. You couldn't make it up . . . . oh wait, they just did.


Go practice your Dunning-Kruger elsewhere, you clown.

Apr 28, 2019
If the expansion of the Universe is proceeding at a lesser rate (decelerating), then the observations we could make would be the identical observations that ARE being made.

And without the need for an additional plethora of new exotic particles and forces.

Frankly, it is the simplest explanation for what is being observed at the limits we can see and measure.

Some theories hold that the Universe goes through a continuing cycle of Big Bang to Big Crunch to Big Bang to Big Crunch, on and on forever.

We might just be in the outward deceleration stage in the cycle.

Apr 28, 2019
I'd like to ask scientists to consider confirmation bias. That is, once a person has a belief about anything, all new data - no matter what it is - is used by the person to confirm that belief.

Is that what science is?


It could be, if not for continuous testing and improvement, such as the article describes.

If a theory needs constant tweaking, it's probably wrong.


If a theory does not need tweaking, it is absolutely wrong! No theory will ever capture all of observations, which is one reason (besides the error testing and data/method improvements) that we see continuous improvement.

To wit, the internet that we discuss on was not created by the Hot Big Bang nor perfect after we discovered how to do electronics and IP/TCP layers. Is it "wrong"? Not enough wrong not to have this discussion.

Apr 28, 2019
Space is the result of forces + time + geometry. ... We live in a singularity
-

Space is described by general relativity, but we do not know what caused it.

A singularity is simply a failure of math, so we don't "live in" it. Sometimes that feature of the general relativity math that points to a black hole object - whatever it is - is called a singularity. We don't live inside one of those objects either, it has no outside as those have.

More here: https://www.prepo...k-hole/.

Such as:

"Still, some folks will stubbornly insist, there has to be something deep and interesting about the fact that the radius of the observable universe is comparable to the Schwarzschild radius of an equally-sized black hole. And there is! It means the universe is spatially flat.

You can figure this out by looking at the Friedmann equation, which ..."

Apr 28, 2019
Our known visible universe is but a speck in the midst of the far more vast De Sitter universe. The singularity that contained the mass of our universe also compressed the space of our universe. That space is now expanding and being drawn back out into the larger region of space surrounding it.


Added to the problems of "singularity" and "outside" that I just covered, the universe has FLRW physics and not De Sitter topology. The latter is an approximation of, say, the current dark energy era, but its curvature is positive and not the zero of our particular FLRW universe.

Apr 28, 2019
Perhaps the expansion of the Universe is decelerating.


That is opposite of the data, which in turn is in tension with models, but they all agree on one thing: the universe is expanding and the current expansion is exponential in nature (dark energy dominated).

The integrated redshift of the CMB, which is the furthest data and shows the least expansion rate, would not be significantly changed by a local rate change and that rate change would show up in local redshifts. We simply don't see it.

But run the numbers on a potential rate shift function and come back to us and show it works, then we can have a discussion that Nobel Prize scientists like Reiss have missed something and that you single handed could have upended cosmology. (Still have to pass peer review publication, you know.)

Apr 28, 2019
But run the numbers on a potential rate shift function and come back to us and show it works, then we can have a discussion that Nobel Prize scientists like Reiss have missed something and that you single handed could have upended cosmology.


So in a forum that is supposed to be about people openly and respectfully discussing different ideas, you decide that you have the right to be a judgemental jerk? And that alone are right? Are you too foolish to realize that all the interpretation of the data is individual opinion?. By your responses you must have realized that your opinion must be just smell worse than most or you wouldn't have lashed out in such a childish fashion.

Thanks for ruining the discussion while adding nothing of substance.

I'm done with this topic.

Apr 28, 2019
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.

How many more weeks do you need before you answer my previous challenges/questions re:

1) 'exotic' (ie, non-EM-interacting) dark matter...why did not all the non-EM-interacting DM go directly into earliest BLACK HOLES?

2) Do you realise that Cosmic Microwave Background radiation is produced all the time all over the place by ONGOING sources/processes?...which we now realise has NO (alleged) Big Bang/Inflation etc 'primordial provenance'.

3) Do you know that astronomers are increasingly finding 'local' conditions/contents/dynamics etc 'there' determine what we 'see from here' re Supernova/Cepheids/Quasar etc light/brightness/frequency etc?...hence many past 'interpretations' of remote/far distant observations used for 'cosmic distance ladder' and/or 'Dark Energy/Expansion' etc claims are most likely simplistic/wrong due to such variability/unknowns.

Could you address these before again parroting old/simplistic/wrong Big Bang etc claims. :)

Apr 28, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good, thanks for asking.

@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.

How many more weeks do you need before you answer my previous challenges/questions re:


Cher he will probably need a lot more weeks to get around to answering your challenges/questions. He has pushed the IGNORE-THIS-COUYON button on you. What it is Cher? You forget that he told you that six or five months ago?

Apr 28, 2019
test

Apr 29, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.
How many more weeks do you need before you answer my previous challenges/questions re:
Cher he will probably need a lot more weeks to get around to answering your challenges/questions. He has pushed the IGNORE-THIS-COUYON button on you. What it is Cher? You forget that he told you that six or five months ago?
He and DS said they welcomed, and would gladly answer science related questions; so I put those above to him and DS...then they went silent.

Perhaps you, Ira, can bring those questions to their attention (or have they put you on ignore as well?).

In any case, their BB/CMB/exotic-DM etc claims are now clearly falsified by recent mainstream observation/reviews (probably why they have me on ignore)...but putting me on ignore is tantamount to them admitting all their claims have been wrong all along, and mine correct.

ps: Maybe you'd like to answer those science questions FOR them, ira; since you're not ignoring me? :)

Apr 29, 2019
discussing different ideas
Ideas that conform to the evidence. Otherwise you're just throwing shit against the wall to see if any sticks. We're a long way farther than that, in case you didn't notice the computer you're typing on.

Apr 29, 2019
expanding space may cause light propagation to break entirely

Apr 29, 2019
@RealityCheck
@Uncle Ira.
@torbjorn_b_g_larsson.
How many more weeks do you need before you answer my previous challenges/questions re:
Cher he will probably need a lot more weeks to get around to answering your challenges/questions. He has pushed the IGNORE-THIS-COUYON button on you. What it is Cher? You forget that he told you that six or five months ago?
He and DS said they welcomed, and would gladly answer science related questions; so I put those above to him and DS...then they went silent.

I have noticed that they do tend to go silent when you find flaws in their logic. It is funny how that works.

Apr 29, 2019
@arc, I have the big red mute button on you. I generally only bother to respond when someone else quotes your bullshit.

Bring your questions. Don't ask me if I've stopped beating my wife. I'll just ignore you some more. You got one post to ask something meaningful. Don't waste it.

Apr 29, 2019
Our known visible universe is but a speck in the midst of the far more vast De Sitter universe. The singularity that contained the mass of our universe also compressed the space of our universe. That space is now expanding and being drawn back out into the larger region of space surrounding it.


Added to the problems of "singularity" and "outside" that I just covered, the universe has FLRW
physics and not De Sitter topology. The latter is an approximation of, say, the current dark energy era, but its curvature is positive and not the zero of our particular FLRW universe.


Thanks @torbjorn_b_g_larsson/

Apr 29, 2019
@arc, I have the big red mute button on you. I generally only bother to respond when someone else quotes your bullshit.

Bring your questions. Don't ask me if I've stopped beating my wife. I'll just ignore you some more. You got one post to ask something meaningful. Don't waste it.


@arcmetal Crickets!!!!! And this is the thing bitching about people going silent when their logic is questioned, hmmmmmmm.

Apr 29, 2019
@hat1208.
@arcmetal Crickets!!!!! And this is the thing bitching about people going silent when their logic is questioned, hmmmmmmm.
Careful, mate. Consider the time scales involved. Being 'silent' for less than 24 hours can just mean people have gone to bed or gone out etc etc (because they have a life off-line), and so not yet had the chance to reply.

Compare THAT trivial silence period to the WEEKS of 'silence' from those who profess to want science questions yet deliberately ignore/avoid answering same when it become 'inconvenient' to their own 'parroted' old/simplistic/wrong assertions/claims. Anyhow, if you are not likewise ignoring/avoiding my 'inconvenient' questions/challenges as previously posted to @torbjorn and @DS, why not use your time to address those instead of wasting time with irrelevances. Thanks. :)

Apr 30, 2019
@hat1208.

Compare THAT trivial silence period to the WEEKS of 'silence' from those who profess to want science questions yet deliberately ignore/avoid answering same when it become 'inconvenient' to their own 'parroted' old/simplistic/wrong assertions/claims. Anyhow, if you are not likewise ignoring/avoiding my 'inconvenient' questions/challenges as previously posted to @torbjorn and @DS, why not use your time to address those instead of wasting time with irrelevances. Thanks. :)

That is another type of response I've noticed from them -- if its not silence, then its cursing or insults. It seems to prove that when one's logic is found to be flawed, there is no answer to give.

It does take a greater mind to admit one is incorrect, or one does not have enough knowledge to answer correctly, and so it seems to be a difficult action for some.

Apr 30, 2019
Still waiting for the questions.

So, @arc, were you lying again?

Apr 30, 2019
Oh, and BTW, one post wasted. That was all you had. Bye now.

Apr 30, 2019
only 2 things can stretch the wavelength of light. One is gravity and the other being that, the object/s are moving away from each other. So space is not expanding per se

Apr 30, 2019
Your point is not clear. Are you claiming that gravity is increasing the light's frequency (blueshifting) in the universe?

How then do you account for the extremely redshifted CMBR?

Apr 30, 2019
I mean seriously, your only choice with blueshifting is dark antimatter and dark antienergy, which have at least four more assumptions than dark matter and dark energy.

Apr 30, 2019
Your point is not clear. Are you claiming that gravity is increasing the light's frequency (blueshifting) in the universe?

How then do you account for the extremely redshifted CMBR?
No stretching wavelength means reducing frequency, which means redshift

Apr 30, 2019
only 2 things can stretch the wavelength of light. One is gravity and the other being that, the object/s are moving away from each other. So space is not expanding per se


Correct. And it's the misinterpretation of quasar redshifts as being due to recessional velocity which causes so much confusion. Most of their redshifts are due to gravity.

Both Newton and Einstein said that the universe ought to collapse into "one great spherical mass" (Newton) and a black hole (Einstein). However, since Einstein believed the universe to be static, he introduced his own version of dark energy into his equations, and called it the 'cosmological constant'. He later admitted that this was his greatest blunder.

En route to collapsing into a single singularity, many such 'Great Bodies' would be created, and if one of these bodies were attracting all the visible galaxies, this would explain the cosmological redshift.

Apr 30, 2019
Don't think you quite get redshift vs. blueshift. If you're inside the gravity field, you see blueshift. It's one of those, you know, force laws and that mathematical stuff.

Apr 30, 2019
Don't think you quite get redshift vs. blueshift. If you're inside the gravity field, you see blueshift. It's one of those, you know, force laws and that mathematical stuff.


I get it very well, thanks. I've been following developments in cosmology since the 70s. Galaxies closer to the Great Body would be travelling towards it more quickly, so would be redshifted. Galaxies further away from the Great Body than the observer would be travelling towards it more slowly, so would also be redshifted as the observer drew away from them.

You might argue that there ought to be blue shifted galaxies on the other side of the Great Body. However, it will be moving through space at high velocity, and will have absorbed any galaxies in its path, so there's probably nothing behind it. If any galaxies had escaped this fate, they would be too few and too distant to detect, and their light would be bent into the Great Body.

Apr 30, 2019
Galaxies closer to the Great Body would be travelling towards it more quickly, so would be redshifted.
Nope. Wrong. Moving toward makes blueshift.

I still don't think you get redshift vs. blueshift.

Apr 30, 2019
Galaxies closer to the Great Body would be travelling towards it more quickly, so would be redshifted.
Nope. Wrong. Moving toward makes blueshift.

I still don't think you get redshift vs. blueshift.


No, you're the one who doesn't get it. The galaxies eventually converge at the Great Body, and become part of its mass. However, en route, they are becoming more separated as they are travelling at different velocities, relative to their proximity to it.

Apr 30, 2019
But you still don't get that redshift is moving away and blueshift is moving toward, This is simple shit.

Apr 30, 2019
Yes, I got that when I was 12. You're right, it's simple. So, what's your problem? What particular 'movement towards' do you think ought to produce a blue shift? I really don't understand what you're confused about.

Apr 30, 2019
Galaxies closer to the Great Body would be travelling towards it more quickly, so would be redshifted.
Nope. Wrong. Moving toward makes blueshift.

I still don't think you get redshift vs. blueshift.


No, you're the one who doesn't get it. The galaxies eventually converge at the Great Body, and become part of its mass. However, en route, they are becoming more separated as they are travelling at different velocities, relative to their proximity to it.


Sounds like pure woo to me. Where is this woo written up?

Apr 30, 2019
You ask that question a lot. So, unless a qualified scientist with a PhD has had the same idea as myself, and has published his thoughts in a peer reviewed journal, and I can provide a link to this, the idea has no validity. Is that how you think?

It's called 'inductive reasoning', and it can't be taught. There does seem to be a general assumption, however, that scientists have a greater talent for inductive reasoning than non scientists. This is nonsense. They don't, and from what I've seen cosmologists are particularly weak in that area.

Apr 30, 2019
You ask that question a lot. So, unless a qualified scientist with a PhD has had the same idea as myself, and has published his thoughts in a peer reviewed journal, and I can provide a link to this, the idea has no validity. Is that how you think?


Yep.

It's called 'inductive reasoning', and it can't be taught. There does seem to be a general assumption, however, that scientists have a greater talent for inductive reasoning than non scientists. This is nonsense. They don't, and from what I've seen cosmologists are particularly weak in that area.


If you don't understand the science, you can easily get confused by it. That appears to have happened to you. Anybody that is reduced to spamming their nonsense on a comments section has something wrong with them. Probably Dunning-Kruger syndrome, if I were to guess.

Apr 30, 2019
Science? Dark energy is not science. The expansion of space is not science. Where has it been demonstrated that space has this property, that it can 'expand', and what exactly is meant by this expansion? Are you claiming to understand this?

How about inflation theory? Do you understand what's meant by 'when the universe was between 10 to the -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old, it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit'?

Anyone claiming to understand this probably has something wrong with them, like a desperate desire to appear to be more intelligent than they actually are.


Apr 30, 2019
Science? Dark energy is not science. The expansion of space is not science. Where has it been demonstrated that space has this property, that it can 'expand', and what exactly is meant by this expansion? Are you claiming to understand this?

How about inflation theory? Do you understand what's meant by 'when the universe was between 10 to the -35 and 10 to the -32 seconds old, it underwent a faster than light 10 to the power of 50 expansion - to the size of a grapefruit'?

Anyone claiming to understand this probably has something wrong with them, like a desperate desire to appear to be more intelligent than they actually are.



Who cares what you think? You are a crank on a comments section. One of many.

Apr 30, 2019
I wouldn't put you at the head of the phys.org crank queue. There are quite a few on here that are ahead of you, but you are definitely at the head of the hubris queue.

Apr 30, 2019
I wouldn't put you at the head of the phys.org crank queue. There are quite a few on here that are ahead of you, but you are definitely at the head of the hubris queue.


Go post your crap on a physics forum. Got the bottle? I doubt it.

Apr 30, 2019
Yes, I got that when I was 12. You're right, it's simple. So, what's your problem? What particular 'movement towards' do you think ought to produce a blue shift? I really don't understand what you're confused about.
The part where the waves get shorter when the source is moving toward the observer.

You appear to be asserting any movement gives redshift. This is obviously, grossly incorrect.

Apr 30, 2019
You're assumption is grossly incorrect, and you still haven't specified which light source you think is moving towards the observer. There are only a very few blue shifted galaxies, almost all of these being in the Local Group. This is due to local gravitational effects, and movement around a common centre of gravity. Beyond that, there are probably no blue shifted galaxies. The space between galaxies increases as they head towards the Great Body, so no blue shifts. But, I know you still don't see it.

Apr 30, 2019
You make my argument:
There are only a very few blue shifted galaxies, almost all of these being in the Local Group.
Yep. That's because all the other ones are far enough away to show redshift due to the Hubble constant.

Duhhhh ummmm.

Apr 30, 2019
The Universe is not expanding!!! Riess's claim is false astronomy as the redshift of measured velocities is highly overstated by cosmic dust. See AWASS 2019 abstract and update at http://www.nanoqed.org

Apr 30, 2019
Look, let me put it this way: if you compress a spring is that the same as expanding it?

Apr 30, 2019
Look, let me put it this way: if you compress a spring is that the same as expanding it?


The dolts won't understood that either.

Apr 30, 2019
Don't think you quite get redshift vs. blueshift. If you're inside the gravity field, you see blueshift. It's one of those, you know, force laws and that mathematical stuff.
Not really. Higher gravity causes wavelength to stretch, hence redshift. I know this is opposite of what GR states

Apr 30, 2019
You make my argument:
There are only a very few blue shifted galaxies, almost all of these being in the Local Group.
Yep. That's because all the other ones are far enough away to show redshift due to the Hubble constant.

Duhhhh ummmm.


I'm almost embarrassed that it took so long for the penny to drop, but it's crystal clear to me now . . . . you're as thick as a brick.

Apr 30, 2019
https://en.wikipe...lueshift

A blueshift is any decrease in wavelength (increase in energy), with a corresponding increase in frequency, of an electromagnetic wave; the opposite effect is referred to as redshift. In visible light, this shifts the color from the red end of the spectrum to the blue end.


We done here?

Apr 30, 2019
Not really. Higher gravity causes wavelength to stretch, hence redshift. I know this is opposite of what GR states
It's also the opposite of what we see. Specifically in GPS, among other satellite communications.

Apr 30, 2019
>KF........

......and their light would be bent into the Great Body.
......what's this great body?

May 01, 2019
Not really. Higher gravity causes wavelength to stretch, hence redshift. I know this is opposite of what GR states
It's also the opposite of what we see. Specifically in GPS, among other satellite communications.
Hey im an engineer and gps has got shites to do with GR or SR, otherwise they would have been accurate from the get go. They have empirical(trial and error) corrections applied to them over the decades to have attained the present day accuracies.
That GPS has anything to do with Einstein is pure and unadulterared hype

May 01, 2019
GPS has to be corrected for relativity. Lying and denying about it isn't going to change that. Why do you bother? This is an instant google search. Try "GPS relatistic time correction."

May 01, 2019
GPS has to be corrected for relativity. Lying and denying about it isn't going to change that. Why do you bother? This is an instant google search. Try "GPS relatistic time correction."
Its all hype just as I said, Pity you can't see thru it, but protect yourself and believe as you please

May 01, 2019
Still waiting for the questions.

So, @arc, were you lying again?

lol. The questions where already posted long ago. I guess reading comprehension is also a problem for some.

May 01, 2019
I guess actually posting some claims is also a problem for some.

Still waiting for these "questions" you can't seem to articulate. Right here, waiting. You either got it or you don't. And so far you don't. Looks like another liar denier troll to me. Bring it, troll. Looks like you're afraid of the answers.

May 02, 2019
For all the einstein lapdogs
"gravitational redshift"......
Gravitational redshift https://phys.org/...nwletter
"Gravitational redshift occurs because intense gravity on the star's surface slows the vibration of light waves,
stretching them and making the star appear redder than normal from Earth."

That GR and SR are crimes committed by Einstein more than a 100 years ago and people still want to believe. Seems they are so happy in their misery that, they don't know how miserable they are

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