How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-Hubble/Europe Collaboration; Acknowledgment: H. Bond (STScI and Pennsylvania State University) (Image: © NASA, ESA, and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA)-Hubble/Europe Collaboration; Acknowledgment: H. Bond (STScI and Pennsylvania State University))

We’re getting something wrong about the universe.

It might be something small: a measurement issue that makes certain stars looks closer or farther away than they are, something astrophysicists could fix with a few tweaks to how they measure distances across space. It might be something big: an error — or series of errors — in cosmology, or our understanding of the universe’s origin and evolution. If that’s the case, our entire history of space and time may be messed up. But whatever the issue is, it’s making key observations of the universe disagree with each other: Measured one way, the universe appears to be expanding at a certain rate; measured another way, the universe appears to be expanding at a different rate. And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.

“We think that if our understanding of cosmology is correct, then all of these different measurements should be giving us the same answer,” said Katie Mack, a theoretical cosmologist at North Carolina State University (NCSU) and co-author of the new paper.

The two most famous measurements work very differently from one another. The first relies on the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB): the microwave radiation leftover from the first moments after the Big Bang. Cosmologists have built theoretical models of the entire history of the universe on a CMB foundation — models they’re very confident in, and that would require an all-new physics to break. And taken together, Mack said, they produce a reasonably precise number for the Hubble constant, or H0, which governs how fast the universe is currently expanding.

The second measurement uses supernovas and flashing stars in nearby galaxies, known as Cepheids. By gauging how far those galaxies are from our own, and how fast they’re moving away from us, astronomers have gotten what they believe is a very precise measurement of the Hubble constant. And that method offers a different H0.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science. “So this is really about not just understanding the current expansion rate of the universe — which is something we’re interested in — but understanding how the universe has evolved, how the expansion has evolved, and what space-time has been doing all this time.”

Weikang Lin, also a cosmologist at NCSU and lead author of the paper, said that to develop a full picture of the problem, the team decided to round up all the different ways of “constraining” H0 in one place. The paper has not yet been formally peer reviewed or published, and is available on the preprint server arXiv.

Here’s what “constraining” means: Measurements in physics rarely turn up exact answers. Instead, they put limits on the range of possible answers. And by looking at these constraints together, you can learn a lot about something you’re studying. Looking through one telescope, for example, you might learn that a point of light in space is either red, yellow or orange. Another might tell you it’s brighter than most other lights in space but less bright than the sun. Another might tell you it’s moving across the sky as fast a planet. None of those constraints would tell you much on their own, but taken together they suggest you’re looking at Mars.

Full article here.

HT/KcTaz

0 0 votes

Article Rating

224 Comments

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Richard

October 17, 2019 10:49 pm

What happened to ‘consensus’? It has proven to be such a useful tool in at least one other scientific field. The Hubble Constant could be settled tomorrow, I’m 97% sure. And damn the deniers.

Michael

October 17, 2019 10:52 pm

While I enjoy the beautiful photos of the visible universe, I do not regard the rest of research of any real importance. When thy start to use words such as strings and dark matter, they are just word for unknowns.

Logically the “”Big Bang”” is impossible, so that leaves Fred Holes “”Steady State””.

The only thing which justifies further research is Gravity, in the hope that a anti gravity drive will be found, that would be of great use. If we were vert rich then pure research is justified, but curtesy of the likes of CC we are not.

The rest is just a considerable drain on the taxpayers money. Just as is the magic molecule CO2, but that of course is a far bigger drain on the public purse.

MJE VK5ELL

Weylan McAnally

Reply to Michael

October 18, 2019 12:25 pm

I agree that gravity research should be a focus for funding. An anti-gravity drive would be a revolutionary technology for humans and the planet.

I told my 12 year old son that he would be the most famous person to ever live if he solved the problem of gravity. He is smart enough to figure it out. Cross your fingers.

Max

Reply to Michael

October 20, 2019 9:32 pm

If antigravity occurs in nature, then man can find a way to reproduce it.
Directly under the new moon is the high tide. the moon and sun is lifting the ocean up away from the gravity of the earth.
But have you noticed the high tide on the opposite side of the earth lifting up against the combined gravity of the sun moon and earth? The difference between the two tides is 3%. Antigravity? This is not logical, it should be low tide.
Perhaps in there is an increase in gravity at 90° (just like magnetism when electricity flows through a wire occurring at 90° of the flow) causing low tide at the sunrise/sunset around the world and like squeezing a water balloon resulting high tide at both ends? The most powerful earthquakes have occurred when the sun is on the horizon during a new moon. Low tide.
Has anyone looked for a small change in gravity and barometric pressure that corresponds to the tides?

Roland

Reply to Max

October 20, 2019 10:18 pm

Tides are more complicated than just bulging towards the moon and sun, the moon is actually pulling the oceans horizontally (think about it, is easier for a force to pull water sideways than up). Plenty of research has gone in to tides, and they are very well understood, feel free to Google it.

As for atmospheric tides, they do exist, and is a lot of research out there on that as well.

Roland

Jim Masterson

Reply to Max

October 23, 2019 5:04 pm

>>
But have you noticed the high tide on the opposite side of the earth lifting up against the combined gravity of the sun moon and earth? The difference between the two tides is 3%. Antigravity? This is not logical, it should be low tide.
<<

It is logical, because of the inverse square law. The Moon pulls on the near side of the Earth harder than it pulls on the center of the Earth, and it pulls on the center of the Earth harder than it pulls on the far side of the Earth. This causes a stretching/tidal force on the Earth as a whole.

We can calculate this effect using Newton’s gravitational force law:

$\displaystyle F=G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{1}}\cdot {{m}_{2}}}{{{r}^{2}}}$

The force on the center of the Earth is:

$\displaystyle {{F}_{0}}=G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}}$

Where $\displaystyle {{F}_{0}}$ is the force, $\displaystyle G$ is Newton’s gravitational constant, $\displaystyle {{m}_{E}}$ is the mass of the Earth, $\displaystyle {{m}_{M}}$ is the mass of the Moon, and $\displaystyle {{r}_{EM}}$ is the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

The force of the Moon on the near side of the Earth is:

$\displaystyle {{F}_{near}}=G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}-{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}$

where $\displaystyle {{r}_{E}}$ is the radius of the Earth. The force on the far side of the Earth is:

$\displaystyle {{F}_{far}}=G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}+{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}$

We now calculate the tidal forces on the Earth with respect to the Earth. We do that by subtracting $\displaystyle {{F}_{0}}$ from the other forces:

$\displaystyle {{T}_{0}}={{F}_{0}}-{{F}_{0}}=0$

$\displaystyle {{T}_{near}}={{F}_{near}}-{{F}_{0}}=G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}-{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}-G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}}$

$\displaystyle {{T}_{far}}={{F}_{far}}-{{F}_{0}}=G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}+{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}-G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}}$

Where $\displaystyle {{T}_{0}}$ is the tidal force on the center of the Earth, $\displaystyle {{T}_{near}}$ is the tidal force on the near side of the Earth, and $\displaystyle {{T}_{far}}$ is the tidal force on the far side of the Earth. Combining terms we get:

$\displaystyle {{T}_{near}}=G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}}\cdot \frac{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}-{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}-{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}-{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}={{F}_{0}}\cdot \frac{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}-{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}-{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}-{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}$

and

$\displaystyle {{T}_{far}}=G\cdot \frac{{{m}_{E}}\cdot {{m}_{M}}}{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}}\cdot \frac{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}-{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}+{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}+{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}={{F}_{0}}\cdot \frac{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}-{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}+{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}+{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}$

Notice that the leading term is just $\displaystyle {{F}_{0}}$ . Expanding the numerators, we get:

$\displaystyle {{T}_{near}}=\frac{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}-{{r}_{EM}}^{2}+2\cdot {{r}_{EM}}\cdot {{r}_{E}}-{{r}_{E}}^{2}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}-{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}\cdot {{F}_{0}}=\frac{2\cdot {{r}_{EM}}\cdot {{r}_{E}}-{{r}_{E}}^{2}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}-{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}\cdot {{F}_{0}}$

and

$\displaystyle {{T}_{far}}=\frac{{{r}_{EM}}^{2}-{{r}_{EM}}^{2}-2\cdot {{r}_{EM}}\cdot {{r}_{E}}-{{r}_{E}}^{2}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}+{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}\cdot {{F}_{0}}=\frac{-2\cdot {{r}_{EM}}\cdot {{r}_{E}}-{{r}_{E}}^{2}}{{{\left( {{r}_{EM}}+{{r}_{E}} \right)}^{2}}}\cdot {{F}_{0}}$

The sign on $\displaystyle {{T}_{far}}$ is negative. That means the force (with respect to the Earth) is pointing away from the Moon.

We can calculate the relative magnitude of the tidal forces (without actually calculating $\displaystyle {{F}_{0}}$ ). If we set $\displaystyle {{r}_{EM}}$ equal to 384,402 kilometers and $\displaystyle {{r}_{E}}$ equal to 6,371 kilometers we get:

$\displaystyle {{T}_{near}}=0.03399\cdot {{F}_{0}}$

and

$\displaystyle {{T}_{far}}=-0.03234\cdot {{F}_{0}}$

The ratios of the two forces are:

$\displaystyle {{T}_{near}}:{{T}_{far}}=1:-0.9515$

The far side of the Earth has a tidal force that is about 5% less due to the Moon. The Sun has a similar tidal force on the Earth, but its effect is about half that of the Moon.

Jim

Kyle in Upstate NY

Reply to Michael

October 25, 2019 5:24 pm

The Big Bang is not impossible. Remember, Big Bang theory doesn’t address who or what created the universe, just that about 13 billion Earth years ago, the universe was in a very compressed state, from which it then suddenly expanded outward. Most all of the observational evidence shows this.

anna v

October 17, 2019 11:00 pm

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,”

Sure, I have just been looking on a question of the matter antimatter asymmetry in our present universe, and that is something that we do not know, it would affect CMB interpretations, and not galaxy etc motions at our level. Our present observations look at the universe after baryon number violation, except for the CMB view.

I have just been looking at Sakharov’s conditions for baryon asymmetry https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Sakharov_condition#targetText=Noun&targetText=(physics)%20Any%20of%20the%20three,interactions%20out%20of%20thermal%20equilibrium. namely the third “nteractions out of thermal equilibrium.” Those would affect the CMB intepretation.

Roland

October 17, 2019 11:08 pm

I know I don’t comment often, and usually when I do, it is on this topic, but I have yet to get a real response from someone with the knowledge to answer these questions…and I don’t really many other science sites that actually allow comments…but this begs the question again…

How do we know that redshift due to expansion is actually due to expansion and not some property of light at vast distances of travel? Is the photon losing energy because of some magic expansion more likely than some other possible form of decay? Don’t cite conservation of energy, because the redshifted photon IS losing energy, everyone just assumed expansion is why, I just don’t understand where that energy goes either.

I read a recent article about neutrinos, and how scientists say they must have a non-zero mass or they would have not slowed down enough to fit the current model of the big bang…why would having mass slow them down? I don’t know. If having mass can slow down neutrinos, at hundreds of thousandths the mass of an electron, would a photon, if it really was not massless, but another order of magnitude lighter than a neutrino, also slow down?

Seriously, this is driving me nuts, and the more I read the worse it gets… any help would be appreciated. At the very least, if anyone knows someone I could discuss this with, would love the help

Roland

Chaswarnertoo

Reply to Roland

October 18, 2019 12:30 am

A QI moment. Nobody knows! IMHO.

anna v

Reply to Roland

October 18, 2019 1:12 am

One does not rely on cosmology to study the photon. The photon has been studied since last century when black body radiation could not be explained by Maxwell’s clasisical electrodynamics, i.e. the LABORATORY measurements and observations disagreed with the classical theory, and for this reason, among others, quantum mechanics gradually emerged as the underlying framework of all nature. That is what mainstream physics is now. The model is continually validated in laboratory experiments. Cosmic observations rely on this validation.

The quantum electrodynamic model uses mathematics and specific postulates , laws and principles that allow to pick those solutions of the differential equations that fit the data. The velocity of light being constant is a result of both classical and quantum electrodynamics, the change in frequency with respect to the observer’s non inertial frame also. Everything is fitted with mathematical solutions and is continually validated by laboratory experiments and observations.

A cosmological model for the photon that would give it different properties than the ones in our present framework is a scenario that is not consistent with the scientific method,UNLESS it is written up in strict mathematical terms, and fits the data we have in the laboratory at our framework. This is not a reasonable choice of research matter, imo .

Energy is conserved within a given inertial frame. Again mathematics enters on how different inertial frames behave with respect to energy. Expansion is consecutive inertial frames , not the same, and there are mathematical models on how motion affects the photons, with the Doppler effect
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/reldop2.html , also checked in the laboratory. In our present cosmological models all the energy/mass of the universe comes from the Big Bang.

Unless you put a lot of elbow grease to delve into the mathematics you will not be able to clear up your questions.

Roland

Reply to anna v

October 18, 2019 1:44 am

Thank you for your reply! I will read up from the link you provided tonight. However…some quick thoughts…

All known research on photon properties has been at tiny scales compared to the millions of light-year distances and times required for red shift. Even at those distances the shift is not really large.

In the same vein, my understanding is that even if it was caused by expansion, we wouldn’t be able to prove that here on Earth either, because we are in a gravitationally bound system. So we are back to two possible solutions that cannot be proven or disproven at this point that I know of. One is definitely more elegant than the other…

I understand Doppler shifts and frame shifts, and frame dragging (more or less, conceptually at least)…and how some describe expansion as universal frame dragging in all directions…But that sounds like some sort of magical non-answer to me.

I am not a cosmologist, or an astrophysicist, I am just and engineer…I don’t have the skill set to check if any of my thoughts are legitimate…but if they are not, am hoping it is because there is some firm evidence, rather than just “because”.

The universe should be based on physics, not metaphysics…otherwise we are still in the world of the ether and corpuscular mediums.

Thanks,
Roland

anna v

Reply to Roland

October 18, 2019 10:54 am

Physics theories are based on observations and they are always open to falsification by new observations. As we have a more or less “simple” theory in the standard model, it is only a falsification that will make a change in the theory imperative.

For example we went with Maxwell’s electrodynamics until it was falsified in a certain phase space, and we had to introduce quantum electrodynamics. BUT it can be shown that the classical emerges from the quantum mathematics. New theories and their laws and postulates should naturally blend with the old ones, because the old ones were based on the then observations which are still valid.

Roland

Reply to anna v

October 20, 2019 7:21 am

That’s fine and good, but much like Einstein and his hatred of his cosmological constant, which had no meaning other than to make the math work, I am not a fan of things that people just invent and say it must be there because it makes my math work.

Dark matter is just “something” as is dark energy, and the standard model really doesn’t have a place for either of them, theyre just used to make the math work….

Alan Tomalty

October 18, 2019 12:05 am

The Big Bang, cosmic background radiation ,string theory, black holes, dark energy, dark matter, gravitational waves, theory of relativity general and special, Higgs boson, 100% gaseous stars. They are all figments of cosmologists imagination.
Astrophysics and cosmology is a bigger farce than climate science.

Mark - Helsinki

Reply to Alan Tomalty

October 18, 2019 1:48 am

Sadly, there is more truth in what you have just said than most would admit.

I’ve been trying to explain this for 10 years, often on here on the space articles.
Dogmatic interpretations.

Even when you try explain that in fact no one has ever detected the Higgs boson, they don’t even understand that, they think we have detected it even though by definition the alleged particle doesn’t survive long enough to be detected. A signal, that could have come from the equipment, software, or some other reason, was interpreted as the higgs boson just like a signal was interpreted as gravitational waves by the LIGO team.

Let me quote BICEPII team when they claimed they found gravitational waves.
“It’s not that we were wrong, its that we over interpreted the results”.
Even in rare cases when we can prove them wrong, they won’t admit it.

The problem with humans is admitting defeat after 5 years and millions or billions spent, is extremely difficult, and the willingness to avoid the humiliation will lead to all sorts of fantastical self delusions

Reply to Alan Tomalty

October 18, 2019 1:49 am

Agreed but at least they’re not doing too much harm – in contrast with the climatology cult which is going to cost us the Earth (no pun intended)

Kyle in Upstate NY

Reply to Alan Tomalty

October 25, 2019 5:29 pm

Why do you say they are all figments of the imagination? Most of them are incredibly well-supported by solid science. String theory is not as that isn’t really science, but things like the Big Bang, black holes, general relativity, etc…are incredibly well-supported. In fact, general relativity itself is one of THE most well-supported things in all of science.

October 18, 2019 1:30 am

Physicists should refer this issue to a climate scientist, particularly one of those well practised in manipulating the data to get the answer required.

flynn

October 18, 2019 2:14 am

blame CO2.

bonbon

October 18, 2019 2:38 am

The more they check, the more Halton Arp was right. Quasars with very different redshifts than coupled galaxies, showing a stepped values are well documented in “Seeing Red”.
The new James Webb infrared telescope will definitely shake up things!
Even Hubble originally did not attribute redshift to Doppler.
The entire big bang theatric, “cosmic egg” comes from Lemaitre, a Belgian Jesuit. A good friend of Einstein, who remarked it was the best creation story he ever heard, but the physics was questionable.
So some here who claim the big bang somehow refutes the Bible, are being disingenuous.

I take Einstein’s comment, who got the Nobel for the photoelectric effect, that anyone who says they understand the photon is mistaken, seriously.

As far as I can see the climate crowd have taken their cue from the big-bangers.

bonbon

October 18, 2019 3:24 am

I know Einsteins most famous quote : The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is it’s comprehensibility”. Why is it built is such fashion that we can, confusedly, even begin to understand?

This kind of thing happened before when Eddington measured gravitational light aberration.
The New York Times headline was: “Lights All Askew in the heavens. Men of Science More or Less Agog over Results of Eclipse Observations. Stars Not Where They Seemed or Calculated To Be, but Nobody Need Worry. A Book for Twelve Wise Men. No more in all the world could comprehend it said Einstein, when his daring publishers accepted it.”

Unfortunately this time Physics has no Einstein to comprehend what is going on.

Sara

October 18, 2019 3:59 am

Oh, come on, you guys! There’s a massive amount we don’t know about our own planet. WE didn’t know about sprites and jets and other odd Earth-born discharges until the astronauts photographed them from the space station, so what’s the Big Deal here, huh?

Every time we think we’ve found all the answers, more questions pop up, and something else is “discovered” and we’re off again. We don’t even know if the Universe is One, or One Of Many, or Just How Big this Universe really is, because the most distant light a telescope can pick up is some red shift blobs that are 13.5 billion light years away.

What’s the big deal here, anyway?

M__ S__

October 18, 2019 4:06 am

I’ll believe a direct measurement over a model every time. Cepheids offer a MORE direct measurement, although everything depends on one assumption or another.

Holly T

October 18, 2019 4:31 am

This is all because 5 times 9 is not 42.

JeffH

October 18, 2019 5:06 am

Science: If it’s ever “settled”, then you’re doing it wrong.

Patrick MJD

October 18, 2019 5:10 am

I think this calls for another Monty Python moment;

Leitwolf

October 18, 2019 6:08 am

Aristoteles: I know that I know nothing

Science today: is it possible there is something we dont know?

Frank Baginski

October 18, 2019 6:24 am

Arp was right. Once they got the red shift wrong then a whole series of dominos fell in the wrong direction. Even our understanding of light is completely wrong. Go back to Maxwell, Faraday, Heaviside, Tesla, and Steinmetz and start over. I have read their books and we turn a bad turn because of Einstein.

bonbon

Reply to Frank Baginski

October 18, 2019 6:48 am

Planck changed everything in 1901. Then Einstein solved the photolectric effect in 1905, go a Nobel .
But Einstein remarked that anyone who claims to understand the photon is posturing.

Planck and Einstein solved 2 huge problems with Maxwell. The Hubble redshift being doppler is now leaking.

There’s more to the Photon than meets the eye! (even if it takes 2 photons to elicit a retina signal(.

Frank Baginski

Reply to bonbon

October 18, 2019 11:31 pm

The wrong turn was to dismiss a medium in which electromagnetic effects seem to cause action at a distance. Our lack of understanding of gravity is a clear indication that at some foundational level we have it all wrong. To truly know how things work means you can explain what we see in simple terms. QM is an indication that we don’t know much at all. To post that we have now found another meaningless particle is an exercise of the ego and does nothing to advance science. It is a sad thing to watch as billions are thrown down a rat hole.

bonbon

Reply to bonbon

October 19, 2019 4:45 am

Maxwell wrote in a letter he would never accept “continental” geometry, meaning Riemann.
Einstein took up exactly that and revolutionized physics.
Spacetime and gravity were shown to be essentially the same, energy and mass also, waves and particles too.
Suddenly all the sense-certainty settled-science is thrown out the window.
Nostalgia, anyone?
No wonder the hapless search for certainty, with the science-is-settled mantra of climate and big-bang.

I see the entire climate circus as aftershock, post traumatic stress syndrome.

Science is indeed a mortal threat to any empire based on sense-certainty. That empire has PTSD, is reeling just as its finance implodes. And Bank of England Green Finance Initiative Mark Carney is some kind of banking shaman?

Severian

October 18, 2019 6:44 am

“And, as a new paper shows, those discrepancies have gotten larger in recent years, even as the measurements have gotten more precise.”

And there it is again…more precise. Precision and accuracy are two different but now commonly conflated things. I blame the advent of digital displays on everything. When you had to squint at a slide rule to try and suss out accuracy of a calculation to one decimal place you got a better understanding of this than just slapping a calculation into a calculator and seeing 7 decimal places or such. As in a caliper, do you really think that digital display showing you measurement to 4 decimal places is real? When you have to try and read the number off of a scale like a slide rules you understand that the precision is not justified.

Jean Parisot

October 18, 2019 6:54 am

Would not one expect two different wavebands to respond to gravitational lensing effects differently? A similar effect is the different responses to atmospheric fades by different optical frequencies in free space laser propagation.

beng135

October 18, 2019 7:05 am

Nice post — astronomy sites have been discussing this lately. No clue myself what’s going on other than it may only be a measurement issue, or it may be a fundamental misunderstanding in physics. The James Webb telescope might be accurate enough to eliminate measurement questions.

But these astronomy/cosmology posts sure do bring out alot of clueless know-it-alls that actually know nothing.

Christopher Paino

October 18, 2019 7:15 am

Because models.

beng135

October 18, 2019 7:23 am

Identified the cover-pic star (wish the linked site would have done it) — a big ole’ Cepheid Variable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS_Puppis

SeanC

October 18, 2019 7:52 am

Big Bang is completely wrong to start with. It’s hard to get anything right on the heels of that BS theory.

Bill Taylor

Reply to SeanC

October 18, 2019 8:24 am

exactly, how can any”scientist” think all the matter in the universe was in one TINY location, and then suddenly exploded…….that is IDIOCY

John Tillman

Reply to Bill Taylor

October 18, 2019 3:10 pm

No scientist who has ever studied cosmic inflation thinks that.

The hypothesized initial, gravitational singularity, of seemingly infinite density, was not of matter, but contained all the energy (mass) and space-time of the universe. It didn’t “explode”, but quantum fluctuations caused it rapidly to expand at the Big Bang and during subsequent inflation, creating the present-day universe.

“Matter” as presently understood didn’t emerge until the universe had cooled enough for subatomic particles and H atoms to form.

The issue is whether its expansion is accelerating, and if so, at what speed.

Jon Jewett

October 18, 2019 8:09 am

Whether you are Christian, or Zoroastrian, or Hindu, or even Athiest, you will find this of interest.

Dr. Jordon Peterson explores the concept of God. The first of a series. (The human mind is every bit as complicated as the universe and as fascinating. Try it out, it costs nothing.)

https://youtu.be/f-wWBGo6a2w

Roland

October 18, 2019 8:30 am

Ugh, please don’t lump me in with the creationists, lumpy spacers, people that think the milky way is special and attracts light, or any other person that thinks this should be complicated….

Magic mass and magic energy seem just as far fetched to me.

I just want to know how can a linear red shift due to expansion can be differentiated by a photon drag from a relatively uniform matter distribution in space, or a linear decay of some sort (or transformation such as assumed with neutrinos).

I am aware of the tolman surface brightness test, and how it supposedly rules out “tired photons”, but it also doesn’t really match expectations for expansion either.

These comments have given me a lot more keywords and topics to research (when on topic), so as one not in the loop has helped a lot….but still cant find the explanations I am looking for…

Thanks,
Roland

McGehee

October 18, 2019 8:47 am

The universe was created by a committee, most members of which avoided all the meetings because there were no donuts.

« Previous 1 2 3 Next »

wpDiscuz

Welcome to Watts Up With That, one of the most well-known climate blogs! We gather the latest scientific research, news, and expert opinion to help you understand how our planet is changing and what implications it may have for humanity. Our approach is based on facts, objective analysis, and open discussions about one of the most critical issues of our time. Watts up with that climate and what changes await us – let’s figure it out together!

Watts Up With That covers a wide range of topics related to climate change and its impact on the world. Here’s what’s important to us:

Global warming – its causes, consequences, and future forecasts.
Analysis of current climate research and its findings.
Climate change news.
Extreme weather events – hurricanes, droughts, floods, and their connection to climate change.
The impact of different energy sources on the environment and the development of sustainable technologies.
Political and economic aspects and how states and international organizations respond to climate change.

Watts Up With That?

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

Like this:

Get notified when a new post is published.

Share this:

Like this:

Related Posts

The Problem with ‘Peer Review’

Human Evolution: ‘Our Ultimate Fate Comes Down to… Three Possibilities’

Models & Lab Studies

The Trump Administration’s Fight To Fund Scientists