Something Is Wrong, and It’s Not the Universe

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,286
Reaction score
16,033
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
The sound of settled science strikes again.

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.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,596
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,855
The sound of settled science strikes again.

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.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.
@moderators

Please move to religion section or rubber room
 
OP
Weatherman2020

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,286
Reaction score
16,033
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
The sound of settled science strikes again.

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.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.
@moderators

Please move to religion section or rubber room
Poor baby feels threatened.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,596
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,855
The sound of settled science strikes again.

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.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.
@moderators

Please move to religion section or rubber room
Poor baby feels threatened.
Haha...yeah, I'm scared of leprechauns, too. And unicorns.
 
OP
Weatherman2020

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,286
Reaction score
16,033
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
The sound of settled science strikes again.

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.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.
@moderators

Please move to religion section or rubber room
Poor baby feels threatened.
Haha...yeah, I'm scared of leprechauns, too. And unicorns.
Figures.
 

OldBiologist

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2019
Messages
115
Reaction score
37
Points
46
It doesn’t “point” to anything other than our lack of understanding. Lack of understanding is not proof of any deity, or even of anything supernatural. Lack of understanding is in fact not proof of ANYTHING, it is candid admission of ignorance. Here, give a listen to the first few minutes where a clear and simple explanation is given for “the argument from ignorance”.

Oh, and “settled science” is a phrase most commonly used by those who have little understanding of science.

 
Last edited:

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,716
Reaction score
580
Points
155
Fort Fun Indiana cannot withstand real science, and since he a small penis, will drop out.

Here is what has been found:

We have natural physical constants and with improvements to technology, these natural physical constants have been measure more accurately such as pi, the charge of an electron, the speed of light, Planck constant, and more. These improved measurements differ from previous measurements only slightly. For example, the speed of light or c was measured to be about 3.007x108 meters per second around 1750. In the 19th century, the measurements of the speed of light generally fell between 2.999 x 108 and 3.001 x 108 meters per second. If we assume that today's accepted value of 2.99792458 x 108 meters per second is correct, then the 18th century value differed from the 20th century value by only 0.3%.

The Hubble "variable" isn't a real physical constant, so we should not expect its value to be calculated as consistently as the speed of light has been.

Over the past 60 years, the calculated values of the Hubble "constant" shown in the table have varied far more than the measurements of the speed of light. This shows it is not really a constant.

hubble_constant_measurments.png


As we learn more about what is happening out there, then the age of universe will be adjusted. Hasn't it recently been adjusted downward instead of rising since Hubble?
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
63,978
Reaction score
15,549
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
The sound of settled science strikes again.

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.

“If we’re getting different answers that means that there’s something that we don’t know,” Mack told Live Science.

How the Universe Stopped Making Sense

And whatever that something turns out to be, it will point towards Genesis like every other scientific discovery has.





I'm not going to argue religion or not, but the fundamental theory of the Universe has always bothered me. I think it is far older than cosmologists currently think it is, and i have a problem with the big bang as a whole. If the Universe originated from a singularity, how can galaxies collide? How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,596
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,855
You know very well that the Hubble constant is really the Hubble variable.
Another madeup creationist talking point that you don't even understand. Your comment belongs in the religion section.
 
Last edited:

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,596
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,855
How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?
Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
63,978
Reaction score
15,549
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?
Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.





I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,596
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,855
How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?
Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.





I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.
If those rocks were large enough and close enough together, and you waited long enough...

...yes, you would eventually see a rock moving at 90 degrees to the direction of the blast, due to gravity

In fact, you can look at the planets in the night sky and watch them do this every single night.

So, the problem in your observation is your technique, not the theory being tested.
 

westwall

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
63,978
Reaction score
15,549
Points
2,180
Location
Nevada
How is it possible for galaxies to not be all travelling away from each other in a giant sphere?
Because the expansion of space does not preclude any velocoties within it. Even a thrown baseball has a higher velocity relative to the thrower than it would simply due to the expansion of space.

You can check that yourself. Place a baseball on the ground and measure its velocity relative to you. Then throw it, and do the same.

The reason galaxies can collide is the same reason an object can fall to earth, instead of never reaching the ground due to the expansion of sace.





I have seen plenty of explosions in my life. Not once have I seen a rock travel at right angles to the direction of the blast.
If those rocks were large enough and close enough together, and you waited long enough...

...yes, you would eventually see a rock moving at 90 degrees to the direction of the blast, due to gravity

In fact, you can look at the planets in the night sky and watch them do this every single night.

So, the problem in your observation is your technique, not the theory being tested.




They would never pass at right angles to each other. Can't use gravitational influence either, at the big bang gravity would be nearly non existent so the blast would spread equally in all directions. No way for an interaction.

The planetary perturbations you describe don't apply. They are well governed by gravity now.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,596
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,855
They would never pass at right angles to each other
False. Every single night a planet moving about the Sun is moving perpendicular to the Sun's velocity relative to some object in the universe.

But, I should stop stringing you along. You are making a huge, fundamental error. While you are wrong even within the incorrect model you have constructed for the sake of discussion, your entire diatribe is, in fact, nonsensical. There is no "direction of explosion". One cannot point in a specific direction and say they are pointing to the origin point of the explosion. That is not how the expansion of space works. There is no "center" of our universe.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
40,596
Reaction score
3,646
Points
1,855
westwall

Consider a simplistic analogue:

Reduce the dimensions of space from 3 to 2. Imagine all of space as the surface of a balloon. Imagine dots drawn on the balloon. Then, inflate the balloon. All the dots are moving away from each other, as their "space" (the two-dimensional surface of the balloon) expands.

There is no "direction of explosion" in this 2D space.
 
OP
Weatherman2020

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,286
Reaction score
16,033
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
westwall

Consider a simplistic analogue:

Reduce the dimensions of space from 3 to 2. Imagine all of space as the surface of a balloon. Imagine dots drawn on the balloon. Then, inflate the balloon. All the dots are moving away from each other, as their "space" (the two-dimensional surface of the balloon) expands.

There is no "direction of explosion" in this 2D space.
How 2D of you.
Fact remains, we know very little about the universe, and people teach sheeples like you to parrot nonsense conclusions.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
7,716
Reaction score
580
Points
155
You know very well that the Hubble constant is really the Hubble variable.
Another madeup creationist talking point that you don't even understand. Your comment belongs in the religion section.
:auiqs.jpg:, you have not been keeping up.

I still remember you talking about your telescope and camera which led to others describing their telescope and camera setup. It seemed theirs were bigger than yours and suddenly you stopped talking.

Anyway, the Hubble constant is not constant -- ESA Science & Technology - Latest Hubble measurements suggest disparity in Hubble constant calculations is not a fluke [heic1908].

This article describing a younger universe by a billion years backs my argument up -- The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought. Scientists are scrambling to figure out why..
 
Last edited:
OP
Weatherman2020

Weatherman2020

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
60,286
Reaction score
16,033
Points
2,250
Location
Left Coast, Classified
You know very well that the Hubble constant is really the Hubble variable.
Another madeup creationist talking point that you don't even understand. Your comment belongs in the religion section.
:auiqs.jpg:, you have not been keeping up.

I still remember you talking about your telescope and camera which led to others describing their telescope and camera setup. It seemed theirs were bigger than yours and suddenly you stopped talking.

Anyway, the Hubble constant is not constant -- ESA Science & Technology - Latest Hubble measurements suggest disparity in Hubble constant calculations is not a fluke [heic1908].
No wonder he hates me, mine is 11”.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top