ASTRONOMERS CRUNCH NUMBERS, UNIVERSE GETS BIGGER

Ohio State University ^ | 03 August 2006 | Staff (press release)

[MHGinTN]

And God said to the space and time He contracted from Himself, "Know they self", and the whole thing just blew up!

[longshadow]

Proof that Hollywood has a parasitical relationship with science!

[dinoparty]

I say if angels can dance on the point of a needle, then they can travel faster than light too.

[adorno]

In two years, the universe will be older still, and they will have to start over.

In the distant future or maybe sooner, astronomers will discover that there is no beginning and there is no end.

[RightWhale]

Careful, might start sounding like Hegel, or even Heidegger. No one will understand you at all!

[dinoparty]

But the previous poster said that there is nothingness that is NOT space. After all, is space considered "something"?

[dinoparty]

Why is there being and not nothing? LOL

[Orbiter]

How'd ya figger our your Freeper number?

[TexasCajun]

And haven't I read where the universe is composed of something like 14 dimensions, not just 3 or 4?

What are the odds of another TexasCajun in an alternate universe, only taller and more handsome?

[PatrickHenry]

I'd like to know how they ruled out dust/absorption as the explanation for the dimmer-than-expected light.

I'd guess that it's pretty much factored into such observations.

And without lots of confirmatory observations, how can they infer that ALL distances to ALL galaxies, and hence the Hubble constant, is wrong?

The article says they're going to do more.

Moreover, M33 seems too close to use as an indicator of the Hubble constant; local motion can easily swamp it, as is the case for Andromeda, which is at a comparable distance.

My very fast (and thus worthless) research suggests that using eclipsing binaries, you get a solid reading on mass, thus an excellent clue as to what the absolute brightness should be. It gets a bit shaky from there, as your first question indicates. I don't see any indication that local motion affects anything. Maybe redshift, but that's not involved here. It's an independent method.

Or am I missing something here?

It's likely that I am. We need RadioAstronomer, but he's out of town.

[dinoparty]

At which point, they will say "what a friggin' waste of time all that was." LOL

[RightWhale]

There is no place in the universe that doesn't have something in it. At least photons of some wavelength. The ultimate background is at a temperature of 3 above absolute zero, so that (microwaves) is always there. It's not much, really, but it is definitely not nothing.

[dinoparty]

What if there is another dimension where logic, reason and all sensory observation is invalid. do-do-do-do, do-do-do-do (twilight zone theme)

[longshadow]

How'd ya figger our your Freeper number?

It's the 5th root of the absolute magnitude of the binary stars in Triangulum....

;-)

More seriously, click on the "In Forum" link on any FReeper Home Page, and look at the window at the top of your browser: it will be searching FR using their FReeper number. I think you are #2511....

[RightWhale]

Why questions assume an intelligence with purpose. How questions are more appropriate to dead physics. Even Heidegger forgot sometimes and asked why questions even though of anybody he would know better than to drop into the idiomatic in a philosophy monograph.

[dinoparty]

Again, though, doesn't that beg the question as to what exists OUTSIDE of the known universe? Is there nothing SOMEWHERE? Is it possible? (Somewhat serious question)

[longshadow]

We need RadioAstronomer, but he's out of town.

Doing the Grand Master's bidding again, no doubt.....

[lepton]

When the universe was 1.5 billion years old, during Einstein's day, earth was also 1.5 billion years old. To Einstein that was kind of a problem.

Similar to the problem of the oldest stars being 16-20 Billion years old, and the universe being 12-14 Billion years old.

[RightWhale]

There are 26 dimensions in string theory. Is there any reason why one would think there are three (or four for Minkowskyites)?

[dinoparty]

I think Heidegger purposefully included the "why". He did this because, in order to understand the world, we need to understand ourselves. Even our most "objective" observations of the world/universe are influenced by the purposes that compel us to observe with our senses and reason with our minds...and we can't talk about purposes without asking the "why" question.