Posted on 05/19/2019 7:11:57 AM PDT by BenLurkin
By 2013, the European Planck space telescope's detailed measurements of cosmic radiation seemed to have yielded the final answer: 13.8 billion years old. All that was left to do was to verify that number using independent observations of bright stars in other galaxies.
Then came an unexpected turn of events.
A few teams, including one led by Nobel laureate Adam Riess of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, set out to make those observations. Instead of confirming Planck's measurements, they started getting a distinctly different result.
At first, the common assumption was that Riess and the other galaxy-watchers had made a mistake. But as their observations continued to come in, the results didn't budge. Reanalysis of the Planck data didn't show any problems, either.
If all the numbers are correct, then the problem must run deeper. It must lie in our interpretation of those numbers — that is, in our fundamental models of how the universe works.
The latest galaxy studies indicate an expansion rate about 9 percent faster than the answer from Planck. That might not sound like much of a disagreement, but over cosmic history it adds up to that full billion years of lost time.
The "tension" reminds scientists of just how much they still don't understand about the underlying laws of nature. Dunkley points to the ghostly particles known as neutrinos, which are extremely abundant throughout space. "We measure neutrinos in the lab and put them in our cosmological model assuming that they are behaving just as we expect them to, but we simply don't know if that's true," she says. "I wouldn't find it surprising if dark matter turned out to be more complicated than we think, too."
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
So what’s a billion years among friends?
Let’s not get drunk and fight over it.
5.56mm
Well, at least they got it right this time. /s
in other words, they have been wrong all the other times, but now they got it.
We know what we know, but we must admit there is infinitely more we do not know or understand, and all that we do not know, once any of it is known, could change what we think we understand now.
All our science keeps doing is peeling back another layer of the infinite onion of informatio about the universe.
new universal law:
The more something is observed, the less it likes to be observed; the less something likes to be observed, the more it changes.
Its not a matter of privacy, but of survival. Survival is the ultimate goal; hiding is the best strategy.
And what is the universe expanding into?
Well said. That about sums it up.
So do you prefer: Whitehead’s theory, Brans–Dicke theory, teleparallelism, f(R) gravity and Einstein–Cartan theory?
If you do, why?
The picture generated of a black hole was a computer generated compilation from programed, observed and statistically derived data. It was not a direct picture as a photographer may take. It is not “proof” of the existence of black holes any more than “photos” of UFOs are proof that aliens in mechanical devices somehow transversed the incomprehensible distances of many light years.
Since scientists can’t seem to decide on what it was, maybe they should concentrate on trying to figure out what it will be. That might be more productive and actually earn the grants.
rwood
“It was not a direct picture as a photographer may take. It is not “proof” of the existence of black holes any more than “photos” of UFOs are proof that aliens in mechanical devices somehow transversed the incomprehensible distances of many light years.”
OK, but...
1. It was something
2. I hear you saying you don’t know what it was
3. So it might have been a black hole
4. Others believed it to be a black hole.
And so it goes here on FR.
Yep and many thanks to Bill Robinson for all the fun.
It’s funny when they add billions or take billions out everybody scratches their head. But if you say “I believe was done in several 1000 years 10- 20 or whatever” they go apoplectic.
that’s impossible, they say.
In the end, through some cosmology that we do not yet understand, it will turn out that God’s inspired account was always EXACTLY right.
People who miscalculate in the magnitude order of billions... are akin to the jeering residents of Jericho encircled by israeli’s on day 6... just before the walls caved in.
They are not laughing anymore.
f(R) gravity? There is a cosmological theory named after this website? :)
The images you see in your mind are reconstructed in your brain from electric pulses sent by your eyes.
Direct pictures taken by photographers are also reconstructed from electric signals sent by sensors to a microcontroller.
That's pretty funny right there!
They’d better get a move on it...Won’t be long and all that stuff will be outta sight and they won’t be able to develop any more theories...
If it’s all expanding, why is nothing getting closer to earth???
I guess so!
Maybe the web site is named after the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F(R)_gravity
From the references I see 1970 (probably earlier!) so its pre-Internet. So in this chicken egg case the proposed theory came first not the web site.
There are a lot of them, all trying to do a better job then Einstein. (Einstein took some shots at trying to replace his theories.) Done to resolve “perceived problems” with the original. And the “problem list” changes as we measure more understand more etc., that’s called doing science! So far Einstein’s special & general relativity explains the most and hasn’t failed the attempts at testing it. (Which are done not infrequently!)
Theories come & go, rarely is a theory completely refuted. Usually its subsumed by a larger more complete theory that covers a wider section of the knowledge domain. (Which is dynamic too!).This larger theory will in turn be subsumed by a still larger one, ad infinitum. Closed bodies of “knowledge” are dogma not science.
Ok....at least we have some gravitas here. LOL
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.