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 ...
There is no “settled science” when it comes to cosmology.
Keep trying.
Most of theoretical physics is just that; theoretical. Thus far there is no conclusive experimental proof to confirm the big bang theory or even the actual existence of black holes. Nevertheless still very fascinating speculations.
It “could” be a billion-fold older than 13.8 billion years.
It’s 13.8 currently because some formula (remember glowbull warming models) theorizes it must be.
Money quote: The “tension” reminds scientists of just how much they still don’t understand about the underlying laws of nature. This is what science is once the egos and agendas are pulled off the table. A faint breath of honesty is refreshing.
I am feeling younger now.
Well, what’s the consensus and which side are the deniers so we can get on with the hangings?
Man’s science is flawed. I’m not a scientist, but I can tell you when the universe was created, Genesis chapter 1.
The concept of an infinite thing, “The Universe”, having an age in the first place to me is ridiculous. Trying to put mortal constraints on a timeless and endless thing seems an exercise in futility IMHO.
So, does this mean the universe isn’t/might not be accelerating in its expansion or is it another topic altogether? At least these scientists realize that once they have enough data, old ‘constants” may not be what they originally thought and they work hard to get a little closer with each regeneration of theories (and maybe even theorems if applicable)...
Dark Matter is the Mind of God, ever present yet unknowable, by inference, the root of all existence, expanding, and with it space itself, to limits unfathomable.
Here we sit with our toys and trinkets, seeking some knowledge that ever escapes our chicken bones and tea leaves. We believe in our wisdom but have none, none, that is, but for one salient factoid,
God is Great and God is Love. All else is foppery. Oh, yes, and one more thing. God hates foppery.
Small means expanding slower? Does that mean that the expansion is slow enough that the universe is closed, that is, that gravity will win and the universe will eventually collapse back on itself in a Big Crunch?
Does that the need for dark matter/dark energy is reduced or eliminated?
There is no “settled science” period. But unlike global warming, cosmology is not polluted by politics. We don’t have to blindly accept one answer or blindly disagree either. We can honestly look at discrepancies and determine if the theory needs to be modified. That’s how it has gone since the start. Global warming is a golden fleece of the political left, however. To doubt it is the political equivalent to sacrilege.
In today's climate, there is always a need for "settled science"...
“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.”
General relativity is bunk, and so is all that follows from it. Until they get past this they will never have numbers that add up absent fraud.
The Peculiar Blindness of Experts
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/how-to-predict-the-future/588040/
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.