/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.14970406]

Is the universe expanding?

[Anonymous No.14970422]

Interpreting the observations in some of our models would seem to suggest so

[Anonymous No.14970435]

>>14970422
Thanks!

[non No.14970894]

>>14970406
you know, i have doubts that the universe is expanding, but vague doubts. i have a hunch it may be too tiny for its expansion to matter. even though the universe is huge, it is still smaller than other things.

[Anonymous No.14970944]

>>14970894
Please name these things.

[Aether king of sci No.14970950]

No contrary to popular thought it's retracting, becoming smaller, but fat chance in hell you'll make any of these star dosers understand!!!

[Anonymous No.14970956]

>>14970406
>Interpreting the observations in some of our models would seem to suggest so
Academic version of "we do not know".

[Anonymous No.14970958]

>>14970406
It’s probably expanding, but I am skeptical that the expansion is speeding up.

[Aether king of sci No.14970968]

>>14970406
You think it came from a bang? Are you serious? Then all known bangs end in retraction. You think this bang is somehow different. I'm gonna bang in a moment.

[Anonymous No.14970981]

>>14970944
>Please name these things.
Not him, expansion must work in 3 dimensions because Hubble constant is valid in each direction. Can't only work on z axis (towards you wich is observed/base of the theory), must work in x and y too ( energy or intensity loss) by hubble-constant^3. Further the objects must appear greater on every image using some kind of lens wich isn't observed. Conclusion, expansion and big bang need a little work.
Will pass on the nobel-prize to the few here who are worth discussing with, even and especially if they have a different opinion than me.

[Anonymous No.14971510]

>>14970406

No. When all you had was Einstein's "gravitational redshift" hammer in your tool box, everything looked like a hammer related problem. Even Hubble had his doubts towards the end of his life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011APS..APR.K1019B/abstract

[Anonymous No.14971660]

>>14970406
That is the most commonly accepted interpretation of phenomena like red shift, but truth is that no one really knows for certain. I always liked Paul Marmets ramblings about stuff like this, my man is still dabbing on BBT in his afterlife on newtonphysics.on.ca

[Anonymous No.14971664]

>>14970406
Consciousness can neither be created nor destroyed and by the theory of panpsychism we know that consciousness fills the universe. This proves that the universe is not expanding.

[Anonymous No.14971801]

>>14970406
The reason our observable universe is moving away from each other is that the fabric of space-time flows in one direction from the center point. The Big Bang/Crunch is the concentration of all matter, energy and forces at a single point. This point is the center of the universe as known as singularity.

[Anonymous No.14971871]

[Anonymous No.14971900]

>>14970981
You named nothing.

[Anonymous No.14971957]

>>14970981
Best post

[Anonymous No.14972001]

>>14970406
there might be other universes
https://www.reddit.com/r/TechnologyAndAliens/comments/ypzufg/the_space_war/

[Anonymous No.14972809]

>>14972001
>>>/r/eddit

[Anonymous No.14974306]

bump

[Anonymous No.14974440]

>>14970406
Thread theme
https://youtu.be/TVkPJA2Y6oE

[Anonymous No.14974460]

>>14970981
>Hubble constant
>6 sigma discrepancies in its "observed" value
yeah maybe we should stop calling it "constant"

[Anonymous No.14974565]

>>14974460
The Hubble constant is the current time value of the Hubble parameter. The Hubble parameter was never assumed to be constant, and varys significantly in standard cosmology. Maybe do the slightest research before talking out your ass

[Anonymous No.14974615]

>>14974460
>yeah maybe we should stop calling it "constant"
Sure, it is debatable but afaik there is a trend at minimum. Doesn't matter either, the whole expansion theory is easy to refute see my post before.
But is is not a science thing, many more theories of public interest are at least questionable. Nobody cares, people want answers to "the big questions. Rebutting popsci have one reaction. "Do you have something better?" . Surely not, you just meddled with some human bullshit. And in case of if, who will give this unpleasant species fodder from which they tinker only the next weapon for the purpose of "bilateral" extinction?

[Anonymous No.14974632]

>>14970406
Yep, infintely. Just one small taste of Gods infinite creative power: He is so all powerful, he can literally create space. We are inside of God right now, if that helps one visualize it better. Kind of funny people mock Him. They will answer for it eventually, everyone does.

[Anonymous No.14974636]

>>14972001
And you might be a soiboy

>>14971801
Just a theory, and a bad one at that.

[Anonymous No.14974731]

>>14974636
It's not a theory; but hypothesis. We cannot totally know pre-Big Bang for now. We can only assume.

[Anonymous No.14974755]

>>14970956
Then explain the doppler effect in all observations.

[Anonymous No.14974787]

>>14971510
a) Expansion is not simply gravitational redshift.
b) Hubble rejected expansion from the beginning because his measurements implied an impossibly young universe. In the end it was his measurements at fault, decades later interstellar dust was discovered and corrected for.
c) plasma cosmology is dead. Alfven actual plasma cosmology was an expanding one. You don't even know what you're promoting.
d) Brynjolfsson's model is erroneous. Not only does it violate the laws of thermodynamics but there is a schoolboy mistake in his derivation. There's a reason it's on the arXiv and not a real journal.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7393481#post7393481

[Anonymous No.14974973]

>>14974787
Best post ITT! Thank you, anon!

[Anonymous No.14974982]

>>14974565
It's supposed to be constant in space you pedant.
>Maybe do the slightest research before talking out your ass
Maybe pull your head out of yours?

>>14974615
>Sure, it is debatable but afaik there is a trend at minimum
When there's discrepancies cemented into the very core of the subject we need to start asking if those trends are illusions.

[Anonymous No.14975129]

>>14970406
Is the net temp warm or colder?

[Anonymous No.14975586]

>>14974982
>It's supposed to be constant in space you pedant.
And where did you show that spatial variation can solve the Hubble tension?

[Anonymous No.14976352]

>>14975586
>And where did you show that spatial variation can solve the Hubble tension?
>desperately trying to save face from his stupid post by deflecting to something else
Where did I claim it would "solve" it? It would falsify the Hubble parameter itself more than likely. If there's some unknown variation in the fabric of space we'd have to restart most of cosmology theory from scratch. Calling it "constant" is becoming more and more of an ad hoc excuse to save Hubble's law and avoid this restart.

[Anonymous No.14976684]

>>14976352
If it doesn't solve it then there's no basis for variation, and no reason to jump to the assumption that it isn't constant.
>to save Hubble's law
Hubbles law is known to be wrong. It's wrong even in standard cosmology. It is a local approximation. It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.14977128]

>>14976684
>If it doesn't solve it then there's no basis for variation
dogmatic gibberish. Like I said, the other option is resetting everything. There is no need to pigeonhole this into your either or fallacy where it can only be a real phenomenon if it nicely fits into other current explanations.
>and no reason to jump to the assumption that it isn't constant
Except for, ya know, those darn discrepancies.
>Hubbles law is known to be wrong. It's wrong even in standard cosmology
It's a general yet inexact trend. Saying it's wrong is desperation.
>It is a local approximation
Cool story bro
>Most astronomers believe that Hubble's Law does, however, hold true for a large range of distances in the universe
https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html
>It's almost like you have no idea what you're talking about
It's adorable how you keep trying to save face by grasping at straws. You said something pedantically stupid in your first response, just get over it already instead of digging the hole deeper.

[Anonymous No.14977260]

>>14977128
>dogmatic gibberish. Like I said, the other option is resetting everything.
Basic logic is not dogmatism. And people have been working on alternative cosmologies for longer than expansion has been around. All of the known ones come with much more serious issues than the Hubble tension.
>Except for, ya know, those darn discrepancies.
And this was my point, a discrepancy doesn't come with a label that says "spatially inhomogeneous expansion". You are making that assumption.
>Cool story bro
Why didn't you just say that you knew nothing about distances in cosmology. Pic related.
>Most astronomers believe that Hubble's Law does, however, hold true for a large range of distances in the universe
>https://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/redshift.html
Read the next fucking line, christ.
"It should be noted that, on very large scales, Einstein's theory predicts departures from a strictly linear Hubble law"
Maybe read what you post. And it's not just predicted, it is confirmed by SN data.

[Anonymous No.14977646]

>>14977260
>Basic logic is not dogmatism.
Your insistence that there's no basis for variation unless it solves the biggest problem with the current cosmology was the dogmatism. That isn't logic at all.
>And people have been working on alternative cosmologies for longer than expansion has been around. All of the known ones come with much more serious issues than the Hubble tension.
So? They'd need to be reset as well. Hence I said restart MOST of cosmology theory.
>And this was my point, a discrepancy doesn't come with a label that says "spatially inhomogeneous expansion". You are making that assumption.
hence I said MAYBE we should stop calling it constant
>Read the next fucking line
My quote said it holds for large ranges, not all ranges. Did you have a point in adding the redundant next sentence? It's not considered "wrong" like you falsely claimed. it's considered to hold true in regimes where it is applicable. The 'drag equation' isn't wrong just because it doesn't apply at low velocities as another simple example.
>Maybe read what you post
Maybe stop grasping at straws

[Anonymous No.14977695]

>>14977646
>Your insistence that there's no basis for variation unless it solves the biggest problem with the current cosmology was the dogmatism.
Nope, that's not what I said. You implied that variation was the implication of the Hubble tension. This is false, as I explained and you agreed below.
>So? They'd need to be reset as well. Hence I said restart MOST of cosmology theory.
Well let us know when you have an inhomogeneous cosmology with fewer problems than lambdaCDM.
>hence I said MAYBE we should stop calling it constant
Lol. What a cheap excuse. Maybe you're an idiot. Don't defend a claim and then just abandon it like this. You accused me of dogmatism for pointing out that it was a baseless assumption and now you say "yup".
>My quote said it holds for large ranges, not all ranges. Did you have a point in adding the redundant next sentence? It's not considered "wrong" like you falsely claimed. it's considered to hold true in regimes where it is applicable. The 'drag equation' isn't wrong just because it doesn't apply at low velocities as another simple example.
First of all let's laugh at the fact your "source" is a children's page on NASA from 20 years ago. Apparently that is the highest level you can comprehend.
>It's not considered "wrong" like you falsely claimed.
These are just empty weasel words. If reality departs from the linear law it's wrong. It is wrong in the same sense the Rayleigh Jeans law is wrong, they're both empirical approximations which fail.
Also remember when I said it's a local approximation and you said "Cool story bro", whereas now you agree with that statement. Maybe make your fucking mind up.

[Anonymous No.14977722]

Lmao look at these nerds argue with each other.

[Anonymous No.14977764]

>>14977128
>>14977260
>>14977646
>>14977695
samefagging weird fuck. Stop arguing with yourself.

[Anonymous No.14977870]

>>14977695
>Nope, that's not what I said
Let's fact check this:
You: "If it[variation] doesn't solve it[Hubble tension] then there's no basis for variation"
Me: "Your insistence that there's no basis for variation unless it solves [Hubble tension]"
Verdict: it's what you said
>You implied that variation was the implication of the Hubble tension
Quite a sneaky little strawman, impressive. I implied it was "an" implication of the HT, not "the" implication. There are multiple implications, it would only be a baseless assumption if I said only one could be correct, hence MAYBE.
>You accused me of dogmatism for pointing out that it was a baseless assumption and now you say "yup".
See above
>First of all let's laugh at the fact your "source" is a children's page on NASA from 20 years ago.
yeah I couldn't take a picture of the equation from my fluid dynamics textbook because I sold it years ago, but I'll let you in on a secret: it's the same equation NASA used 20 years ago.
>Apparently that is the highest level you can comprehend
Have you taken fluid dynamics?
>empty weasel words. If reality departs from the linear law it's wrong
"Most astronomers believe that Hubble's Law does hold true for a large range of distances"
>remember when I said it's a local approximation and you said "Cool story bro", whereas now you agree with that statement
>being this socially illiterate
"cool story bro" can be a dismissal of something that is true but irrelevant. If you werent desperately grasping at straws that wouldn't have gone over your head
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cool_story_bro

On that note of sourcing internet slang I think I'm done since this has long become pointless. Very entertaining, but pointless. You can have the last word.

[Anonymous No.14977873]

>>14977722
Talk nerdy to me baby

[Anonymous No.14978178]

>>14970944
The tao that can be named is not the tao.

[Anonymous No.14979527]

>>14978178