Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: For Edwin Hubble's Birthday, a solution to the "Hubble tension"

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    2

    For Edwin Hubble's Birthday, a solution to the "Hubble tension"

    The Problem

    Finding the right value for Hubble's Constant has been difficult.

    No One Can Agree How Fast Universe Is Expanding. New Measure Makes Things Worse.
    https://www.livescience.com/hubble-c...s-deepens.html

    Hubble Trouble: A Crisis in Cosmology?
    https://www.aps.org/publications/aps...805/hubble.cfm

    Best-Yet Measurements Deepen Cosmological Crisis
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ogical-crisis/

    To visualize the problem, imagine you shoot a laser beam into space, and it passes a series of targets placed 200 million light years apart.

    In a simple universe, the laser beam will reach the first target in 200 million years, the second target in 400 million light years, and so on.

    But we don't live in such a simple universe. We observe cosmological redshifts. These are an observed fact, and you can learn more about cosmological redshift here.

    The redshifts are interpreted as the expansion of space. In this universe, the targets will be moving away from us according to Hubble's Law:

    v = H D
    where v is the velocity of the target, H is Hubble's Constant, and D is the starting distance of the target

    According to observations of relatively near phenomena, H is measured to be 74 km/sec / Mpc.

    But according to measurements at our most distant observable range, H is measured as 67 km/sec / Mpc.

    Yet another measurement based on the curvature of space puts H at 54 km/sec / Mpc.



    (blue = static, white = expanding, fastest on the left, slowest on the right.)

    As the measurements become more accurate, they remain in disagreement.

    Hypothesis

    We may state with some confidence that red-shifts are the familiar velocity-shifts, or else they represent some unrecognized principle of nature. We cannot assume that our knowledge of physical principles is yet complete; nevertheless, we should not replace a known, familiar principle by an ad hoc explanation unless we are forced to that step by actual observations.

    E. Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, pg. 22, 1937
    Edwin Hubble said that it was convenient for the redshift to be interpreted as a Doppler-like effect, leading to the expanding universe theory. He also said redshifts might be interpreted as how nature actually works. In other words, the redshifts aren't caused by some other phenomenon; cosmological redshift is a new phenomenon in-and-of itself. However, he cautioned, if there are existing ways to explain the redshifts, adding a new principle of nature should be avoided.

    But choosing the path of the familiar principles over a new principle has forced us to propose several new principles anyways, including dark energy and inflation. It is also unclear, despite many accurate measurements, how fast space is expanding.

    Let's back up then and ask: if cosmological redshifts do represent a new principle of nature, what is that principle? Consider the following premises:

    • A decrease in frequency is observed
    • The speed of a wave is v = frequency wavelength



    Therefore, if these premises are taken literally and plainly (and somewhat naively):

    • the observed decrease in frequency should result in a decrease in speed.



    To examine this literal interpretation of redshifts, I considered possible models where the speed of a photon begins at c and decreases as the distance from its source increases.

    The simplest of these models is one where H D is just subtracted from c.

    Hypothesis 1: the speed of light = c - H D

    This hypothesis achieves something interesting. Even though the targets are stationary, the time it takes to reach the next target increases in a way that is similar to the time it would take to reach a moving target.

    Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to help with the issue of Hubble's constant. Observations say there is a faster rate of redshift in the nearby universe and a slower rate of redshift in the farthest parts of the observable universe. Compared to the standard expanding model, Hypothesis 1 makes the problem worse.

    To match observations, more redshift is needed in the first half, and less is needed in the second half.

    I thought about dividing H D by an increasing number, but H D itself increases as the photon travels. So how about dividing c by that?

    Hypothesis 2: the speed of light = c / (1 + H D)

    This hypothesis results in a much higher rate of redshift for nearby objects and a much lower rate of redshift for far away objects, compared to the expanding models.

    In this hypothesis, the units of H are independent of the units of c. The units of H are inverse length, which means (1 + H D) is unitless.

    On the graph, hypothesis 2 makes more of a straight line than a curve. By making it an inverse square law, a more pronounced curve can be made.

    Hypothesis 3: the speed of light = c / (1 + H D)^2

    Squaring just H D makes an even more interesting curve.

    Hypothesis 4: the speed of light = c / (1 + (H D)^2)



    (1 = green, 2 = magenta, 3 = purple, 4 = red)

    These models and others can be examined on the Testing Page.

    In these models, the laser beam shows delays in reaching the targets even though the targets are stationary. In such a universe, space is not expanding.

    This conclusion raises questions that must be addressed that include:

    • Doesn't this predict redshifted stars in our own galaxy?
    • Isn't the expansion of the universe a fact?
    • Doesn't the Cosmic Microwave Background confirm an expanding universe?
    • Isn't this the discredited Tired Light theory?
    • Is this a Varying Speed of Light theory?
    • Doesn't this conflict with special relativity?
    • Doesn't this violate the Conservation of Energy?
    • Shouldn't we be able to measure a drop in a photon's speed?



    Doesn't this predict redshifted stars in our own galaxy?

    That depends on which hypothesis is used.

    To see the differences between them, a better view of the graph is needed. Let's put the ratio between time in the hypothesis and time in a static universe on the y-axis.

    From this view, the expanding models (white) are a straight line. Hypothesis 1 (green) lags behind the expanding models, while hypotheses 2 and 3 (magenta and purple) jump out a ways ahead initially before tapering off.

    Hypothesis 4 (red) does something different. It lags behind for hundreds of millions of years, then jumps out ahead, and then flattens out.

    https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...aph_ratios.png

    So what do the models predict for redshifts in our own galaxy?

    • Hypothesis 1: Yes
    • Hypothesis 2: Big Yes
    • Hypothesis 3: Big Yes
    • Hypothesis 4: No (almost none)



    Hypothesis 4 shows a staggering difference from what's predicted by any of the other models, including the expanding ones. There is almost no expansion for hundreds of millions of years, which fits with observations very closely.

    Shown by itself and the main measurements behind the disagreement in values for Hubble's constant, we get the following picture:



    The space between the white lines represents the Hubble tension, and the red line is the suggested solution.

    There is a 12,000 character limit to a post on the message board, so the rest of the questions are answered here:

    https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/

    Thanks for your time.

  2. #2
    How about objects like the Andromeda galaxy that is blue shifted and thus moving towards us.
    From the wilderness into the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  3. #3
    I did a brief look over of you site and you seem think that light loses energy as it travels and hence it becomes red. But how do explain radar on Earth, the time and atoms that it takes for the radio pulse to travel back and forth for it to travel is enough for it to lose energy. Lets say you fire the radar gun at a stationary target and let it bounce back. It should give you the same reading as if the target is moving back and forth. But when the target is coming to you it becomes bluer so there mot be more energy going into the photon because shorter wavelengths are more energetic, and if the target is going it loses energy. This after noon I watched a radar screen from Boston TV station using this principle is trying to explain why there was a tornado warning. Also stars going away from within the milky way have red shifts while stars coming towards us have blue shifts. plus White Dwarf stars should have white light from them, but because of the intense gravitational pull of the star it is red shifted. So how do explain these closer redshifts happening so much closer to use rather than things are moving.
    From the wilderness into the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    2
    Hello,

    Galaxies (and stars, and other stuff) have a "peculiar velocity", that it, a velocity particular to just them.

    This causes red-shift and blue-shift depending on their direction.

    We also notice cosmological red-shift, which is greater than a distant galaxies peculiar velocity. That means after a certain distance (zone 2 on the image below), no more blue-shifted galaxies are found


  5. #5
    How can you tell the difference between the particular velocity and the redshift.
    From the wilderness into the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by The Backroad Astronomer View Post
    How can you tell the difference between the particular velocity and the redshift.
    That's a pretty involved task regardless of the interpretations of cosmological redshift. Here's an example of some of the difficulties:

    https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic.../2/1117/983284

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,375
    From your graph your sooution appears to be a really bad fit to the issue. Why do you think it is worth pursuing when it doesn't match observations?

    Can you please present your answers to the questions you have posed yourself at the bottom of your post on this board? I am not going to an external site to look them up. I am specifically interested in the Tired Light / VSL answers as I don't see anything in what you are doing that gets around things like dispersion and energy dependent time of flight issues. Plus there is that knotty issue of fundamental constants and the issue of a photon being required to be massless by the Standard Model.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Hi! Thanks for your response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    From your graph your sooution appears to be a really bad fit to the issue. Why do you think it is worth pursuing when it doesn't match observations?
    This issue of the day is that the standard model doesn't fit the observations, and yields two value for Hubble's constant, 74 and 67.4.

    https://scitechdaily.com/a-crisis-in...tant-disagree/

    Data suggests a higher H for lower z's, and lower H for higher z's.

    That's what my model predicts:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	graph_time_z.png 
Views:	22 
Size:	23.3 KB 
ID:	25689

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Can you please present your answers to the questions you have posed yourself at the bottom of your post on this board? I am not going to an external site to look them up. I am specifically interested in the Tired Light / VSL answers as I don't see anything in what you are doing that gets around things like dispersion and energy dependent time of flight issues.
    Sure thing. From the paper

    Tired Light

    There have been hundreds of theories that don't involve expanding space trying to explain how light gets "tired" during long intergalactic journeys, starting all the way back in 1929 when the redshift-distance relation was first published.

    Tired light theories fail because they don't account for enough redshift, they can't explain the distance factor, or the redshifts are caused in a way that would include other observable results, which ultimately are not observed.

    In general, tired light theories have the following in common:

    * Some other phenomenon causes the redshifts
    * Light always travels at c, even though it is "tired"
    * They are represented by the blue line on the graph, matching a simple static model

    The hypothesis that light's speed is inversely proportional to the distance from its source is different:

    * Nothing causes the redshifts, they are as fundamental to nature as inertia
    * Light travels at less than c after millions of years
    * The time it takes light to reach a target is similar to the expanding model

    In this hypothesis, one could say light does get "tired", but it does so in a way that is conceptually and mathematically unique to the established Tired Light theories.

    Varying Speed of Light (VSL)

    For the last few decades there have been versions of a theory going around known as Varying Speed of Light:

    There are others that think such dark energy ideas are now getting too convoluted, and that a much simpler explanation, one that even Einstein considered, should now be given serious consideration; a change in the speed of light, or VSL (Varying Speed of Light) as others know it by.

    ... The differing values [in Hubble's constant] may be explained if the speed of light has changed between the early and late universe, said Louise Riofrio, an author and scientist who now works at an observatory association in Hawaii.
    In VSL theories:

    * c changes
    * All photons in the universe slow to the same speed
    * Space is expanding
    * Intends to represent the accelerating rate of expansion

    The hypothesis in this paper is different:

    * c is constant
    * Individual photons slow down according to their own history, not the universe's
    * Space is not expanding
    * Intends to represent cosmological redshift

    The speed of light does vary in this hypothesis, but in a novel way to Varying Speed of Light

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Plus there is that knotty issue of fundamental constants and the issue of a photon being required to be massless by the Standard Model.
    Sure. There's no mass given to the photon in the hypothesis.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	graph_distance_z.png 
Views:	19 
Size:	21.7 KB 
ID:	25688  

  9. #9
    I am going to leave this conservation at this time. I kind of got a few things on the go at the time and I want to get to them. Maybe I will go thru your site another time.
    From the wilderness into the cosmos.
    You can not be afraid of the wind, Enterprise: Broken Bow.
    https://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,375
    Your model is still a bad fit from that graph. Have you compared it to observations? Because I don't see that it fixes the tension observed just from your plot. It does over part of the range, but not most of it.

    You have not dealt with the main tired light issues here. Can you present a breakdown of what you think would be seen for simultaneously emitted gamma ray, optical and 1 GHz radio photon in terms of speed, frequency and wavelength?

    Ok, with regards to mass I guess I need to see the answer to "Does this conflict with Special Relativity" then too. Because SR says massless particles must travel at c.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    Your model is still a bad fit from that graph. Have you compared it to observations? Because I don't see that it fixes the tension observed just from your plot. It does over part of the range, but not most of it.
    My hypothesis matches H=74 for lower z, and H=64.7 for higher z.

    The Hubble tension is the standard model has two values for H. My hypothesis has one value for H, and matches both values the expanding model needs for H in the places where it counts.

    You have not dealt with the main tired light issues here. Can you present a breakdown of what you think would be seen for simultaneously emitted gamma ray, optical and 1 GHz radio photon in terms of speed, frequency and wavelength?
    Sure. As my paper says, a photon's velocity is c - H *d, the speed of a wave is frequency * wavelength, and the energy of a photon is h * frequency.

    So, how far have these photons traveled?

    Ok, with regards to mass I guess I need to see the answer to "Does this conflict with Special Relativity" then too. Because SR says massless particles must travel at c.
    Then this suggests massless particles travel at c - H * D, and unless we're talking about million of light years for D, that just means c - H * 0, which is c. Here's what the FAQ says:

    Doesn't this conflict with special relativity?

    Yes. The hypothesis is that the speed of light decreases with distance from the source, which is noticeable after traveling millions of years.

    Special relativity tells us that light travels at c over all distances, even after millions and billions of years.

    But our experiments don't last millions of years. In our experiments, H D is so small, it can be considered zero.

    So if:

    Code:
        v_light = c - H  D)
        and:
        H  D = 0
        then:
        v_light = c - 0
        v_light = c
    In which case there shouldn't be any conflict with special relativity in the domain where the redshifts don't appear.

    https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...ial-relativity

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,375
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Helland View Post
    My hypothesis matches H=74 for lower z, and H=64.7 for higher z.
    It is only within these bounds for z=7 to z=13. The entire z<7, where most of our data is, it is in conflict with observations. You are also predicting a much, much older unoverse than we see which would seem to contradict things like galactic evolution models and elemental abundances. At z=1.5 you seem to have a light travel time of around 12-13 billion years compared to 4.5 for the standard approach.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Helland View Post
    Sure. As my paper says, a photon's velocity is c - H *d, the speed of a wave is frequency * wavelength, and the energy of a photon is h * frequency.

    So, how far have these photons traveled?
    Please do this for z=0.16 (3C 273) and for z=6 (QSO J1427+3312)

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Helland View Post
    Then this suggests massless particles travel at c - H * D, and unless we're talking about million of light years for D, that just means c - H * 0, which is c.
    No, this is a significant conflict with SR and to a degree the Standard Model. There are good reasons massless particles travel at c and only c. Slowing photons down is a big deal. Might come back to this once we have discussed the other questions more.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    It is only within these bounds for z=7 to z=13. The entire z<7, where most of our data is, it is in conflict with observations.
    I think I can clarify this with a simpler image. This just shows one set of data for H=74. The white dots are the standard model, and the green line is my hypothesis.



    My hypothesis is consistent with H=74, until a point.

    And our observations are consistent with H=74, until a point.

    Once you go farther back, H goes down.

    My theory is consistent with lower values of H when z > 7.0.



    You are also predicting a much, much older unoverse than we see which would seem to contradict things like galactic evolution models and elemental abundances.
    There is a non stop flow of publications that break the galactic evolution models:

    https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...arly-universe/
    https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star...-universe.html
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0302122925.htm
    https://www.newscientist.com/article...t#.VMlP1PlVK1E

    and on and on.



    At z=1.5 you seem to have a light travel time of around 12-13 billion years compared to 4.5 for the standard approach.
    Right, since space doesn't expand, but light slows down, the lookback time in the standard model is actually the distance in my model, and the co-moving distance in the standard model relates to light travel in my model.

    Here's z over distance, and the dots represent the standard model's (H=74 right, H=67 left) lookback time:



    And here's z over time, the dots represent the standard model's co-moving distance:






    Please do this for z=0.16 (3C 273) and for z=6 (QSO J1427+3312)
    For z=0.16, my program, with H=74, gives 0.86305c.

    For z = 6, photon velocity is 0.143c.

    You can graph on my testing page by velocity, https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm, and it matches the data gathered from worlfram alpha for the standard models.

    You can calculate new frequency and wavelength given the original frequency and wavelength, and using the wave speed formula (v=fw).


    No, this is a significant conflict with SR and to a degree the Standard Model. There are good reasons massless particles travel at c and only c. Slowing photons down is a big deal. Might come back to this once we have discussed the other questions more.
    Instead of spacetime being based on c, it should be based on c - H * D.

    In that case, spacetime itself causes the redshifts, if you want to look at it that way.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    7,375
    There is more evidence for than against. If just saying "there are papers out there" is a good enough answer then we can dismiss your claims immediately. My specific question is why to the models we have work so well that there are only some objects we don't understand if the universe is so very different to what we think. What kind of cosmological model does your idea require to produce things like the observed elemental abindance changes over z? It is fine if you are not able to say, no idea hits the ground fully formed. Acknowledging a gap is better than the kind of deflection "here are papers" looks like.

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Helland View Post
    For z=0.16, my program, with H=74, gives 0.86305c.

    For z = 6, photon velocity is 0.143c.

    You can graph on my testing page by velocity, https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm, and it matches the data gathered from worlfram alpha for the standard models.

    You can calculate new frequency and wavelength given the original frequency and wavelength, and using the wave speed formula (v=fw).
    I would like you to give me what I asked for, not for you to tell me to calculate it. I can plug numbers into your equations - what I want here is to see you apply your theory. Please give me speed, frequency and wavelength for each of the cases I asked for.


    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Helland View Post
    Instead of spacetime being based on c, it should be based on c - H * D.

    In that case, spacetime itself causes the redshifts, if you want to look at it that way.
    That really doesn't work since you have been keen to point out every photon's speed is linked to its history. So for any given point in space there is no metric you can build based on c-HD because you havbe photons from any random disatance there. But lets focus on the case I asked you to show your working for to start with.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Here's where the hypothesis leaps from one expansion rate to another


  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Here's a test for the theory:

    Test 1: measure the speed of a cosmologically red-shifted photon

    This is the first obvious test of the hypothesis.

    But it would take thousands or millions of years to perform a fully controlled experiment where light is emitted with a known energy at a known time and travels across a known distance to see the effects of red-shift.

    Using light that has already traveled millions of years seems to be the only choice.

    But interacting with the photon will cause it to reset its distance and speed, as mentioned in the previous section. The task then is to come up with a clever way to measure the speed of ancient light without disturbing the photon.

    Consider a long tube in space with a telescope at one end and an open shutter at the other. The telescope has a nearby galaxy and a highly red-shifted galaxy in its sight.

    What happens when the shutter is closed?

    Prediction: Because the red light is moving slower than the yellow light, first the nearby galaxy will disappear from view, then the distant one.

    Obviously the longer the tube is the better the experiment would be. A few kilometers at least, a light second would be great. If we use a predictable and fast enough object in space as the shutter, that might work just as well. The shutter must not reflect any light. The moon may be too bright and too slow to work.


  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    For what distances can we be assured by observation that Newton's First Law of Motion of holds true?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    9,695
    It is not distance but space time. Newton told us things travel in straight lines but actually they free fall unless acted on by a force. Spacetime as you know is distorted by mass, so you take your pick on distance depending on the error you accept.
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    I think I get what you're saying.

    By the way, any idea how fast space is expanding the right side of the picture?



    It seems to me the light on the top would be traveling through more space than the light on the bottom.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    The expanding universe:

    • explains the observed cosmological redshifts
    • tells us the age and size of the universe
    • predicts the CMB
    • passes the Tolman Surface Brightness test
    • all based on well understood principles


    The problem is, in 2020, none of that is totally true.

    Redshift and Hubble tension

    Based on the observed redshifts, how fast do we think the universe is expanding? The latest precise measurements disagree.



    Age and size of the universe

    If the universe started with a Big Bang, as we look back in space and time,
    we should be seeing fewer and fewer mature galaxies, and eventually only young galaxies.
    In the 21st century observations show that's not true:



    The size of the things we observe in the universe doesn't seem to be constrained by what we assume are the theoretical limits they could reach
    given the age and size of the universe. From Wikipedia:



    And then there's the weird coincidence that the age of the universe is about equal c/H, the
    radius of the Hubble Volume.
    If we were living 5 billion years ago, or 5 billion years from now, the age of the universe and Hubble's radius would be unrelated.
    By pure coincidence, we are living when they match.

    The CMB

    You may have heard that the Big Bang theory predicted the CMB. That's sort of true.
    The Big Bang predicted a black body radition, which was right, although not at the right temperature.



    CMB was discovered in 1964 at 3K. The most accurate preditions for the background temperature of space were based on a stationary universe, not an expanding one.

    That's not a deal breaker, but it's a major coincidence.

    If we were living 5 billion years from now, or 5 billion years in the past, the CMB would be a different temperature according to the Big Bang.
    It's apparently just a pure coincidence that the CMB is the same temperature today as the minimum temperature for stuff in our galaxy.

    All of that could be ignored, but in the last decade anomalies have been spotted in the CMB. It's cooler to one side than the other.

    Two Cosmic Microwave Background anomalous features hinted at by Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP),
    are confirmed in the new high precision data from Planck. One is an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the
    sky, with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower
    average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe
    should be broadly similar in any direction we look.
    There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger
    than expected.


    https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/51559-hemispheric-asymmetry-and-cold-spot-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background
    The CMB is predicted to be the same temperature in all directions. It is not.

    We see a cold spot to the south. In the diagram, does the south observer see a cold spot to their south?
    Does the north observer see the same CMB anomalies as we do?



    This is a question the expanding universe theory doesn't have a clear answer for.

    However, if the observable region is, as Hubble puts it, "an insignificant sample of a universe that extends indefinitely in space and in time",
    then there are no anomalies or questions. The cold spot is to our south, but to the southern observer the cold spot is in their vicinity.

    Tolman Surface Brightness Test

    The Tolman Surface Brightness Test is meant to distinguish a static universe from an expanding one.

    An expanding universe predicts an extra factor of dimming, due to the photons arriving at a lower rate due to the galaxy's motion away from us.

    "The exponent found is not 4 as expected in the simplest expanding model, but 2.6 or 3.4, depending on the frequency band."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman...rightness_test
    Dark Principles

    The Big Bang originally was about the universe expanding presently, and thus growing from a single point in the past:



    That model broke in the 1970's. To make a software analogy, there were a lot of bugs that needed patching. Such as:



    They came up with a cool trick to solve this problems, cram 1 trillion years of expansion into a single nanosecond, called inflation:



    For these reasons and others, the widely accepted expansion theory is increasingly being compared to outdated software:
    burdened by outlandish patches and still full of bugs:

    The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

    What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.


    Open Letter on Cosmology / Cosmology Statement (2004)
    More:


    The evidence in 2020 contorts the Big Bang model into something rather unrecognizable driven by unobserved forces and weird coincidences.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Breaking news:

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/astro...orse-20201217/

    Astronomers Get Their Wish, and a Cosmic Crisis Gets Worse

    We don’t know why the universe appears to be expanding faster than it should. New ultra-precise distance measurements have only intensified the problem.

    ...

    The tension is this: The cosmos’s known ingredients and governing equations predict that it should currently be expanding at a rate of 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec — meaning we should see galaxies flying away from us 67 kilometers per second faster for each additional megaparsec of distance. Yet actual measurements consistently overshoot the mark. Galaxies are receding too quickly. The discrepancy thrillingly suggests that some unknown quickening agent may be afoot in the cosmos.
    Isn't it obvious? "The cosmos’s known ingredients" are wrong.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Helland View Post
    Breaking news:

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/astro...orse-20201217/



    Isn't it obvious? "The cosmos’s known ingredients" are wrong.
    So, it may very well be that the Lambda CDM needs further adjustment or is wrong in some particulars. As often happens in scientific models. That's how science works.

    It does not follow that your particular replacement for it is right. The criticisms of your model by the other posters still apply.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    So, it may very well be that the Lambda CDM needs further adjustment or is wrong in some particulars. As often happens in scientific models. That's how science works.

    It does not follow that your particular replacement for it is right. The criticisms of your model by the other posters still apply.
    They weren't really criticisms, just questions about what answers it gives, which you can see for yourself here:

    https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Castle Valley, Utah
    Posts
    158
    So you're saying that light loses energy and slows down over long distances. Where do you suppose the energy is going?

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucretius View Post
    So you're saying that light loses energy and slows down over long distances. Where do you suppose the energy is going?
    Probably just deposited into space.

    It's basically a photon decaying until nothing.

    Which fits with what we observe.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,444
    This thread has run for its 30 days and is closed.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •