Time Dilation, the Hubble Shift and God's Eternal Universe

Slow day ...

Well I've used Vinegar several times, and it seems to have seeped in ...Of course it could be the dreaded hydroxilic acid.Edited by RAZD, : .

... that this popped up on Facegoob:

quote:

---

New Hubble Data Breaks Scientists’ Understanding of the Universe
A new attempt to find the universe's age revealed troubling flaws.

​

There may be fundamental flaws with our understanding of the universe.

​

The problem came to light as scientists tried to calculate and measure a value called the Hubble Constant, which represents how rapidly the universe is expanding outward.

​

The value was first calculated by astronomer Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. But since then, astronomers observing and measuring the universe’s expansion have arrived at different values of the Hubble Constant, none of which seem to agree with one another. The discrepancy calls into question not only our idea of how old the universe is, but also our ability to fundamentally understand the physics that drive its behavior.

​

Freedman is responsible for the latest measurement of the Hubble Constant, which she calculated using a different kind of cosmic landmark from previous experiments.

​

Her team measured the brightness of red giant stars in distant galaxies. Because these stars reach uniform size and brightness, their distance from Earth can more readily be calculated than some other stars. Freedman’s work, which has been accepted but not yet published by The Astrophysical Journal, found that the universe is expanding at 69.8 kilometers per second per megaparsec, per the press release.

​

That’s a slower rate of expansion than was calculated in another recent study that focused on a different kind of star but a faster rate than was calculated in yet another study that measured light leftover from the big bang called the Cosmic Microwave Background.

​

The Hubble constant is the cosmological parameter that sets the absolute scale, size and age of the universe; it is one of the most direct ways we have of quantifying how the universe evolves, Freedman said in the press release. The discrepancy that we saw before has not gone away, but this new evidence suggests that the jury is still out on whether there is an immediate and compelling reason to believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in our current model of the universe.

---

Maybe Captcass can explain this, seeing as he didn't answer your question.Enjoy

Can you tell me how we could test this? or how could it be invalidated?

quote:

---

geodesic
[ jee-uh-des-ik, -dee-sik ]

​

adjective

​

Also geodesical. pertaining to the geometry of curved surfaces, in which geodesic lines take the place of the straight lines of plane geometry.

---

ie - the shortest distance along a curved surface between two points is a geodesic.So how are the geodesics distorted? Nope, obviously not, because the answer is still ∞ -- you'll need to do better than that.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ∞Edited by RAZD, : .

So you are saying that your "evolving quantum field" approach resolves the different measurements?Can you show your work? Let me expand on your error: where a is a constant.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

But you have proposed a different definition, so now's your chance to show that your paradigm explains the different measurements. This is called testing.Just saying the model is wrong does not make your paradigm right, you have to demonstrate it, show that it explains the evidence better. Nope. The constant is equal to any constant number. We can also do or This is elementary mathYour factor of (1 + 2.2686*10^{^-18})^{^-1} is just another value for a.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : .

LOL. The creds of your reviewers have already been questioned, along with the journal, so that doesn't impress me.What I grasp is that you have a fundamental error in your math, and that calls your conclusions into question.For instance, what your wrote in Message 1Is not correct: Thus I question your conclusion that "infinite divergence is impossible"Enjoy

I see you've moved on to other comments. In Message 76 I was a little rushed, so just to make sure you understand, I'll finish now, just to be clear: is just a constant factor, nothing special ... so They approach the same , and thus = ... in fact ... ≡ ... one is not different from the other, and understanding this is necessary to do the math you pretend to use.Enjoy

Let's try again ... you have a problem with the concept of ... What does it reach? Does it reach (-1)? How big is (-1)?Take your time. Be explicit, give references if you can.Now, ALTERNATIVELY ... taking a different approach:Let's look at your formula again ... as t₁ ‘ you claim: So t₁ CAN = because (according to your way of thinking) both are less than (1 + 2.2686*10^-18)(edit)But more than that, it means t₁ CAN > (according to your thinking) ... and still be < (1 + 2.2686*10^{^-18}) ... ie, as as t₁ ‘ a point is reached where: Thus thinking that t₁ ‘ means that t₁ is always < results in a paradox that This paradox is resolved by replacing ">" with ≥ and "<" with ≤, which proves that your equation is wrong and should be written: It also proves that (a) times = for any value of the constant a.This paradox/problem arises due to thinking of as a number rather than a concept. (/edit)BTW ... just for fun, can you tell me what is greater than ?Take your time.This, of course, means that your conclusion that "infinite divergence is impossible" is not a valid conclusion.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : nits to pickEdited by RAZD, : .

Just curious ... a couple of questions ... First Can you tell me where the prediction "Where the recessional velocity appears to reach c, we will see relativistic points of light if it is due to recessional velocity" comes from? Who/what is the source? Journal article etc.Or is this something you made up, in which case it is a straw man, a test of no value.Second What if we only see "an apparent recessional velocity" of 0.99c or 0.999c with the Webb telescope? Will we still "see form" in those conditions?Why does "slower time" not produce "relativistic points of light" as well?Enjoy

re Message 53A previous measurement:

quote:

---

Hubble finds universe is expanding faster than expected
University of California Berkeley Press Release
2 June 2016

​

A NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope image of the galaxy UGC 9391, one of the galaxies in the new survey. UGC 9391 contains the two types of stars Cepheid variables and a Type 1a supernova that astronomers used to calculate a more precise Hubble Constant. The red circles that mark the locations of Cepheids. The blue X denotes the location of supernova 2003du, a Type Ia supernova. The observations for this composite image were taken between 2012 and 2013 by Hubble’s Wide Field Camera 3. Image credit: NASA, ESA, and A. Riess (STScI/JHU).

​

Astronomers have obtained the most precise measurement yet of how fast the universe is expanding at the present time, and it doesn’t agree with predictions based on other data and our current understanding of the physics of the cosmos.

​

The discrepancy the universe is now expanding 9 percent faster than expected means either that measurements of the cosmic microwave background radiation are wrong, or that some unknown physical phenomenon is speeding up the expansion of space, the astronomers say.

​

Previous direct measurements of galaxies pegged the current expansion rate, or Hubble Constant, between 70 and 75 km/sec/Mpc, give or take about 5-10 percent a result that is not definitely in conflict with the Planck predictions. But the new direct measurements yield a rate of 73.24 (1.74) km/sec/Mpc, an uncertainty of only 2.4 percent, and clearly incompatible with the Planck predictions, Filippenko said.

---

The press release referred to in the article quoted in Message 53 says

quote:

---

New Hubble Constant Measurement Adds to Mystery of Universe's Expansion Rate
July 16, 2019

​

​

Astronomers have made a new measurement of how fast the universe is expanding, using an entirely different kind of star than previous endeavors. The revised measurement, which comes from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope, falls in the center of a hotly debated question in astrophysics that may lead to a new interpretation of the universe's fundamental properties.

​

Now, University of Chicago professor Wendy Freedman and colleagues have a new measurement for the rate of expansion in the modern universe, suggesting the space between galaxies is stretching faster than scientists would expect. Freedman's is one of several recent studies that point to a nagging discrepancy between modern expansion measurements and predictions based on the universe as it was more than 13 billion years ago, as measured by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite.

​

"The Hubble constant is the cosmological parameter that sets the absolute scale, size and age of the universe; it is one of the most direct ways we have of quantifying how the universe evolves," said Freedman. "The discrepancy that we saw before has not gone away, but this new evidence suggests that the jury is still out on whether there is an immediate and compelling reason to believe that there is something fundamentally flawed in our current model of the universe.

​

But more recently, scientists took a very different approach: building a model based on the rippling structure of light left over from the big bang, which is called the Cosmic Microwave Background. The Planck measurements allow scientists to predict how the early universe would likely have evolved into the expansion rate astronomers can measure today. Scientists calculated a value of 67.4 km/sec/Mpc, in significant disagreement with the rate of 74.0 km/sec/Mpc measured with Cepheid stars.

​

Freedman's team sought to check their results by establishing a new and entirely independent path to the Hubble constant using an entirely different kind of star.

​

Certain stars end their lives as a very luminous kind of star called a red giant, a stage of evolution that our own Sun will experience billions of years from now. At a certain point, the star undergoes a catastrophic event called a helium flash, in which the temperature rises to about 100 million degrees and the structure of the star is rearranged, which ultimately dramatically decreases its luminosity. Astronomers can measure the apparent brightness of the red giant stars at this stage in different galaxies, and they can use this as a way to tell their distance.

​

The Hubble constant is calculated by comparing distance values to the apparent recessional velocity of the target galaxies that is, how fast galaxies seem to be moving away. The team's calculations give a Hubble constant of 69.8 km/sec/Mpc straddling the values derived by the Planck and Riess teams.

​

But the results do not appear to strongly favor one answer over the other say the researchers, although they align more closely with the Planck results.

​

NASA's upcoming mission, the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), scheduled to launch in the mid-2020s, will enable astronomers to better explore the value of the Hubble constant across cosmic time. WFIRST, with its Hubble-like resolution and 100 times greater view of the sky, will provide a wealth of new Type Ia supernovae, Cepheid variables, and red giant stars to fundamentally improve distance measurements to galaxies near and far.

---

(nothing about the James Webb Telescope)Note: their measurements, 69.8 km/sec/Mpc, "... align more closely with the Planck results" (which were 70 to 75 km/sec/Mpc 5%).So we have, in chronological order:

1. 70 to 75 km/sec/Mpc (5%), the European Space Agency's Planck satellite results
2. 67.4 km/sec/Mpc, based on Cosmic Microwave Background results
3. 73.24 (1.74) km/sec/Mpc, based on Cepheid stars (variables)
4. 69.8 km/sec/Mpc, based on red giant stars

This does not seem to me to be enough discrepancy to throw out the current model, rather it is an indication of the difficulty of making more accurate measurements and refining the results.To show that the current model is wrong, i would expect a greater disagreement than 4%. This just shows that it is not quite right ... yet.Conversely, to show that a different definition for the Hubble Constant provides better results, one would have to demonstrate (a) that it explains all the current evidence, (b) resolves the current discrepancies and (c) provides a prediction that will test the new paradigm.Enjoy

Alexa is on board ...

If they can't reach infinity, what finite number do they stop at?Enjoy

The "rate" of ((t1 / (1 + 2.2686*10^-18)) is the same as the "rate" of t1 because {1/(1 + 2.2686*10^-18)} is a constant.But this is also bogus because there is no "rate" of approaching infinity.Can you tell me what +1 equals if it doesn't equal ?Can you tell me what -1 equals if it doesn't equal ?Note that I have edited Message 89 to add this section: Enjoy

The problem stems from not understanding what the concept of infinity means.Infinity is like the Borg Cube of math ... all numbers will be assimilated ... resistance is futile ... " ... all your base are belong to us ... "Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : added a base joke