the rum soaked fist: internal martial arts forum

https://www.livescience.com/space/cosmo ... e-universe

Astronomers have used the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes to confirm one of the most troubling conundrums in all of physics — that the universe appears to be expanding at bafflingly different speeds depending on where we look.

This problem, known as the Hubble Tension, has the potential to alter or even upend cosmology altogether. In 2019, measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the puzzle was real; in 2023, even more precise measurements from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cemented the discrepancy.

Now, a triple-check by both telescopes working together appears to have put the possibility of any measurement error to bed for good. The study, published February 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests that there may be something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe.

TLDR AFAIK:
the "Hubble Tension" is confirmed not to be due to measurement error. Something is fundamentally wrong in our understanding of universe expansion. What does this mean? I have no idea.

Heh, I just posted about this very article on FB...

This is potentially in support of my long-held view that our observable universe is just a "small" part of a much larger (ultimately infinite, though I realize that's fundamentally unprovable) area that constantly fluxes and morphs, parts of it expanding and contracting, similar to the Earth's cloud cover or water boiling in a bowl, and we just happen to find ourselves in one of the "expanding" regions of it. I love this stuff

Interesting... There has been observations suggesting there are stars older than the presumed age of the Universe itself.

"The most likely explanations for the paradox are some overlooked observational effect and/or something big missing from our understanding of the dynamics of the cosmic expansion," Matthews said. Precisely what that "something" is, is sure to keep astronomers challenged for some time.

https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be ... verse.html

Maybe some connection here?

Dmitri wrote:my long-held view that our observable universe is just a "small" part of a much larger

This has been my view as well.

love your idea of the weird flux.

something (among so many) i couldn't follow is if they think this telescope finding confirms BOTH methods of measurement are not in error. which would mean the mismatch in rates is perhaps "correct". so weird.

p.s. if your FB friends like these kinds of nerdy science/space posts, they are cooler than my FB friends haha

There has to be more than the "universe" if it's expanding into something. We will never "see" it because our universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. I.e., we ain't going to see the edge. The measurements are just that. They don't tell anything about whatever is outside, or if there's an outside. Why do we think the expansion is like a balloon? We don't even know what (dark energy) is causing it.

Are there other universes pushing back? The special thing about humans is that we think we can answer these questions.

Hmmm
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4Kn9vIS1jGw[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4Kn9vIS1jGw

Steve James wrote:The special thing about humans is that we think we can answer these questions.

yet maybe we are just goldfish in a bowl

everything wrote:p.s. if your FB friends like these kinds of nerdy science/space posts, they are cooler than my FB friends haha

I have a wide, wide spectrum there...

Steve James wrote:Hmmm
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4Kn9vIS1jGw[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4Kn9vIS1jGw

oof. mind blown. wish i had some rough way to contemplate/understand this, lol. i really am the goldfish in the bowl.

Dmitri wrote:

everything wrote:p.s. if your FB friends like these kinds of nerdy science/space posts, they are cooler than my FB friends haha

I have a wide, wide spectrum there...

i grew up around kids of actual scientists, so you would think at least my old friends would be way nerdier, but no such luck.

And now there's this...
https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter- ... old-study/

Yeah, if their model is true, then there is no need for "dark matter" to explain what we can't measure, or dark energy to explain expansion (or the appearance of expansion).

Additionally, the CCC+TL model must contend with the lack of direct observational evidence for varying coupling constants or the mechanisms behind “tired light.”

That's the thing, observation and measurement are relative. It's like telling some that where they're sitting, they're moving at 1000mph (with everything else rotating on Earth), and the Earth is moving at almost 70Kmph around the Sun, etc. A child (or a flat-earther) will say it doesn't feel like 1Kmph. The point is that we can't tell whether we're in a black hole, or an infinite universe, or in a computer simulation, or a film on a hologram. We wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

The JWST has shown that there are galaxies formed way before they should have. That may end up being a lot of mass we haven't been able to see. Like DeGrasse Tyson says, "the universe is under no obligation to be understandable to you."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQnHTKZBTI4&t=14s

What you think you see ain't what you'll get.