Bmpbmp1975

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. Even if we ignore the fact that you are still wrong about the 10%, let's say the the universe will end in 500 trillion years (just as an example). If you take 10% off that, will that be "in your lifetime".

I am now going to report you for trolling.

I get it now, I did need a calculator, 

and I am not trolling I have been trying really hard to learn as of late.  I just dont understand why this find is a big deal if it’s not a worry, it’s spreading to a lot of different articles on sites 

ill just stop asking questions 

19 minutes ago, Strange said:

Sigh. Is there any point when you just read every tenth word and then make up the rest.

So it is 10% less in one direction and 10% more in the other. So it is zero on average. No change to the estimated age of the universe.

See I was always thought the faster it expands the faster the universe ends. That’s what I meant before by if a section of faster by 10% the universe ends faster would that be in our lifetimes 

to clarify my comment before 

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

OK. It looks like some previous measurement of the anisotropy make it slightly less than 10% of the expansion rate. (http://www.scielo.org.co/pdf/tecci/v13n24/1909-3667-tecci-13-24-00011.pdf) If I have understood that correctly. 

So it is 10% less in one direction and 10% more in the other. And it is unchanged in all the other directions. While these results might tell us something interesting about the evolution of the universe, it doesn't;t look like they will substantially change our estimate of the age. (Mordred may have more detail on that.)

But even if the universe were 10% older or 10% young than we currently think, it is not a "bad outcome". It is, like all increases in knowledge, a good outcome.

10% would be like 1.5 billion right so universe would be like 12.7 or 14.7 b years old 

Just now, Mordred said:

Values are meaningless unless you understand how they relate to other values via their appropriate ratios.

 This is where understanding where those values become significant in the formulas they apply to become significant.

What I mean by values is how much faster vs how much slower. Are they tiny difference in speed or major ones?

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

So it could change what we know. As I say, what we know has changed much more dramatically in the past. I mean, like totally revolutionary, overturn everything we thought we knew, changed. This is just another minor tweak to that understanding.

How can improving our understanding of the universe be a "bad outcome"? Why does everything have to be "bad" to you?

Without understanding everything sounds scary, it’s hard to understand it is expanding faster by a little is it like double the actual speed. thats why I am curious about the values 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

But you think that about everything. I assume a conversation with you must be like:

Me: Good morning!

You: Oh no! Does that mean we are all going to die?

Me: No. I was just saying hello.

You: Oh but it sounded like you were saying the world was about to end.

Me: ...

 

They say that their measurements are consistent with previous measurements. (That is science-speak for "almost the same as")

How on Earth can a small difference in the expansion rate in different directions (or even a large difference) be a bad outcome for us? It's not like anything has changed, apart from our understanding.

 

It would change the age of the universe, change our understanding, change the lifetime of the universe, it would affect a lot of things 

Just now, Strange said:

I'm not sure how to make it any simpler. How about: they might have important results or they might not. It would be exciting if they have. Is that clearer?

 

To me it sounds it’s bigger information that we think with possible bad outcomes for us 

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

A few quotes from this:

So that sounds like it could be confirmation of something that was already observed.

But, science is never definite so:

So, it is "maybe" and "if" and "more work required". In other words: science.

Note that there have been two(*) major paradigm shifts in cosmology in my lifetime. So a third one would be pretty exciting.

(*) Studiot said 5 in his lifetime, so either he is much older than me or is willing to accept smaller changes as "major"  

Don’t understand your comments strange 

8 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Don't worry in a couple of years (the blink of a cosmic eye) there will be a new study with different figures.

This was my earlier point.

That’s depends on the values and if we’re still here. 

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

I'm not surprised. I don't understand the paper. You would need to have studied astrophysics to understand it. 

That’s why I was hoping someone here can make sense of the values

I am just very confused on this paper, I am sorry. I have having trouble understanding the values and can’t tell if tiny or large.values.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

This is the universe we are talking about. "Suddenly" would mean "over many billions of years". The rate of expansion won't have changed overnight. Or just while these measurements were being made, and then back to normal afterwards.

Interesting.

But note that is 30% difference in X-ray brightness. That almost certainly does not equate to 30% difference in expansion rate. 

I think need to wait for more results on this. It seems odd that this difference is only presence in the X-ray range.

Exactly my point, are standard tests don’t show it different ways but this better test shows the speed difference of expansion is 30% which is a major difference which will definitely effect our current understanding of the age and end of the universe drastically 

According to this article the significance of difference is 30%
 

"Together with colleagues from the University of Bonn and Harvard University, we looked at the behaviour of over 800 galaxy clusters in the present Universe," says Konstantinos. "If the isotropy hypothesis was correct, the properties of the clusters would be uniform across the sky. But we actually saw significant differences."

properties, with similar temperatures, appeared to be less bright than what we would expect in one direction of the sky, and brighter than expected in another direction," says Thomas. "The difference was quite significant, around 30 percent. These differences are not random but have a clear pattern depending on the direction in which we observed in the sky

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/phys.org/news/2020-04-basic-assumption-universe.amp

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

If it were a huge difference we would have known about it already. The differences that led to the discovery of dark energy (accelerating expansion) are already pretty small. So this must be smaller than that.

The current estimates of the Hubble constant (and hence age of the universe) are based on multiple measurements in all directions at many different distances. This anisotropy has not shown up before. Although, as they say, other more localised ones have.

Oh so your saying our currently calculated information was from all sides and not just one side. Can it be that current sides recently changed there speeds 

The thing is we doN t know at what rates, one side can be normal and the other end can be expanding at a extreme, so may not be Tiny difference at all 

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

I doubt it changes it at all.

1. I assume the variations are small. Quite possibly smaller than the error bounds on the age.

2. If the value is larger in one direction and smaller in another, then they probably average out

1. They don't say anything about the fate of the universe.

2. The universe is going to be around for a lot more than 5 billion years.

3. This won't make any difference to that.

 

I had meant from this paragraph about fate 

“One of the pillars of cosmology – the study of the history and fate of the entire universe – is that the universe is ‘isotropic,’ meaning the same in all directions,” said Konstantinos Migkas of the University of Bonn in Germany, who led the new study. “Our work shows there may be cracks in that pillar.”

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

This paper isn't conclusive enough to worry about. Dipole anistropy is something that all telescopes encounter and the common factor is our own motion.

 Planck encountered this in its first dataset and had to calibrate our local influences to correct the dipole anistropy. This looks to be something that Chandra must also look into.

 The paper gives several possibilities one of those is the movement of our local group as being a viable influence. This is the one I would think is the most likely.

I will examine the paper in more detail but on first reading I didn't see anything conclusive or significant enough to require deviating from the Homogeneous and isotropic expansion (cosmological principle).

The Z ranges I saw appear mostly local group.

What do you mean conclusive enough to worry about, can this widely affect our understanding of age and fate of the universe?

also this a is anew testing process is it not using existing telescopes 

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

I don't either. But I assume that if they were not tiny, this would have been spotted long ago.

I mean depending on the values we use the rate of expansion to calculate the age of the universe how much does this change it.

also they predict the possible fate of the universe in about 5 billion years so how much shorter is that time frame with the new values is more my questions 

cause isn’t this the first time testing this with a new testing process

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

How can it? They are making measurements of (tiny) differences in expansion rates over millions of light years (and therefore millions of years n the past).

Stop trying to bring everything back to "will it affect us in our lifetime". When talking about cosmology, the answer is ALWAYS "no".

So I didn’t realize the measurements were so tiny I did not understand the values in the paper. 

1 minute ago, studiot said:

In what way?

So your saying it could affect us in our lifetime 

1 minute ago, studiot said:

When you get to my years and beyond you will have seen them all come and go.

I have a large barrel of salt which I take a shovel from to add to every new 'discovery' in cosmology.

I have seen the 'subject' turned on its head at least 5 times in my time.

Don’t understand 

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

I am not supposed to moderate in this thread, but FFS Dimreeper, get a grip. I have moved your (drunken?) ramblings to Trash. Drop it. 

 

I don't think it is possible to answer at the moment. It isn't clear (to me) what the scale of these deviations are, even from skimming the paper. 

I doubt it is going to be a major change in our view of the universe, but it might provide some subtle details about how it has evolved. But only time will tell.

I guess is this something that will not affect us in our lifetimes?

We seem to have Gotten off topic I apologize.

how much  do these numbers and values change our current understanding in the age of the universe , the size of the universe and the lifetime of the universe before its demise?

the article mentions it a little

“One of the pillars of cosmology – the study of the history and fate of the entire universe – is that the universe is ‘isotropic,’ meaning the same in all directions,” said Konstantinos Migkas of the University of Bonn in Germany, who led the new study. “Our work shows there may be cracks in that pillar.”

13 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If I could I would... 

The fact is, I can't, unless you have learned/experienced what I have... 

Learned and experience what? I am starting to think you are playing games or just implying I am dumb, if that is that case I would rather save this post for people who want to provide answers and not just whoosh. 

or your stating that this find has bad consequences?

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

Understand, that you can't understand, why you don't understand... 

 

Would be easier for me to understand if you stopped talking in riddle and explained what you mean?