# I finally found an accurate article on the speed of universal expansion

## Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Strange said:

It s a news story, reporting on scientific research. What would "disagree with the article" mean? That the journalist made up the story and no such research has taken place.

I have seen the same research reported in multiple places so I the article appears to be accurate.

Where does it say that it invalidates physics as it is currently known?

It says that two different measurements, which were expected to give the same result, provide different results. This is intriguing and tells us that something is wrong with the measurements or that our model of the universe needs to be adjusted (or both). Further work may tell us which. That is how science works.

# No One Can Agree How Fast Universe Is Expanding. New Measure Makes Things Worse.

We just might need new physics to get out of this mess.

New physics means that the current rules do not allow for the observations to be real and thus must be corrected

Or the universe might be more complicated than can be understood just by looking at billions of year old photons will allow for.

34 minutes ago, swansont said:
!

Moderator Note

No, nobody has done that to you. Please stay on topic.

Yes that has been done to me many times as my existence is not limited.  See you can not know everything about me by what you see here nor can you understand the universe by billions of year old light

Edited by Angelo

##### Share on other sites

Adam Mann is a journalist not a professional Cosmologist. He doesn't crunch the numbers based upon different datasets.

In the first year of my Cosmology course the typical value we used was 100 km/Mpc/sec.  During the Cobe dataset we used a value similar to the Holicow measurement. That was 20 years ago. Then Planck fine tuned that value to roughly 78 km/Mpc/sec.

Even with that huge range of going from 72 to 100 Km/Mpc/sec was any new physics required. In this case we're only dealing with a 6 km/Mpc/sec difference.

Never trust pop media articles. Particularly when a professional Cosmologist tells you differently.

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I have to say, over the years, the mainstream deniers have given me the impression that it's less about poking at the establishment and more about the superiority they feel when they discover they don't have to actually study it if they can ridicule it, claiming it isn't worth it. Science is a LOT of work.

What work exactly did Einstein do to determine that the universe was not expanding?

And I am being quite serious, Hubble observed, Columbus sailed.  Einstein sat down with a pencil and claimed to know everything about everything that he never even saw.  Hubble looked and had to correct the pencilneck

Edited by Angelo

##### Share on other sites

Einstein chose to add the cosmological constant term to keep the universe static to conform to the standard belief at the time. He was thankful when Hubble proved it was expanding.

As I mentioned science doesn't stop with Einstein that was 100 years ago.

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Adam Mann is a journalist not a professional Cosmologist. He doesn't crunch the numbers based upon different datasets.

In the first year of my Cosmology course the typical value we used was 100 km/Mpc/sec.  During the Cobe dataset we used a value similar to the Holicow measurement. That was 20 years ago. Then Planck fine tuned that value to roughly 78 km/Mpc/sec.

Even with that huge range of going from 72 to 100 Km/Mpc/sec was any new physics required. In this case we're only dealing with a 6 km/Mpc/sec difference.

Never trust pop media articles. Particularly when a professional Cosmologist tells you differently.

There were no observations that the universe was expanding at 5 times light speed 20 years ago.

This is why the new measurements are causing men like Tyson to question reality for simulation

1 minute ago, Mordred said:

Einstein chose to add the cosmological constant term to keep the universe static to conform to the standard belief at the time. He was thankful when Hubble proved it was expanding.

As I mentioned science doesn't stop with Einstein that was 100 years ago.

There was no standard belief at the time that was based upon science.  Hell the standard belief was once that the Earth was the center, so what does standard belief have to do with anything at all?

##### Share on other sites

Nothing is actually moving at greater than c this was explained to you in your other thread

However if you need detailed information on the difference between expansion rates per Mpc and the apparent recessive velocity due to $v=H_oD$ read this

It was written by a Colleague of mine and he has a pH.D whose specialty is inflation.

Secondly to the cosmological event horizon the recessive velocity is 3.2 c not 5 times c.

However that's based on seperation distance of every individual Mpc to the particle horizon. In other words it's a cumalitive result

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Nothing is actually moving at greater than c this was explained to you in your other thread

However if you need detailed information on the difference between expansion rates per Mpc and the apparent recessive velocity due to $v=H_oD$ read this

It was written by a Colleague of mine and he has a pH.D whose specialty is inflation.

The Hubble telescope made the observation not me, so explain your ideas to NASA and do believe me they are accepting new ideas because the old ones just failed

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Angelo said:

The Hubble telescope made the observation not me, so explain your ideas to NASA and do believe me they are accepting new ideas because the old ones just failed

I have a question, do you recognise that people have attempted to explain that particular thing to you? Is it A that you don't accept their answers, B that you don't understand their answers or C you just ignore them intentionally?

If it is not C, then its maybe a good idea to go back to figuring out where your thinking is in opposition, and how you could potentially learn more about, instead of immediately saying everything has failed. Honestly, you are doing a horrible job at learning anything, you don't seem to grasp or are intentionally ignoring a lot of explanations and instead you keep asserting whatever you think to be right...

##### Share on other sites

I don't need to explain anything to NASA or any other professionals organization. They are well aware the discrepancy isn't as big a deal as the pop media makes it out to be.

Like I stated Cosmology has worked with both the Planck value and through older research the Holicow value. We used to use 73 km/Mpc/sec for nearly 10 years before the Planck dataset.

##### Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Angelo said:

# Yes that has been done to me many times as my existence is not limited.  See you can not know everything about me by what you see here nor can you understand the universe by billions of year old light

We aren’t responsible for what happens elsewhere. That has not happened here. I checked all of your threads.

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dagl1 said:

I have a question, do you recognise that people have attempted to explain that particular thing to you? Is it A that you don't accept their answers, B that you don't understand their answers or C you just ignore them intentionally?

If it is not C, then its maybe a good idea to go back to figuring out where your thinking is in opposition, and how you could potentially learn more about, instead of immediately saying everything has failed. Honestly, you are doing a horrible job at learning anything, you don't seem to grasp or are intentionally ignoring a lot of explanations and instead you keep asserting whatever you think to be right...

You are determined to argue with me, however I am just referencing NASA observations.  If you know please contact NASA, they will accept your input because they are stumped

Do remember that Galileo accepted NOTHING and was right about everything

PS. The Navy just admitted that UFO's are toying with F18's

Edited by Angelo

##### Share on other sites

I can argue as my own dissertation paper back in the 80's used 73 km/Mpc/sec as a value. It worked quite fine back then and it will today.

##### Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, swansont said:

We aren’t responsible for what happens elsewhere. That has not happened here. I checked all of your threads.

You are correct but you said that this has never happened and I assure you that it has

Just now, Mordred said:

I can argue as my own dissertation paper back in the 80's used 73 km/Mpc/sec as a value. It worked quite fine back then and it will today.

The 80's before computer imaging.

What has resolution increased since the 80's

Well to steal a line, resolution has increased billions and billions of percent since the stone age 80's.

80's like in Atari asteroid

Are you serious

##### Share on other sites

Yeah we had to rely more on hand calculations. The resolution of the COBE dataset to the WMAP dataset was a significant difference. Back then we weren't even sure on what the curvature term was. Lol the Higgs field was still speculative back then.

Lol I lost track of how many shapes of the universe was theorized back then. To put it into perspective there was close to 1000 different viable inflationary models. Quintessence and MOND was still a big deal.

Just a side note my first learning experience in programming was on a VIC 20. However don't confuse computers available to the general public with computers available to Profesional research facilities. For example no one in the general public has access to numerous supercomputers available today.

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Yeah we had to rely more on hand calculations. The resolution of the COBE dataset to the WMAP dataset was a significant difference. Back then we weren't even sure on what the curvature term was. Lol the Higgs field was still speculative back then.

Lol I lost track of how many shapes of the universe was theorized back then. To put it into perspective there was close to 1000 different viable inflationary models. Quintessence and MOND was still a big deal.

Just a side note my first learning experience in programming was on a VIC 20. However don't confuse computers available to the general public with computers available to Profesional research facilities. For example no one in the general public has access to numerous supercomputers available today.

So you want to return to the 80's and deny the billions of percent more processing power since then and how much data this has gathered.

Irrational, you might as well claim that the Earth is the center of the universe if you want to go that route

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Angelo said:

Irrational, you might as well claim that the Earth is the center of the universe if you want to go that route

Are you suggesting the Earth is not a good a point as any other to pick for the centre of the universe?

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Angelo said:

We just might need new physics to get out of this mess.

That doesn’t invalidate existing physics. It just extends it. Like when evidence of Neptune was detected. It didn’t invalidate our model of the solar system, just suggested that there was an extra planet.

2 hours ago, Angelo said:

What work exactly did Einstein do to determine that the universe was not expanding?

None. It was the default assumption at the time. (Based on the known evidence.)

2 hours ago, Angelo said:

Einstein sat down with a pencil and claimed to know everything about everything that he never even saw.  Hubble looked and had to correct the pencilneck

Einstein never claimed to know everything.

And, ironically, it was Hubble who never accepted that the universe was expanding.

##### Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, studiot said:

Are you suggesting the Earth is not a good a point as any other to pick for the centre of the universe?

Actually if the big bang were real all of the information in the form of moving galaxies could be reversed to the beginning point.  This is elusive however as there seems to be no such point.  However to determine the true center of the universe one would need to know what the boundaries are.  Without this info finding a center is not logically possible, also are you referring to a geographic center or as typically proposed the beginning of expansion which can not be found.  Technically the Earth is the center of humanity in the known universe, so there are many ways to express center

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

That doesn’t invalidate existing physics. It just extends it. Like when evidence of Neptune was detected. It didn’t invalidate our model of the solar system, just suggested that there was an extra planet.

None. It was the default assumption at the time. (Based on the known evidence.)

Einstein never claimed to know everything.

And, ironically, it was Hubble who never accepted that the universe was expanding.

Wrong, as Neptune was and is not moving at 5 to 6 times the speed of light as NASA has observed.  Also Einstein can not be correct as is now accepted which agrees with the current observations

Edited by Angelo

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Angelo said:

There were no observations that the universe was expanding at 5 times light speed 20 years ago.

Yes there were. This has always been known.

2 hours ago, Angelo said:

This is why the new measurements are causing men like Tyson to question reality for simulation

The new observations have nothing to do with galaxies receding at more than light speed. And that has nothing at all to do with the simulation hypothesis.

1 hour ago, Angelo said:

The Hubble telescope made the observation not me, so explain your ideas to NASA and do believe me they are accepting new ideas because the old ones just failed

You clearly don’t understand anything you are reading. That has nothing to do with expansion. And nothing to do with anything moving faster than light.

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

Yes there were. This has always been known.

The new observations have nothing to do with galaxies receding at more than light speed. And that has nothing at all to do with the simulation hypothesis.

You clearly don’t understand anything you are reading. That has nothing to do with expansion. And nothing to do with anything moving faster than light.

Sorry the speed of light and even an expanding universe has not always been known.  Honest, not sure where your ideas come from as they are not based upon science

Edited by Angelo

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Angelo said:

Sorry the speed of light has not always been known.

It has been known for about 350 years.

But that wasn’t what I said. You seem to have severe reading comprehension problems.

9 minutes ago, Angelo said:

Honest, not sure where your ideas come from as they are not based upon science

Here’s the science part:

Quote

We show that we can observe galaxies that have, and always have had, recession velocities greater than the speed of light. We explain why this does not violate special relativity and we link these concepts to observational tests.

##### Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

It has been known for about 350 years.

But that wasn’t what I said. You seem to have severe reading comprehension problems.

Actually I said, "There were no observations that the universe was expanding at 5 times light speed 20 years ago."

Then you said "Yes there were. This has always been known."

So since the expanding universe was officially discovered in 1929 it has not always been known, and since the speed of light was first calculated in 1676 by Danish astronomer, Olaus Roemer, this also has not always been known.  I read and comprehend just fine

##### Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Angelo said:

So you want to return to the 80's and deny the billions of percent more processing power since then and how much data this has gathered.

Irrational, you might as well claim that the Earth is the center of the universe if you want to go that route

Who said anything about returning to the 80's. What part of the value that Holicow found has been used before didn't you understand ?

2 minutes ago, Angelo said:

Actually I said, "There were no observations that the universe was expanding at 5 times light speed 20 years ago."

Then you said "Yes there were. This has always been known."

So since the expanding universe was officially discovered in 1929 it has not always been known, and since the speed of light was first calculated in 1676 by Danish astronomer, Olaus Roemer, this also has not always been known.  I read and comprehend just fine

Do you have a comprehension problem ? Or is your fingers so far into your ears you refuse to listen concerning Hubble's law ?

Edited by Mordred

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Who said anything about returning to the 80's. What part of the value that Holicow found has been used before didn't you understand ?

Do you have a comprehension problem ?

Can you accept that Einstein was not correct about everything and that unfortunately too many people do not accept this

Edited by Angelo

##### Share on other sites

No object in the the entire universe moves greater than c.

No physicist ever claimed that recessive velocity is a true velocity. It an apparent velocity based upon seperation distance not a true velocity.

What part of that  do you refuse to understand ?

## Create an account

Register a new account