>Scientists use powerful space telescopes to measure how fast the universe is expanding. But there’s a problem. When they measure the expansion by looking at the early universe, they get one answer. When they measure it by looking at the nearby, modern universe, they get a different answer.>At first, scientists thought this mismatch was due to mistakes in measurements. But after double- and triple-checking with the Hubble and James Webb telescopes, they confirmed the measurements are correct.>This means the universe really is expanding at different speeds depending on how you measure it, which shouldn’t happen according to current theories. So now scientists think something important is missing from our understanding of the universe — possibly new physics we haven’t discovered yet.What could explain this variability?
I don't care what a twitter post farming engagement says.
>>16897134>What could explain this variability?I'm more puzzled about what could explain your wormhole picture in a post that has nothing to do with it.
>>16897138poking pen through folded sheet of paper theory is correct
>>16897134You can't assume to know something 10 orders of magnitude further away from where you will ever reach.
>>16897134AIslop
>>16897134>Recent discoveries shows that our understanding of the universe might be wrongLiterally a daily occurance for me...https://youtu.be/Wst36uwM_iY
>>16898170>clickbait title for brainlets
>>16898181>for brainletsYeah, I found this one of his to be a bit memeish, I just posted it because it was fresh shittalking about Eisenstein. Go call him an idiot, please.https://youtu.be/GuLL_upE4zk
>gravity things doesn't fall makefrom the mind of absolute psychopaths
>>16897134Something in the chain of assumptions in wrong?Time isn't uniform?Particles move weird?There's another force that's really quite subtle?There are an infinite number of smaller and smaller forces that fold into our current ones?Idk man it seems like we just need to keep testing and mainly think about human expansion
>>16897134So what are they? Space expands faster near us?
>>16897134God kept his hand on the dark energy dial and finetunes it to the universe's evolving needs.
>>16897134it's a bunch of aliens messing with our measurements, like when you set a prank on a telescope and make the person looking see something ridiculous
so it was expanding at a different rate billions of years ago (looking at things billions of light years away) than it is now (looking at things closer, maybe only millions of light years away)? Why don't they just say that?
>unknown physics exists No? Really?? No way!!!Fucking morons
>be part of system>try to make absolute statements about the system>the system changehow could this happen?
>>16897134>When we measure old stuff it's expanding at one rate, but when we measure new stuff it's expanding at a different rate! That could only happen if physics is wrong!Doesn't that just imply the rate of expansion has changed? Which is, you know, the current theory?
>>16900516>Doesn't that just imply the rate of expansion has changed? Which is, you know, the current theory?What if they are measuring the rate of change of the rate of expansion? Like a second derivative
>>16897134It's not a mistake in measurement, it's a mistake in their belief about what is causing red shift. It's that simple literally.
>>16897134>Proposal for a degree of scientificity in cosmology. Neves, Juliano C. S.Found. Sci. 25, No. 3, 857-878 (2020).>Summary: In spite of successful tests, the standard cosmological model, the Λ CDM model, possesses the most problematic concept: the initial singularity, also known as the big bang. In this paper – by adopting the Kantian difference between to think of an object and to cognize an object – it is proposed a degree of scientificity using fuzzy sets. Thus, the notion of initial singularity will not be conceived of as a scientific issue because it does not belong to the fuzzy set of what is known. Indeed, the problematic concept of singularity is some sort of what Kant called the noumenon, but science, on the other hand, is constructed in the phenomenon. By applying the fuzzy degree of scientificity in cosmological models, one concludes that cosmologies with a contraction phase before the current expansion phase are potentially more scientific than the standard model. At the end of this article, it is shown that Kant’s first antinomy of pure reason indicates a limit to our cosmological models.
>>16897134>This means the universe really is expanding at different speeds depending on how you measure itI think this may be an old maritime proverb for when time pieces were necessary for a navigator, but I'm not 100% certain of this but the idea behind it remains true.>if you carry one clock you'll always know what time it is>if you carry two clocks, you'll never know what time it is>if you carry three clocks, you'll always know what time it isBasically, if 2 clocks are wrong, you don't know which is right and which is wrong, which is why you should carry 3.Maybe what we need is to invent a new method of measurement to compare with the other 2.
>>16897134doesn't this mean expansion rate oscillates over time?
>>16901058Yes it does. Whatever is driving the expansion force of the universe acts as a wave, as many unobserved things such as quantum particles do. It's similar to how sound (oscilating vibrations in non-vacuum space) or energy waves (I.E radiation) exist. The entire universe acts as oscillating waves. This oscillation extends beyond our current universe (I.E before the big bang was the oscillation of quantum fields, acting as waves). This means that the Big Bounce is the ultimate answer to the question of the ultimate fate of the universe, our current universe is simply a positive amplitude in the oscillations of existence as a whole. This also disproves religion as presented by the argument of "intelligent design", as the reason why the universe was built in such a way that facilitates human life is simply because we happen to be on an oscillation in which physical constants exist in such a state that it may allow for the formation of organic matter, and thus exist in a state through which constants allow for conscious mind (be it the dualist view of external consciousness being able to adhere itself to physical matter, or the materialist view of consciousness being an emergent property of physical processes); if we weren't in a version (oscillation) of the universe that didn't facilitate human life then we would not be here to observe it, we would have to wait for one that allowed for conscious existence.
>>16900520>What if they are measuring the rate of change of the rate of expansion? Like a second derivativeOMG what if they are measuring the rate of change of the rate of change of the rate of expansion? a third derivative!
>>16897134Parsimony says it is not a correct model. :I
>>16900927>the actual reason modern physicists hate philosophy is that it doesn't take their mathematical models at face value as absolute truth
>>16897134Mach's principle.
>>16897134Is the universe in the room with us right now?
>>16897134we are in the midst of an explosion displaying scaled signatures of combustive, pressurised and fluidly dynamic expression, at least at our planetary physics scale to our best perceptionsbut the centre of the universe is all around us, the edge is a single point in the middleour reality as a fish eye lenswhat we call the major forces are effects and causes of the universes condition as we perceive it in our minuscule corner of space/timethere are no constants invariable across the state of our brane, areas where time could appear to even turn on itself, what appears to us as sedentary and monolithic, broilsif the entirety of the existence of the universe were sped up to last one of our seconds it would be slightly like a chemically impure explosion in a pressure cooker half full of soup, both literally and metaphysically
>>16901062None of that disproves relgion. You haven't given of account of why there is something rather than nothing. There must be an original something that has always existed. We call this first thing, "God".
>>16905413>None of that disproves relgionI wasn't trying to disprove religion as a whole, what I actually said was>This also disproves religion as presented by the argument of "intelligent design"I'm saying that the idea of Intelligent Design as an argument for the existence of a God is a shoddy argument because the problem can equally be explain by what is essentially cosmic survivorship bias.>There must be an original something that has always existed. We call this first thing, "God".Is that to imply that if we were to somehow disprove the existence of a theistic god as a concept (not currently possible, but this is a hypothetical) and prove that all that ever existed before us was quantum waves, and that nothing existed before those quantum waves, you would still consider us as being created by a god? That seems like moving the goalposts, considering "god" has a definition that is inseparable from Theism in the same way that "electron" has a definition that is inseparable from Physics. That is to say, these kinds of words have a structural role that is inseparable from the framework they were defined within and to ignore that framework is to make a different word that simply sounds and is spelt the same but has a fundamentally different meaning.
>>16899376This.We assume light speed is consistent across any distance-time and therefore redshift is the result of distant galaxies, space-time moving away from us, due to expansion of space, as example. The assumption of an expanding universe also forced a singularity at the beginning even though there's no rational basis for that (all that matter-energy popping out of nothing, and then requiring a perverse initial period of absurd expansion before it suddenly slows down). Maybe light waves behave like say a fluid and the waves lengthen over enough distance and time without expansion.Honestly there's so many holes in current models and the "Dark matter/energy" grout keeps getting slapped onto the increasingly fractured wall of modern science it's better to just smash it down and rebuild from scratch, but what's the saying? Revolutionary science is always on an 80 year cycle?Until the Day of the Pillow, we're stuck with GR and the rest of the current dogma and copes that are fundamentally unfalsifiable but will defend with their dying breaths even though it's the secular version of "God did it shut up SHUT UP!".
