https://www.livescience.com/63270-h...st&utm_medium=email&utm_source=lst-newsletter Science news, scientists are no longer sure about the rate of expansion which casts considerable doubt on the universe accelerating.
I have to admit, I never understood why distant lanterns would tell us anything about the current rate of expansion, since that light takes such a long time to reach us, it must be therefore telling us something about the past rather than the current day. At best, those signals tells us that expansion was large early on. Further more, the true interpretation of expansion has to be taken as slowing down because as it has been noted, galaxies that pass through a distance will be moving at a much faster rate than those that pass the same distance at a later time, suggesting the Hubble parameter is in fact decreasing in time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law
All I know is there is not one single human being that can explain Where the universe began Why did the universe begin Where did the energy that started the universe come from We can discuss atoms, particles, charges, light, etc. etc. but nobody can explain why or from where the energy comes from.
Meaningless question in modern standard cosmological paradigm. Big bang in GR and similar theories was not an explosion into a preexisting flat spacetime void. No-one knows but many theorists speculate. Not correct, but, there is no universal agreement, so, take your pick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
i am not surprised. expansion its self is kinda hard to pin down. more soo if everything you measure with is also expanding. red-shift was a sign something was not entirely correct. gravitational lensing shows there is some weird stuff going on. now this... it shows scientists have continued to be critical and scientific. thats good news ! who is to say time its self is constant ?
This little Minion contends time does not exist Coffee moment and pack for Bali Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What's that supposed to mean? Incorrect. A red shift is completely consistent with an expanding universe. Huh? What do you think is weird about that? You mean to slightly different measurements of the expansion? You mean it is good that scientist are using the scientific method? That's not really very surprising. No one who is scientifically literate would say that.
Maybe just in a bad mood. Or justly pissed off with posters e.g. #3 above, who field opinions, get a point-by-point response, yet show no courtesy (or courage) to respond. Pathetic.
Yes it a common impression that those that should know better forget that they are observing ancient history and not something that is current.
Yes indeed. It could all be contracting at near the speed of light and we would not be able to observe such☺. A super nova could go off relatively close ( maybe only 50 to 100 light years ) and we would never see it coming... we would be toast as the light pulse hit us. When we say something is say 2 million light years away we actual are also saying what we look at is 2 million years ago. So say our closest neighbour M31 the Andromeda galaxy vanished today we would not notice it was gone for 2 million years...and when I say we that means whatever life form that is around on Earth in 2 million years if any☺ We can see M31 with the naked eye in a dark location...so you can boast your eyes are so good that you can see upto 2 million light years in distance or that you can look back in time 2 million years... Alex
