New, Higher Measurement of Universe's Expansion May Lead To a 'New Physics' (space.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New, Higher Measurement of Universe's Expansion May Lead To a 'New Physics' (space.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Thursday January 26, 2017 @07:00PM from the faster-than-expected-expansion dept.

doug141 writes: Astronomers have measured the universe's current expansion rate (a value known as the Hubble constant) at about 44.7 miles (71.9 kilometers) per second per megaparsec (3.26 million light-years). This is consistent with a calculation that was announced last year by a research team, but it's considerably higher than the rate that was estimated by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite mission in 2015 -- about 41.6 miles (66.9 km) per second per megaparsec. The cause of this discrepancy is unclear. "The expansion rate of the universe is now starting to be measured in different ways with such high precision that actual discrepancies may possibly point towards new physics beyond our current knowledge of the universe," a researcher said. Mike Wall writes via Space.com: "The differences in the Hubble constant estimates may reflect something that astronomers don't understand about the early universe, or something that has changed since that long-ago epoch, scientists have said. For example, it's possible that dark energy -- the mysterious force that's thought to be driving the universe's accelerating expansion -- has grown in strength over the eons, members of Riess' team said last year. The discrepancy could also indicate that dark matter -- the strange, invisible stuff that astronomers think vastly outweighs 'normal' matter throughout the universe -- has as-yet-unappreciated characteristics, or that Einstein's theory of gravity has some holes, they added."

139 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Higher measurement by pahles · 2017-01-26 19:06 · Score: 4, Funny

What, they were standing on a skyscraper when they measured it?

--
Sig?
1. Re: Higher measurement by prefec2 · 2017-01-26 19:21 · Score: 1
  
  That would explain a lot in America these days.
2. Re: Higher measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 19:32 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  Marijuana makes women vote for a pussy grabbing.
3. Re: Higher measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 19:45 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  There's not enough marijuana in the world to make you funny.
4. Re:Higher measurement by stud9920 · 2017-01-26 23:16 · Score: 1
  
  What, they were standing on a skyscraper when they measured it?
  Trump Tower. And it produced alternate facts
5. Re:Higher measurement by Lisandro · 2017-01-27 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  The best facts. Tremendous. It's true.
6. Re:Higher measurement by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2017-01-27 01:05 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Legalized Majorana? Some physicists could indeed crave that...
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
7. Re:Higher measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Trump's lying is almost as bad as his predecessor. At least Obama was good at lying.
8. Re:Higher measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 14:54 · Score: 0
  
  > At least Obama was good at lying.
  Yeah, he was so good at it, he even fooled the fact-checkers...
9. Re: Higher measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-29 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Ta co-mido...
10. Re:Higher measurement by Coren22 · 2017-01-30 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  Because clearly we have 58 states and Obama was right all along!
  http://www.snopes.com/politics...
  Also, all his "facts" about gun crime/control are entirely accurate.
  http://townhall.com/columnists...
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
11. Re:Higher measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-31 09:24 · Score: 0
  
  Lol! That's the best you've got? Obviously it wasn't a slip of the tongue and Obama really believes there are 58 states...
  I'm sure the fact checkers were all over that one: "We checked and every reference available indicates there are, in fact, only 50 states." Score one for the (R)s!
  I won't comment on the gun issue since that's rhetoric, but concede he was wrong on several points.
12. Re:Higher measurement by Coren22 · 2017-01-31 11:59 · Score: 1
  
  As if there aren't 100's more where those came from?
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
13. Re:Higher measurement by Anonymous Coward · 2017-02-02 21:54 · Score: 0
  
  Anything on a par with "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"?
14. Re:Higher measurement by Coren22 · 2017-02-03 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  What does that have to do with anything? Iraq DID have WMD. Just not nuclear ones.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
  It was known that Iraq had WMD, which is why the inspections were required by the UN. When Saddam decided to block the inspections, it made the world concerned that he was again manufacturing, which is why the US invaded.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by locater16 · 2017-01-26 19:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

In other news "new independent measure of hubble constant shows possible difference from previous measurement. Many more measurements and peer review and theory to follow slowly. But this won't give clicks and excitement so we'll exaggerate things as much as possible please click please click please click please..."
1. Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 19:22 · Score: 0, Funny
  
  Build a wall around the universe and make the aliens pay for it.
2. Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Tough+Love · 2017-01-26 21:30 · Score: 2
  
  I don't mind, I'm a glutton for big science news. Beat heck out of People magazine.
  
  --
  When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
3. Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Baloroth · 2017-01-27 02:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  This is one of the "many more measurements". Basically, there are two traditionally two ways to measure the Hubble constant: from supernovae, and from the CMB. Recently (i.e. the past few years) these two sets of measurements have disagreed about the value, with the CMB measurement shooting lower, and supernovae shooting higher, and both sides of the debate having good reasons to doubt the other. This looks to be a method independent of both of the others, which is a really good thing. Not that the linked article explains this, or gives a link to the damned paper which would probably explain this itself.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
4. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  Except Mexicans won't even pay for it indirectly. The cost of import taxes will be passed on to the consumer an the Americans will be paying for it.
  If the taxes are high enough that local goods are cheeper to buy, then the Mexican goods will not be purchased and no taxes for the wall. Americans end up paying for it and more Mexicans go looking for better paying opportunities in America.
  If the taxes are low enough that the goods are still sold, then the consumer ultimately pays for the taxes and America still ends up paying for it.
5. Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Gazzonyx · 2017-01-27 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  This is one of the "many more measurements". Basically, there are two traditionally two ways to measure the Hubble constant: from supernovae, and from the CMB. Recently (i.e. the past few years) these two sets of measurements have disagreed about the value, with the CMB measurement shooting lower, and supernovae shooting higher, and both sides of the debate having good reasons to doubt the other. This looks to be a method independent of both of the others, which is a really good thing. Not that the linked article explains this, or gives a link to the damned paper which would probably explain this itself.
  44 Miles / second / megaparsec isn't a number that I at all have the slightest frame of reference for in relation to the size and vastness of the units we're talking here and I kind of doubt I'm the only one that doesn't even know where to begin getting a more firm grasp on this topic. Since I'm not at all well versed in this topic and wouldn't know if I looked up faulty estimates, could you enlighten me to the best of your understanding as to how large the discrepancy between the two measurements of the Doppler effect is and what the ramifications of the difference is? Are we talking an order of magnitude, or like, a _relatively_ small number but with the difference being whether the universe will continue to expand or run out of inertia and come back in for a Big Crunch?
  
  --
  If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
6. Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  IANAS, but if I had to place my bet it would be on the supernova method being off due to imperfections in our cosmic distance ladder. The ESA's GAIA mission should help refine that the shortest rung of that distance ladder:
  
  Gaia is an ambitious mission to chart a three-dimensional map of our Galaxy, the Milky Way, in the process revealing the composition, formation and evolution of the Galaxy. Gaia will provide unprecedented positional and radial velocity measurements with the accuracies needed to produce a stereoscopic and kinematic census of about one billion stars in our Galaxy and throughout the Local Group. This amounts to about 1 per cent of the Galactic stellar population.
  More:
  
  By combining Gaia data with information from these less precise catalogues, it was possible to start disentangling the effects of ‘parallax’ and ‘proper motion’ even from the first year of observations only. Parallax is a small motion in the apparent position of a star caused by Earth’s yearly revolution around the Sun and depends on a star’s distance from us, while proper motion is due to the physical movement of stars through the Galaxy.
  In this way, the scientists were able to estimate distances and motions for the two million stars spread across the sky in the combined Tycho–Gaia Astrometric Solution, or TGAS.
7. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  There is so much wrong with your post. I am going to try to help you. Really, I am even going to try to do it without being an asshole.
  The price being passed on to consumers is largely a myth. Prices are already set at what the market will bear. If they could charge more, they would already be doing so.
  Then, if the goods made in the country are selling, as opposed to the imports, then there will be increased tax revenue. In other words, if we stopped buying the goods from Mexico and purchased locally manufactured goods it would mean more people are gainfully employed and more money is exchanged locally. When money changes hands, the government taxes it. The increased revenue, by taxation, can be used to pay for things like walls.
  Note: I have offered no opinion on the effectiveness or validity of the wall. I have offered no opinion on politics. I have offered no opinion on taxation. I am simply ensuring you are given the chance to see how critical thinking applies to more than word problems.
8. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by dgatwood · 2017-01-27 06:10 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The price being passed on to consumers is largely a myth. Prices are already set at what the market will bear. If they could charge more, they would already be doing so.
  And the taxes will raise those prices, creating a shift in the entire curve. Most of the cost will still end up getting paid by Americans. However, as a consequence, the American poor won't be able to afford fresh produce anymore, and Mexico will sell their excess in other countries, who will have better access to fresh produce as a result.
  
  Then, if the goods made in the country are selling, as opposed to the imports, then there will be increased tax revenue.
  Maybe. The trade imbalance with Mexico isn't really that big. They import about 78% as much from us as we do from them. So if we tax imports and they tax imports, the resulting loss of jobs from export reduction would be about 78% of the gain in jobs from import reduction if all things are equal. So even at first glance, you might assume that we would come out only slightly ahead.
  Unfortunately, most of our imports from Mexico are things like parts for automobiles, fresh produce, etc., whereas our exports are mostly finished goods. The parts manufacturing jobs would either move to China or would be automated in the U.S., because our labor costs are too high relative to other countries. So there would either be no new jobs or far fewer new jobs than you might expect, and probably fewer jobs than those lost as a result of the export reduction.
  As for agriculture, although many Mexicans would love it if we grew more produce (particularly the migrant workers who went back to Mexico because of poor pay during our last economic downturn), these are not the jobs you're looking for, and a trade war would make our illegal immigration problems worse as those migrant workers came back to the U.S. en masse in response to higher demand for workers.
  Moreover, foreign companies would be able to build their finished goods in other countries and then ship complete cars to America, thus avoiding the tariffs. This would result in a significant cost advantage over American companies, which would make the economic damage to America even worse than it otherwise would be.
  So the bottom line is that when you add it all up, a trade war with Mexico would likely result in a net loss of jobs and taxes, rather than a net gain. Trade wars almost invariably hurt the countries involved far more than they help, which is why most sane countries avoid them at all costs.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
9. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by ClickOnThis · 2017-01-27 06:19 · Score: 0
  
  There is so much wrong with your post. I am going to try to help you. Really, I am even going to try to do it without being an asshole.
  How generous of you. But alas, the rest of your post shows that you are the one who needs help.
  
  The price being passed on to consumers is largely a myth. Prices are already set at what the market will bear. If they could charge more, they would already be doing so.
  Then, if the goods made in the country are selling, as opposed to the imports, then there will be increased tax revenue. In other words, if we stopped buying the goods from Mexico and purchased locally manufactured goods it would mean more people are gainfully employed and more money is exchanged locally. When money changes hands, the government taxes it. The increased revenue, by taxation, can be used to pay for things like walls.
  The only sense I can make of your argument is that you think Mexico, in the face of an import tariff, will lower their prices to remain competitive with American-made goods, and thus indirectly "pay" the tariff in order to build the wall for us. I think that's desperately wishful thinking. And even if it happens, it still means manufacturing jobs remain in Mexico, but that they just become even shittier jobs for Mexicans.
  As for shifting tax-revenue sources to American workers who make the goods instead of Mexican workers, you defeat your own argument and support that of the GP: American (not Mexican) money would then be paying for the wall.
  
  Note: I have offered no opinion on the effectiveness or validity of the wall. I have offered no opinion on politics. I have offered no opinion on taxation. I am simply ensuring you are given the chance to see how critical thinking applies to more than word problems.
  LOL. If you were to have engaged in critical thinking, you would have seen that it is folly to enact policies that are funded by activity you don't want to encourage.
  
  --
  If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
10. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 08:36 · Score: 0
  
  No. Have you seen what happened to the peso? Mexico is reeling.
11. Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by nasch · 2017-01-27 10:36 · Score: 2
  
  I couldn't tell you what the ramifications are but the higher measurement is about 3.5% higher than the lower one. So not something that clearly indicates some kind of massive error like one group was measuring the wrong universe or something, but sounds pretty significant.
12. Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Baloroth · 2017-01-27 10:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I don't know all the ramifications (as I don't work in either CMB or distance measurement astrophysics), but the difference is pretty small (the Planck measurement was ~67 1/(km*Mpc), compared to this which was 72 1/(km*Mpc)). This measurement, now I look at the actual numbers, is actually closer to the measurement most of the CMB experiments have gotten (Planck got lower than most, albeit with smaller error bars). FWIW, the measurements are all a few standard deviations away from each other (as a rule you need more than 5 standard deviation for results to really be considered in disagreement), so really it's not a major discrepancy.
  If the CMB measurement turns out to be wrong, it *could* indicate some interesting new physics (modified gravity, some new species of dark matter, dark energy doesn't behave quite like we think it does, that kind of thing) which would be very interesting indeed. But, we're still a ways away from being able to say that with any certainty.
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
13. Re:10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Baloroth · 2017-01-27 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  Damned slashdot with no edit button. That should say "within a few standard deviations of each other". Also, the numbers should read as "67 km per second per megaparsec" and "72 km per second per megaparsec" (I dropped the seconds, and you should ignore the 1's).
  
  --
  "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
14. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-28 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  Actually it should be converted to furlongs per fortnight. I propose that the editors only allow three measurement systems here:
  FFF
  MKS
  SSS
  AAA
15. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Maritz · 2017-01-30 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  You put a vacuously stupid cunt in charge. You're not going to stop hearing about it. Get used to it.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
16. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Maritz · 2017-01-30 00:23 · Score: 1
  
  A trade war with Mexico will hurt the US more than you and Trump appear to think. But hey, let's just see, shall we?
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
17. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Coren22 · 2017-01-30 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  But at least we didn't' elect the corrupt stupid "cunt" that was put forward by the other side.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
18. Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science.... by Coren22 · 2017-01-30 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  4.258e+8 Furlongs per Fortnight per 153388093534000000000 Furlongs.
  
  --
  APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Why do we need new physics? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 20:06 · Score: 0

Everyone knows physics attained perfection in 1917. It's a scientific fact.
1. Re:Why do we need new physics? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 21:12 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  Everyone knows physics attained perfection in 1917. It's a scientific fact.
  Please, let's called it settled science. It's important to not waste any more time measuring the universe expansion, we have to realize that unless we stop all energy usage now, the universe expansion will continue unabated until we all die a cold, lonely death. It doesn't matter if our little contribution won't affect anything on the long run, but it will assuage our conscience.
2. Re: Why do we need new physics? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 12:40 · Score: 0
  
  Ever heard of QED?
99% likely a math error, but... by Rollgunner · 2017-01-26 20:10 · Score: 1

There's always a chance that both answers are correct, even though they are different. Depending where you look (and how far back in time), the physical laws of the universe *might* be a little different.

Einstein said it : "Then again, E=mc^2 may only be a local phenomenon."
1. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by mmell · 2017-01-26 21:07 · Score: 2
  
  I've heard similar predictions associated with M-theory. If the separation between our brane and neighboring branes is not uniform, it's possible that the scalar "constants" (e.g., the relationship between mass and gravity) could prove to not be constant.
  Put another way: if there is a place in our universe where the neighboring branes are closer than they are here, an Earth-sized planet might well exert more than 1g of force on objects around it. Conversely, a greater separation between branes might result in lower gravity associated with a given mass.
  This may be no more readily observed than the curvature of the Earth. The Earth certainly looks flat from my back yard (and even more so from a back yard in Kansas), but when you can see enough of it the curvature becomes readily apparent. It may well be that it requires observations on this vast cosmic scale to discern the inconstant nature of our universe.
2. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Fragnet · 2017-01-26 21:29 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it had already been measured and shown to be pretty much flat?
3. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by mmell · 2017-01-26 21:47 · Score: 1
  
  Not saying the Universe could be curved . . . saying constants such as magnetism and gravity may not be constant. Like Earth's curvature, this may not be apparent to local examination.
4. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 22:05 · Score: 0
  
  Saying constants such as magnetism and gravity may not be constant, or even differ locally, is saying that the speed of light is not a constant or can differ locally.
  That would impact pretty much everything in cosmology and would have been noticed in other measurements as well. Especially when we are talking about differences of this magnitude.
  Anything is possible, but this will require some serious science to reconcile.
5. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 22:11 · Score: 0
  
  Curvature of the Earth is readily observable from ships on the ocean. Makes you wonder how far out we might need to launch probes to observe inconstant gravitational constants, perhaps as far as intergalactic space.
6. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  Making grandiose claims about the nature of the entire universe is quite presumptuous for life forms which have never ventured beyond the gravity well of their home planet. Get out of the basement, there's a universe outside!
7. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 22:45 · Score: 0
  
  Don't forget the mountains, but other than that, it's pretty flat-like, except for those anomaly readings we've been having lately..
8. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2017-01-26 23:07 · Score: 0, Flamebait
  
  Indeed. When I'm debugging a program and feed it new data and something completely unexpected (and obviously off-the-wall) comes out the other side, I always ask myself "Wait, what am I assuming?".
  This is what drives me absolutely batshit about modern cosmology:
  
  1) The speed of light is constant, everywhere and everywhen.
  2) The gravitational constant is the same, everywhere and everywhen.
  3) The shape of space is uniformly flat, everywhere and everywhen.
  4) Please don't get me started about standard candles.
  5) Or cosmological inflation.
  6) Or the (luminiferous) aether. Sorry, the Higgs field/particle/whatever.
  
  new data
  
  Therefore: Dark Matter!!! Dark Energy!!! QED!
  
  Picture a boulder embedded on a steep hillside. We say it wants to roll downhill, but it really wants to fall to the center of the earth, it's just the shape of its local space that constrains it to roll downhill. Now picture a pebble sitting on top of the boulder. It's attracted to the center of the earth, but also (yes, yes, weakly) gravitationally attracted to the center of the boulder. It wants to roll down (two!) hills. Actually, it's also attracted to the Sun, and Jupiter, and the Milky Way black hole, and Andromeda; a zillion other force vectors get simplifyingly assumed away. And we're in the position of being an ant sitting on top of the pebble, making local observations and universal assumptions.
  
  To my way of thinking, modern cosmology has posited a spherical cow of uniform density, and is baffled about where milk comes from.
9. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 23:39 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  1) The speed of light is constant, everywhere and everywhen.
  Variable Speed of Light theories, around for 20-30 years. Investigated in cds.cern.ch/record/618057/files/0305457.pdf
  Current observations put very very very tight bounds on dc/dt.
  2) The gravitational constant is the same, everywhere and everywhen.
  Jordan-Brans-Dicke theories. Hundreds of papers, dating back to Dirac's large number hypothesis. See http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar...
  3) The shape of space is uniformly flat, everywhere and everywhen.
  No. Space-time is a curved manifold. Not only in the cosmological (isotropic+homogeneous limit) with limiting spaces of three-spheres or hyperbolic spaces, but also across huge perturbations on them. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.038... for tests of homogeneity and isotropy, for example.
  4) Please don't get me started about standard candles.
  OK, I won't. They conform with observations, match the fine-stucture constant and Lyman forest predictions incredibly well, vast literature that exists on these matches cosmic helium and hydrogen observations, matches with galactic rotations etc.
  5) Or cosmological inflation.
  Producing effects as predicted. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.165... for an in depth probability test of cosmological parameters including the spectral tilt and scalar to tensor ratio of perturbations (CMB) predicted by inflation.
  6) Or the (luminiferous) aether. Sorry, the Higgs field/particle/whatever.
  Predicted, observed, behaving exactly as predicted at 5 sigma significance in the mass.
  Just because YOU don't know about it, doesn't mean that we haven't investigated it. But of course, feel free to keep having a reckon without looking stuff up first.
10. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Fragnet · 2017-01-27 00:31 · Score: 1
  
  I think Lee Smolin is a fan of "laws" evolving. Though from what I have seen he's never managed to be less vague than that.
11. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 01:56 · Score: 0
  
  When I'm debugging a program and feed it new data and something completely unexpected (and obviously off-the-wall) comes out the other side, I always ask myself why on earth did I decide to use that pile of crap NodeJS and JavaScript for a server-side project?
  
  There, FTFY. Although the results are probably indistinguishable from dark matter when you're using Node.
12. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  Now that's a better attempt at a troll. Keep trying and you might get the hang of it eventually...
13. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-27 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  The Earth certainly looks flat from my back yard (and even more so from a back yard in Kansas),
  Many people in Kansas know that the earth is flat.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
14. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Quirkz · 2017-01-27 03:12 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  In a land where tornadoes are wormholes to alternate dimensions, you've got to have all kinds of weird physics going on.
  
  --
  The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
15. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-27 03:31 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Indeed. When I'm debugging a program and feed it new data and something completely unexpected (and obviously off-the-wall) comes out the other side, I always ask myself "Wait, what am I assuming?".
  This is what drives me absolutely batshit about modern cosmology:
  I believe you. What this points out however is that you are completely unsuited for modern cosmology. That isn't trying to be insulting, as not many people are not.
  The problem with cosmology is that we are not "there". We are not present at the birth of the universe, we are not in an early galaxy, we do not have people across the universs who can communicate with us to inform us of just what is what.
  So there has to be assumptions. Otherwise we are left with the idea that the sky is a upside down bowl with holes in it, or that the stars are the souls of our ancestors looking down on us (I'll return to that in a minute)
  So now these assumptions. Wild-ass guesses, some of them. In fact, that upside down bowl and ancestors concept was indeed cosmology, and two wild-ass guesses. Assumptions long since proven untrue. And cosmology is littered with this:
  Ptolemaic system, Geocentric universe, Heliocentric Universe, Copernican system, Newtonian Gravity, Steady State Universe. In the middle of this there was the concept of luminiferous aether, which comes closest to a modern wild ass guess.
  As each model was superseded by knowledge learned, it was abandoned. It doesn't mean that the people of science who did all the previous work were idiots. It was just that we learned more. In earlier times, there were so many more assumptions. And facts were slow coming in. But when a fact destroyed an assumption, the assumption had to go.
  side note: I want to approach this delicately, but there are many real world cases of people and groups of people who demand to hold on to earlier assumptions in the face of facts.
  And in the world of cosmology, the previous and wrong cosmology is not bad, or even useless. It becomes a placeholder, a basis to do further research. If we just threw up our hands and gave up at every thing we do not know, there would be no research. So we'd be praying to those little dots of light in the sky - maybe, because that is a cosmological assumption as well. Or may just looking at them with no thoughts of any kind. Is that what you would prefer?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
16. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-27 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  In a land where tornadoes are wormholes to alternate dimensions, you've got to have all kinds of weird physics going on.
  Like any time someone pops a boner outside of the sanctity of marriage, God levels a city with a hurricane?
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
17. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by meta-monkey · 2017-01-27 03:59 · Score: 1
  
  Flat in spatial dimensions, yes. That doesn't necessarily mean it's flat in higher dimensions, though. Also doesn't mean there are or are not higher dimensions.
  
  --
  We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
18. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 04:12 · Score: 0
  
  You really pissed off some basement monkeys who think they understand physics.
19. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 04:17 · Score: 0
  
  Despite your socket puppets with mod points, you were still whooshed so hard it must have been hurting so far :-D
20. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  Saying constants such as magnetism and gravity may not be constant, or even differ locally, is saying that the speed of light is not a constant or can differ locally.
  That would impact pretty much everything in cosmology and would have been noticed in other measurements as well. Especially when we are talking about differences of this magnitude.
  Anything is possible, but this will require some serious science to reconcile.
  Unless the 'constant' is more accurately described as a 'universal average', but can in some cases have localized variations.
  But then again, there's a big difference between idle speculation and actual Theory.
21. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  You tried to be polite but still could not understand the guy. I will explain to you: He noticed that some physicists bumping into something that is different from what was predicted in the calculations, and then they decided to ignore that they may have assumed wrong things in creating the calculations because these assumed things are much like "sacred dogmas from Physics".
22. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · 2017-01-27 04:54 · Score: 1
  
  You really pissed off some basement monkeys who think they understand physics.
  
  "-1 Flamebait". Yeah, I get that. Kinda sad, you used to be able to have decent conversations here.
23. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 05:53 · Score: 0
  
  When a star dies, it leaves a dead solar system. Eventually, those same atoms will be used in a new star and a new solar system will be created. This leads to what is, I should think, the most important question in all of astrophysics. Do the now reborn solar systems qualify as zombie solar systems?
  The answer to that question is certainly an affirmative. However, that leads to a other question. See, these things all make what we can best call noise. Yes, the universe makes something we can sort of describe as sound, for a loose definition of sound of course.
  The planets emit energies, as do the stars. It is not a huge leap to assume this is communication, even though we don't think of them as sentient. Certainly, this emitted energy travels a great distance - sometimes as light in the visible spectrum. We can see this phenomena at work when we look up in a clear night.
  So, when we look up on a clear night and see the stars. They could, in fact, be communicating with one another. We're just not smart enough to understand.
  Now, some of those galaxies and solar systems have died many times over. This means there is a lot of potential zombie solar systems. Which means there is a lot of zombie communication.
  Do you know what those zombie solar systems are saying? No? I do. They don't say much that is intelligible. No, they do not. But, if you listen really closely, you can sometimes make it out. They are saying, "Branes!"
  I am not proud of this post. I'd log in but I can not, for other reasons. No, I am not proud of this post at all.
24. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 06:03 · Score: 0
  
  Same AC here (use mod points so can only post as AC on this topic).
  
  People these days can not think anymore, they stick to the theories said by others as if their lives depend on it, even when these theories begin to show flaws. For them a guy like... let's say Newton for example, to then Newton is not just a pretty smart guy, for them Newton is a God and God can not be questioned.
25. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 06:05 · Score: 0
  
  "Producing effects as predicted." Not really. The current modified lambda-CDM models suffer from various problems. First is that being models - and note my use of the plural - they require input parameters. These input parameters not only are tuned to provide output consistent with observations, but - as has been widely known for years - allow so great a range of predictions that its difficult to imagine that ANY observation couldn't be modeled. That is, they aren't falsifiable, get a observational result at odds with the model predictions, and you just tune the model. Another way of saying this is these models have too many degrees of freedom. The current problem is that the CMB observations can be "explained" by the models ONLY if very improbable initial conditions are assumed. And yes there is a relationship between these two issues, obviously. The simplest lambda-CDM models are NOT consistent with observations. The more complex models can be forced into consistency, but only at the cost of requiring some implausible tuning. We're left with the choice between finding a different model, or explaining why the parameters took on the particular and necessary values they must have (in a given model). Note that the current observations which are a problem are it's exceptional uniformity - quantum mechanics allows for this, but the chances that such uniformity would actually happen is extremely low. It's like the old thermodynamic's professor. He reads about a mysterious death in which a man is found in his room with clear and unambiguous signs of death by rapid decompression and oxygen deprivation. His conclusion is that the molecules of air (most of them, anyway) must have concentrated away from him and led to a partial vacuum being formed. Such an event is allowed by thermodynamics. Some will think "case solved", others will find such an explanation quite implausible - there's almost certainly a better explanation. We're in the same situation with the CMB and lambda-CDM.
26. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-27 06:09 · Score: 2
  
  You tried to be polite but still could not understand the guy. I will explain to you: He noticed that some physicists bumping into something that is different from what was predicted in the calculations, and then they decided to ignore that they may have assumed wrong things in creating the calculations because these assumed things are much like "sacred dogmas from Physics".
  No, they are not sacred dogmas in physics. My point is that many people believe that you have to decide on something, then come hell or high water, you believe that until the day you die. That is not how a scientist's mind works. Here is a for instance. At one time, many years ago, I believed in the Steady State Universe. But after seeing much evidence that contradicted my views, I abandoned it. Just like that. No existential crisis, just accepting the new evidence.
  And that is the difference between many people. I won't mean anyone any disrespect, but let us shift to say, a creationist. A person who believes that the world was created in 4004 b.c.e, and that all the earth's inhabitants were created at that time and in their present and unalterable for is welcome to that belief, but there is an amazing mountain of evidence shared across many disciplines like biology, and physics that shows that unless there is some act of divine and purposeful obfuscation going on, creationism as espoused by fundamentalist Christians has almost zero probability of being a fact.
  But they have every right to have that belief. And short of an existential crisis of losing their faith, they will likely take that belief to the grave.
  I have no idea if NonAlphaCharsHere has any of that sort of fundamentalist belief, but I can gather from his post that he is much more comfortable with proven facts than the needed guesswork and placeholders and slow advancement and discarding of old theories and conjecture that is required in cosmology. That is just a fact. Even for technically minded people, there are those who prefer dealing in the concrete, like civil engineers.
  Its in the way different people's minds work. And its actually all good. I've had many interesting conversations with fundamentalist friends, including one who is a NucE, mainly because it takes incredible twists and turns of logic to work with half-lives and the other aspects that agree with other physics fields when you believe that the earth is only a bit over 6000 years old. But we respect each other, and enjoy each other's company. And since we travelled a lot with each other, that's a darn good thing.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
27. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  Apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all
28. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 07:42 · Score: 0
  
  Actually no. Inflation is an attracter - generic initial conditions produce it within even the simplest models - see https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.021...
  The fine-tuning problem is normally cited for lambda is so small in energy density, but that has nothing to do with inflation.
  What exactly are the observations you're claiming that lambda-CDM doesn't fit with? The Planck satellite appears to be showing it to fit almost perfectly...
29. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Megol · 2017-01-27 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  You should be ashamed! However I did smile... :)
30. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by mmell · 2017-01-27 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say I subscribed to M-theory (or even string theory). Frankly, I'm still a fan of Einstein's theories - except that they don't explain everything, and quantum theory has made predictions which were later verified (quantum tunneling, particle superposition states). Even Albert Einstein knew that Relativity was a theory, not a fact.
  It's too bad there isn't some kind of wonderful, grand theory to unify the contradictions in our current understanding of the Universe. Something we could test. We must be getting closer though - I can feel it in my GUTs.
31. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  I'm pretty sure the poster was talking about this gravitational constant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant ) not 9.81ms^-2
32. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 16:37 · Score: 0
  
  > Even Albert Einstein knew that Relativity was a theory, not a fact.
  When he was asked what he would do if Eddington's 1919 gravitational lensing experiment had disproved relativity, Einstein reportedly said, "Then I would weep for God-- the theory is correct."
33. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 18:19 · Score: 0
  
  He turns over a truckload of puppies.
34. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Maritz · 2017-01-30 00:29 · Score: 1
  
  I thought it was pretty obvious that the universe looks much the same from either here or Mars or Saturn, but now I see your post and I guess not everyone sees it as obvious. Scary.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
35. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Maritz · 2017-01-30 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  (6) As to the Higgs monstrosity, only highly paid physics fanatics think this (a) has been found and (b) explains anything. Not enough sigmas, no sense behind the theory, but boy it sure helps justify a $5 billion a year boondoggle.
  You actually think that? lol. What a dopey cunt you are. If only all those idiots at CERN came and listened to your dumbass, uneducated opinion instead. Ah well.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
36. Re: 99% likely a math error, but... by Maritz · 2017-01-30 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  Your common-or-garden slashdot armchair expert doesn't understand physics. They understand everything.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Percentage by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 21:06 · Score: 0

That's 2,33E-16 % per second !
1. Re:Percentage by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 23:37 · Score: 0
  
  I ran the numbers and came up with approximately 1 part in 3/2 * pi * C squared. Any physics heads round that can tell us, is there any relevance to that, or just coincidence?
2. Re:Percentage by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Coincidence - it depends on the units you're using to set c. The Hubble rate has dimensions of 1/t, the formula you gave has units of l^2/t^2.
What if constant is a variable by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 21:09 · Score: 0

There is no reason for something to be constant just because humans said so. In 1930s/1940s for nearly 15 years, the speed of light was lower than the current accepted value by almost 15-20%. Maybe its possible that the universe is still trying to figure out what the value should be.
Miles per second per megaparsec? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 21:31 · Score: 1

Those are the craziest units I've seen yet for measuring a frequency.
1. Re: Miles per second per megaparsec? by Z00L00K · 2017-01-26 22:31 · Score: 1
  
  It's for those that can't understand the metric system.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
2. Re:Miles per second per megaparsec? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  Must have been taking a cue from George Lucas.
3. Re:Miles per second per megaparsec? by LordHighExecutioner · 2017-01-26 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  It could be worst. What about furlong per fortnight per feet ?!?
4. Re:Miles per second per megaparsec? by Ambient+Sheep · 2017-01-27 01:03 · Score: 1
  
  Heh yes, the first thing I thought of when I saw that crazy mixing of units was "furlongs per fortnight". :-)
5. Re:Miles per second per megaparsec? by CrimsonAvenger · 2017-01-27 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  If you'd prefer, we can use SI, in which case the value would be (approximately) 0.000000000000000001445 per second
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
6. Re:Miles per second per megaparsec? by burtosis · 2017-01-27 02:13 · Score: 2
  
  Those are the craziest units I've seen yet for measuring a frequency.
  The expansion is measured by velocity x distance not velocity/distance. The farther two points are, the faster the outward velocity is along that same line, not near infinite when close and near zero when far apart. So there is no cancelation of terms - it is not a frequency or 1/t.
7. Re: Miles per second per megaparsec? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 02:47 · Score: 0
  
  It's not that we don't understand it, it's that we choose not to use it. Much like we don't use decimal times to measure the time of day, we understand the system we are using right now just fine, few unit conversion issues notwithstanding, and have no compelling reason to change. No, "the rest of the work uses metric!" is not compelling.
8. Re:Miles per second per megaparsec? by Solandri · 2017-01-27 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  The rate of change in the expansion over a distance is measured as a (change in) velocity / distance. i.e. relative to the observer, a distant point is (due to the expansion of the universe) receding at x miles/sec for every y megaparsecs distance from the observer. This does result in having the units of a frequency (1/time).
9. Re: Miles per second per megaparsec? by Maritz · 2017-01-30 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  lol yeah. Being the only one to do something a certain way suggests that you're either a genius or an idiot. My money ain't on genius.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Why one big bang, one universe by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 21:55 · Score: 0

Well look, until you address the simple question of "Why One", then by default, everything that happens once can happen twice and there is not a single universe, and our universe isn't that single universe. There are many, and that background radiation isn't some left over from the big bang that's weirdly not expanding like the rest of the universe, but instead heading in all directions, rather it is heading in all directions and from all the other universes outside ours.
Which means there wasn't one big bang, space wasn't created with OUR big bang, we are not special we are not the center of it all in OUR universe.
It also means blackholes are not the end game (because given infinite time there would be one black hole and that clearly isn't the case) and you've have to explain why our universe exists in a clear piece of space before the big bang. Which implies a black hole mopped up the space before exploding to form our universe.
And sure you don't like that obvious conclusion, fine, but I ask again, WHY ONE BIG BANG CREATING ONE UNIVERSE? Address that question first, rather than simply assuming one universe and fitting the model to your assumption.
1. Re:Why one big bang, one universe by Maritz · 2017-01-30 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  There's a good point in that word salad somewhere. Now wipe the rabid spittle off and calm down and have another go.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Expansion? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 22:27 · Score: 0

"The Universe" is centered around one man. It's bubble is expanding as fast as His ego's perception of reality. So-called "scientists" are just "rigging" the system to make Him seem insignificant.
#AlternativeFacts #ScienceAintReal
(Go ahead an mod this down. I'm just another "over-rated" AC.)
1. Re:Expansion? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 23:41 · Score: 0
  
  Trump Trump Trump
The speed of light isn't constant by Viol8 · 2017-01-26 23:17 · Score: 1

Its speed varies depending on what material it is travelling through and over large distances in space different frequencies of EM travel at slightly different speeds though I can't remember the reason why off the top of my head.
1. Re:The speed of light isn't constant by rgbatduke · 2017-01-27 00:10 · Score: 1
  
  Because of dispersion (different frequencies) inside dynamically polarizable materials. Not in a vacuum. In a vacuum, the speed of light is predicted to be -- the speed of light.
  Light can be bent by gravitational fields, but the thought is that the bent trajectories are geodesics in bent spacetime, not actual lenses which bend light by slowing it down due to the susceptibility of space.
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
2. Re:The speed of light isn't constant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 02:16 · Score: 0
  
  Because of dispersion (different frequencies) inside dynamically polarizable materials. Not in a vacuum. In a vacuum, the speed of light is predicted to be -- the speed of light.
  Light can be bent by gravitational fields, but the thought is that the bent trajectories are geodesics in bent spacetime, not actual lenses which bend light by slowing it down due to the susceptibility of space.
  But is the speed of light truly equal to c? Just curious (your homepage indicates a background in physics, so...).
3. Re:The speed of light isn't constant by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-27 03:40 · Score: 1
  
  Because of dispersion (different frequencies) inside dynamically polarizable materials. Not in a vacuum. In a vacuum, the speed of light is predicted to be -- the speed of light.
  Light can be bent by gravitational fields, but the thought is that the bent trajectories are geodesics in bent spacetime, not actual lenses which bend light by slowing it down due to the susceptibility of space.
  A real world example of this is in radio. In free space, as noted, EM radiation travels unhindered around 186,000 mps.
  Getting the signal to the antenna typically uses coaxial cable. And that slows the signal down quite a bit. It can vary a bit by cable, but typically it is 66 percent of the free space speed of light. The term we use is velocity factor.
  Even in a wire antenna, there is a marked difference in the VF between insulated and un-insulated wire. Which means that for a resonant antenna, there is a definite difference in needed length of wire.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
4. Re:The speed of light isn't constant by rgbatduke · 2017-01-27 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Also the fact that your eyes can see because of the index of refraction of the lens...
  
  --
  Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
5. Re:The speed of light isn't constant by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 04:32 · Score: 0
  
  Or put more simply, the speed of light when it travels in a straight line between two points is constant.
  The times when it appears that light is moving slower is because the observer is incorrect about what path it's actually taking to get from point a to b.
6. Re:The speed of light isn't constant by Megol · 2017-01-27 10:16 · Score: 1
  
  Yes. In a perfect vacuum that is. It is actually a pretty strange question to ask as c is defined as the speed of light in vacuum.
Not a constant? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 23:39 · Score: 1

Perhaps this is telling us that Hubble's constant is not a constant.
1. Re:Not a constant? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-26 23:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The Hubble parameter hasn't been considered constant for a very, very long time. It would only be constant in a deSitter space - where the only energy density is the cosmological constant. The value of the Hubble is determined by Friedmann's equation in terms of the (evolving) energy densities associated with matter, radiation, dark energy, dark matter etc.
  H= 8\pi/3 (rho)
  where rho is the energy density - this changes as the universe expands as the energy densities of matter components change under expansion (matter is diluted, radiation is diluted and red-shifted, cosmological constant stays constant etc).
2. Re:Not a constant? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 05:02 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Many apologies, that should be H^2 = 8\pi \rho/3...
Re:You just made GP poster's point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 00:24 · Score: 0

1/10 Troll harder.
SI Units by quadrantviewer · 2017-01-27 00:29 · Score: 1

Why are the SI units relegated to the brackets? We're nerds, we can handle it.
1. Re:SI Units by Overzeetop · 2017-01-27 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, more importantly, it's (distance/second)distance. Why not just put the unit in s^-01, or would the electrical engineers in the room mistake it for a frequency?
  
  --
  Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
2. Re:SI Units by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 03:35 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps because "2.33 x 10^-18 per second" conveys a lot less information
Re:You just made GP poster's point by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 01:07 · Score: 0

Ooh, a troll and a downmod, 0/10, keep trying...
We used to have good trolls here. Now we get this shit. Sad.
Shockingly close, actually by necro81 · 2017-01-27 01:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

The thing that blows my mind is not that one measurement is higher and another lower, it's just how closely they agree: to less than 10%. This despite the fact that they were arrived at from different instruments and lines of inquiry. The earlier measurement from Planck satellite measurements is derived from measurements of cosmic background radiation. The newer measurement comes from images of gravitational lensing of distant quasars, from the Hubble and Spitzer telescopes. For such a tricky measurements, and such an abstruse topic, I wouldn't have been surprised if they differed by an order of magnitude.* And yet, the agree pretty closely.

Science is really freaking awesome. Sure, assuming that the expansion is universal and constant (i.e., there is only one value for the Hubble Constant, which is hardly a sure thing), you ought to be able to measure the same answer by any experiment designed to measure it, within the experimental error. I ought to arrive at the same value for the gravitational constant, too, whether I experiment using a precision pendulum, or dropping a cannonball from the tower of Pisa (accounting for air friction, of course), or analyze the tides, or by successfully putting a man on the Moon. It doesn't matter who I am, or where I live, or under which government, or what language(s) I speak - it all still works.

* Hubble's own initial estimate was about 10x the current values. For those that are interested, here's a graph of the value of H0, with error bars, through history. [source]
1. Re:Shockingly close, actually by Ol+Olsoc · 2017-01-27 03:46 · Score: 2
  
  The thing that blows my mind is not that one measurement is higher and another lower, it's just how closely they agree: to less than 10%. This despite the fact that they were arrived at from different instruments and lines of inquiry.
  Exactly. Which is why this is clickbait stuff. People who hate science can get excited because they are hoping it proves their world outlook, people who don't hold any particular cosmological ideas, but demand absolute stasis will get uncomfortable.
  Meanwhile scientists and cosmologists are thinking "hmmm, why this little bit of difference, and how might we fine tune it"? Good times.
  
  --
  The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
ummm... or maybe they just don't have the data? by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 02:48 · Score: 0

We don't have enough years of data to prove the expansion of the universe. As much as pop science wants to imply that we do. And basically we probably won't have civilization around long enough to find out. ( that's not doomsday prediction, just that an accurate measure would take all of human history and more )
1. Re:ummm... or maybe they just don't have the data? by Maritz · 2017-01-30 02:29 · Score: 1
  
  Look at galaxy. Measure redshift. Redshift shows that it is moving away. Look at another galaxy. More redshift. Notice that the further the galaxy, the greater the redshift. Galaxies are all moving away from each other, therefore universe is expanding. Really, really simple stuff.
  
  We don't have enough years of data to prove the expansion of the universe.
  Yeah. We do. These things are billions of light years away.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
There once was a stargazer named Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 02:50 · Score: 4, Funny

There once was a stargazer named Hubble,
Who said, "We expand like a bubble!"
But finding the rate,
Was a source of debate,
Contention, dissension, and trouble.
1. Re:There once was a stargazer named Hubble by avandesande · 2017-01-27 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  world's cleanest limerick
  
  --
  love is just extroverted narcissism
2. Re:There once was a stargazer named Hubble by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 15:03 · Score: 0
  
  Young Schrödinger had him a cat
  In the experiment he had begat
  Alive, he was hopin'
  But the box wouldn't open
  So he shrugged and said, "That's almost that!"
On the science of black matter/energy by mysticgoat · 2017-01-27 03:22 · Score: 0

Oh noes! The "Black Matter Lives" meme is now loose in Slashdot!
1. Re:On the science of black matter/energy by Maritz · 2017-01-30 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  Black and dark aren't synonyms, and that's why your joke is shite. Sorry. Back to 4chan with you.
  
  --
  I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Total Perspective Vortex by jfdavis668 · 2017-01-27 03:22 · Score: 1

When you are put into the Vortex you are given just one momentary glimpse of the entire unimaginable infinity of creation, and somewhere in it there's a tiny little speck, a microscopic dot on a microscopic dot, which says, "You are here."
Re:Pitiful humans by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 04:13 · Score: 1

> If you want to know about the universe, study your bible. Notice that I said "study" rather than "read".. study is required if you want the truth.
Lol! Because ancient goat-herders knew vastly more about this stuff...
You notice the Bible says nothing about whether neutrinos have mass? I wonder why God chose not to reveal that.
Einstein's theory of gravity has some holes by naris · 2017-01-27 05:04 · Score: 2

I heard they are black...
Re:Pitiful humans by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 07:26 · Score: 0

God doesn't write books.
Einstein by Anonymous Coward · 2017-01-27 09:48 · Score: 0

Is it possible Einstein's 100 year old theory has holes?
Noooooooo!
How about this... by martinfb · 2017-01-28 07:59 · Score: 1

What about these 2 possibilities:
1) The rate itself is actually changing.
2) Measurements are affected by the gravity where measured. i.e. distance to a significant mass.

--

Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
Re:Pitiful humans by Maritz · 2017-01-30 02:33 · Score: 1

Have these "scientists" ever considered that they were wrong to begin with?
Yeah. That's why they have credibility and you don't.

Now imagine how God feels.
LOL. Yeah. "Imagine" how Tom Thumb feels. Imagine how Cinderella feels. Dumbass.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Re:Pitiful humans by Maritz · 2017-01-30 02:37 · Score: 1

I prefer to call his imaginary friend the abrahamic god, going with capitalised 'god' just adds to their narrative (my sky daddy only sky daddy). But yes. The Bible also thinks that pi is 3 which is pretty dumb as well.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.