I don't think space is expanding.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

As far as I'm aware, the data shows no measurable deviations from a perfect black-body curve greater than the experimental error of the measurement.

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-endur...mic-cold-spot/

"At first glance, the CMB has a nearly perfect black-body spectrum (uniform temperature), and looks isotropic to scales of around 10–5 K. But at micro-kelvin scales we begin to see variations in temperature, in the form of hot and cold patches."

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Well, this says there are black body stars:

https://aasnova.org/2018/10/31/perfe...es-in-the-sky/
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...38-3881/aac88b

That's interesting; I didn't know about that. However, since the CMB couldn't realistically be produced by such stars, you aren't any closer to actually having an alternative cosmology that predicts it than you were before.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

https://physicsworld.com/a/the-endur...mic-cold-spot/

"At first glance, the CMB has a nearly perfect black-body spectrum (uniform temperature), and looks isotropic to scales of around 10–5 K. But at micro-kelvin scales we begin to see variations in temperature, in the form of hot and cold patches."

Do you understand why that doesn't say that the CMB spectrum is not a perfect black-body curve? If not, then all you're doing is pointing at sentences, saying that one word looks like another word, and thinking that means you understand the sentence.

Dave

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

That's interesting; I didn't know about that. However, since the CMB couldn't realistically be produced by stars, you aren't any closer to actually having an alternative cosmology that predicts it than you were before.

The CMB specifically, no?

And if we're going to say that Regeren calculating cosmic rays to be 2.8K in 1933 and using a stationary universe doesn't count, let's just say, let's count this as a fault.

Let's also count the CMB cold spot, asymmetric hemispheric temps, inability to determine the expansion rate of the universe, and relying on unobserved conjectures like dark energy to be faults of the standard model.

I think having doubts about both models is justified.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Do you understand why that doesn't say that the CMB spectrum is not a perfect black-body curve?

I think so.

The black body spectrum refers to receiving photons from all parts of the continuous spectrum in quantities that form a smooth curve.

Right?

And looking in one direction and seeing one temperature, and looking in another direction and seeing a different temperature is just receiving photons from two different places, and each set of photons could still be a smooth black body spectrum.

Right?

But that would imply to me, the CMB isn't one black body, but many black bodies and they are around 2.8K but not exactly. And there are fewer of them in the direction of the cold spot.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I think so.

The black body spectrum refers to receiving photons from all parts of the continuous spectrum in quantities that form a smooth curve.

Right?

And looking in one direction and seeing one temperature, and looking in another direction and seeing a different temperature is just receiving photons from two different places, and each set of photons could still be a smooth black body spectrum.

Right?

But that would imply to me, the CMB isn't one black body, but many black bodies and they are around 2.8K but not exactly. And there are fewer of them in the direction of the cold spot.

Oh dear. You were doing so well up till then.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

And if we're going to say that Regeren calculating cosmic rays to be 2.8K in 1933 and using a stationary universe doesn't count, let's just say, let's count this as a fault.

You can keep saying that if you want, but it's wrong.

Dave

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Oh dear. You were doing so well up till then.

Right.

What you quoted is how my hypothesis explains the cold spot and hemispheric temperature differences.

That's significantly different from the standard model, which is "Multiverse".

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Right.

What you quoted is how my hypothesis explains the cold spot and hemispheric temperature differences.

That's significantly different from the standard model, which is "Multiverse".

No. You need to go away and take a course in basic physics; at the moment you don't understand your subject matter well enough to have even the vaguest idea what you're getting wrong.

Dave

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The CMB specifically, no?

And if we're going to say that Regeren calculating cosmic rays to be 2.8K in 1933 and using a stationary universe doesn't count, let's just say, let's count this as a fault.

Of course calculating the temperature of cosmic rays doesn't count as predicting the CMB. There's no "if" about it. And I have no idea what you mean by a "fault". How does Regeren's work suggest a "fault" in mainstream cosmology?

Quote:

Let's also count the CMB cold spot,

Count it as what? A fault in mainstream cosmology? And more specfically, the thesis that spacetime is expanding? Why should we do that? We have an observation that is currently unexplained. *Maybe* the correct explanation will require discarding the expansion of spacetime, but I see no reason to believe that. Why do you think the CMB cold spot counter-indicates spacetime expansion?

Quote:

asymmetric hemispheric temps, inability to determine the expansion rate of the universe, and relying on unobserved conjectures like dark energy to be faults of the standard model.

I think having doubts about both models is justified.

See above. And so far the only justification you have offered for doubt is that you don't like/understand mainstream cosmology.

There are things we don't currently have explanations for. Maybe the correct explanation will require drastic revision of currently-held theories and maybe it won't. That's true of any science; it's not special to cosmology. And whatever new model replaces mainstream cosmology will still have to explain all the things that current theory *does* explain, such as why the CMB is a blackbody. Trying to replace it with a theory that doesn't is a non-starter, even if BBT is completely wrong.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

Why should we do that? We have an observation that is currently unexplained.

Multiple observations:

1. How fast is the universe expanding can't be determined (Hubble tension)
2. CMB Cold Spot
3. CMB asymmetric hemisphere temps

Even after the dark energy fudge factors, still no explanation.

Quote:

Why do you think the CMB cold spot counter-indicates spacetime expansion?

Because it's widely accepted as counter to the theory by cosmologists:

https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/515...ave-background

Quote:

So far the only justification you have offered for doubt is that you don't like/understand mainstream cosmology.

Cosmology is in public crisis over their model.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=cosmology+crisis

It's not 1993 anymore.

Lots of observations justify the skepticism in the field.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No. You need to go away and take a course in basic physics; at the moment you don't understand your subject matter well enough to have even the vaguest idea what you're getting wrong.

Point taken.

I think the CMB cold spot to the south is because there's less stuff in that direction in the observable universe.

For the record, what do you think it is?

[theprestige]

I like how we went from "cosmologists are refining their predictions in some places as new data comes in and measurements get more precise" to "therefore the whole thing is wrong and needs to be thrown out and replaced with ridiculous handwaving".

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I like how we went from "cosmologists are refining their predictions in some places as new data comes in and measurements get more precise" to "therefore the whole thing is wrong and needs to be thrown out and replaced with ridiculous handwaving".

New observations and measurements will do this.

This isn't the 20th century.

The growing crisis in cosmology is being reported in public now:

https://www.wired.com/story/cosmolog...-the-universe/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=7f84c7e02fd5
https://theweek.com/articles/889916/...isis-cosmology

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Point taken.

I think the CMB cold spot to the south is because there's less stuff in that direction in the observable universe.

For the record, what do you think it is?

No, the point clearly isn't taken. If there were "less stuff" in that direction, that wouldn't produce a cold spot in the CMB. The fact that you're able to make, and repeat, that erroneous belief demonstrates that you have no idea what a black-body spectrum is or how a temperature is calculated from one. As a result your thoughts are so poorly informed as to be worthless. Your level of ignorance is far too profound to be addressed in a forum like this; you need to bring your level of knowledge up to at least undergraduate level before it's even worth trying to explain to you what you're getting wrong, and that could take years.

Dave

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

No, the point clearly isn't taken. If there were "less stuff" in that direction, that wouldn't produce a cold spot in the CMB. The fact that you're able to make, and repeat, that erroneous belief demonstrates that you have no idea what a black-body spectrum is or how a temperature is calculated from one. As a result your thoughts are so poorly informed as to be worthless. Your level of ignorance is far too profound to be addressed in a forum like this; you need to bring your level of knowledge up to at least undergraduate level before it's even worth trying to explain to you what you're getting wrong, and that could take years.

So what do you think the CMB cold spot is?

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

New observations and measurements will do this.

This isn't the 20th century.

The growing crisis in cosmology is being reported in public now:

https://www.wired.com/story/cosmolog...-the-universe/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw...h=7f84c7e02fd5
https://theweek.com/articles/889916/...isis-cosmology

THIS JUST IN!!! POPULAR SCIENCE JOURNALISM HYPES UP SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS TO MAKE THEM SOUND MORE DRAMATIC TO LAY AUDIENCES!!!!

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

THIS JUST IN!!! POPULAR SCIENCE JOURNALISM HYPES UP SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS TO MAKE THEM SOUND MORE DRAMATIC TO LAY AUDIENCES!!!!

Dude, the papers are endless:

https://www.google.com/search?channe...hubble+tension

In 1993, you would have been totally justified in believing the expansion of the universe is a fact.

At least, I sure did back then.

Observations of acceleration, CMB anomalies, and the conclusions that our universe is 96% dark stuff really change things.

Not all cosmologists think dark energy and multiverses are the way forward.

[Mike Helland]

"The tension seems to have grown into a full-blown incompatibility between our views of the early- and late-time universe," said Adam Riess, a Nobel laureate and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Distinguished Professor who leads a team of researchers measuring the Hubble Constant by studying structures in the nearby universe. "At this point, clearly it's not simply some gross error in any one measurement. It's as though you predicted how tall a child would become from a growth chart and then found the adult he or she became greatly exceeded the prediction. We are very perplexed."

https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/07/12/adam-...bble-constant/

[CORed]

Originally Posted by theprestige

I like how we went from "cosmologists are refining their predictions in some places as new data comes in and measurements get more precise" to "therefore the whole thing is wrong and needs to be thrown out and replaced with ridiculous handwaving".

I also note that, like most physics cranks, the OP doesn't have a coherent alternative theory (or in this case, any theory or hypothesis at all), nor is his distrust based on any real understanding of the topic. It seems rather, much like many of the Relativity cranks , based on not much more than an emotional conviction that a concept that rubs him the wrong way just has to be wrong. I don't claim to remotely understand cosmology, beyond the kindergarten level popular summaries.

Based on general principles, I will say the anomalies or unexplained phenomena may indicate a need for more information and a little tweaking here and there, or may indicate a fundamental flaw in current thinking. Possibly some day, a genius will come along and offer up a theory that better fits what we know, and probably get a Nobel Prize for their work. I highly doubt, however, that any new theory will overturn expanding space, as the observational evidence for it seems to be very solid.Until that happens, nitpicking by people who really don't know what they are talking about serves no useful purpose.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It does exactly that.

If every place in GR where there is a "c" gets replaced by "c - H * D", and H * D = 0 everywhere its been tested (Mercury's orbit is not affected by the Hubble flow), then everything still works.

This doesn't actually even make sense. There are a lot of equations for which there is no obvious choice of what D should be. What do you do in those cases?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

All physics where an object in motion continues at its current rate to infinity.

My theory breaks inertia fundamentally, and thus anything on it, when we're talking about hundreds of millions of light years.

You clearly don't understand Noether's theorem. You CANNOT break momentum conservation without also breaking translation symmetry. There is no rule that says translation symmetry cannot be broken, but you can't keep it and break momentum conservation at the same time. No theory can. If you think your theory does, then either you don't understand your own theory, or your theory isn't even self-consistent.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I don't know much about black body's, but is the CMB an absolutely perfect black body?

It is perfect within our measurement ability, which is considerable. It is never possible to show that deviations are identically zero, since no measurement process has zero margin of error.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Well, this says there are black body stars:

https://aasnova.org/2018/10/31/perfe...es-in-the-sky/
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...38-3881/aac88b

They aren't. They're much closer to ideal black body radiators than most starts, but the deviation is still observable.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I think so.

The black body spectrum refers to receiving photons from all parts of the continuous spectrum in quantities that form a smooth curve.

Right?

Wrong. A black body is a body that absorbs all light that touches it, regardless of the spectrum of that light. Light that is incident upon a black body need not have a smooth curve.

It's the light produced by the black body which will be smooth.

Quote:

But that would imply to me, the CMB isn't one black body, but many black bodies and they are around 2.8K but not exactly. And there are fewer of them in the direction of the cold spot.

No. There aren't fewer of them. If you just have less emitters but those emitters are at the same temperature, then the spectrum will have a peak in the same place but just a lower intensity. That isn't what's observed. Which brings up an important point that I think you may be missing. It isn't that we see a spectrum indicating that something far away is a black body. We see a spectrum that indicates that EVERYTHING far away is a black body.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Not all cosmologists think dark energy and multiverses are the way forward.

True enough.

Dollars to donuts, none of them think your idea is. I'm not trying to be mean here, but get a little perspective. There is just so, so much physics that you don't know. How do you think it's possible that you happened to stumble upon the elusive answer to the puzzle, when people who know far more than you have failed? Do you really consider yourself that kind of genius?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by CORed

It seems rather, much like many of the Relativity cranks , based on not much more than an emotional conviction that a concept that rubs him the wrong way just has to be wrong.

Ah, you know me so well.

Look, the Big Bang could have happened. The universe could be mostly dark stuff, and multiverse is the truth.

I have my doubts.

If you don't, good for you.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

True enough.

Dollars to donuts, none of them think your idea is.

That's fine.

I've submitted my ideas anyways. I think we both know it's a rejection, but if I could get some peer review out of it that'd be cool.

You say I can't explain the CMB, and I agree. I never mention it in my paper, so while my work may be incomplete, at least I don't need a Hubble's constant that changes with time or dark energy.

What do you think is behind the anomalies in the CMB.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by CORed

I also note that, like most physics cranks, the OP doesn't have a coherent alternative theory (or in this case, any theory or hypothesis at all), nor is his distrust based on any real understanding of the topic. It seems rather, much like many of the Relativity cranks , based on not much more than an emotional conviction that a concept that rubs him the wrong way just has to be wrong. I don't claim to remotely understand cosmology, beyond the kindergarten level popular summaries.

Based on general principles, I will say the anomalies or unexplained phenomena may indicate a need for more information and a little tweaking here and there, or may indicate a fundamental flaw in current thinking. Possibly some day, a genius will come along and offer up a theory that better fits what we know, and probably get a Nobel Prize for their work. I highly doubt, however, that any new theory will overturn expanding space, as the observational evidence for it seems to be very solid.Until that happens, nitpicking by people who really don't know what they are talking about serves no useful purpose.

Seems like another pass at cosmology of the gaps, plus appeals to bogus authority. Read about a "crisis" in the popular science media, leap from there to a pet conclusion, present the conclusion, and then start frantically investigoogling whatever material you can find that has apparently-relevant keywords to try to address the rebuttals.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Dude, the papers are endless:

Unfortunately, your ability to understand their contents and appreciate their actual importance is not.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

That's fine.

I've submitted my ideas anyways. I think we both know it's a rejection, but if I could get some peer review out of it that'd be cool.

You're getting peer review right now.

To get peer review formally, from other physicists, you'd have to actually be a peer of other physicists, in the formal sense. Demonstrated mastery of the current body of knowledge. A formal physical model to be reviewed. Etc.

Meanwhile, the actual physicists you'd like to "peer review" your idea have already reviewed many such tired light ideas, and rejected them all due to their abject failure to explain or predict what we actually observe. Which is also a problem with your model (such as it is).

[Mike Helland]

So the crisis in cosmology is basically fake news?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by theprestige

You're getting peer review right now.

To get peer review formally, from other physicists, you'd have to actually be a peer of other physicists, in the formal sense. Demonstrated mastery of the current body of knowledge. A formal physical model to be reviewed. Etc.

Meanwhile, the actual physicists you'd like to "peer review" your idea have already reviewed many such tired light ideas, and rejected them all due to their abject failure to explain or predict what we actually observe. Which is also a problem with your model (such as it is).

Will find out.

If you take a look at my test page:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm

You'll see that my model and tired light models make different predictions.

[Reformed Offlian]

[quote=Mike Helland;13313807]

Quote:

Because it's widely accepted as counter to the theory by cosmologists:

https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/515...ave-background

I don't see anything here saying that this suggests spacetime isn't really expanding.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

So the crisis in cosmology is basically fake news?

Are you are seeing the light? Yes. "Crisis" and "Crisis" are different things. In principle science is always in crisis, because any scientific idea is always pending some contrary evidence.

However, current cosmology is based on extremely solid evidence, often obtained using very advanced technological observation methods. Countering ot requires MUCH more that "I don't think".

Hans

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

I don't see anything here saying that this suggests spacetime isn't really expanding.

"This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look."


There are pretty big gnarly problems with the standard model.

I think the expansion of the universe should be open to questioning, not protected.

If you think expansion of the universe is a fact and not up for discussion, that's your choice.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

However, current cosmology is based on extremely solid evidence, often obtained using very advanced technological observation methods.

Maybe 25 years ago.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ering-mystery/

Hubble Tension Headache: Clashing Measurements Make the Universe’s Expansion a Lingering Mystery

Researchers hoped new data would resolve the most contentious question in cosmology. They were wrong

How fast is the universe expanding?

One might assume scientists long ago settled this basic question, first explored nearly a century ago by Edwin Hubble. But right now the answer depends on who you ask. Cosmologists using the Planck satellite to study the cosmic microwave background—light from the “early” universe, only about 380,000 years after the big bang—have arrived at a high-precision value of the expansion rate, known as the Hubble constant (H0). Astronomers observing stars and galaxies closer to home—in the “late” universe—have also measured H0 with extreme precision. The two numbers, however, disagree. According to Planck, H0 should be about 67—shorthand for the universe expanding some 67 kilometers per second faster every 3.26 million light-years. The most influential measurements of the late universe, coming from a project called Supernova H0 for the Equation of State (SH0ES), peg the Hubble constant at about 74.

This discrepancy—the so-called Hubble tension—has been growing for years, increasing as study after study of both the early and late universe yield ever more precise results and leave scientists on both sides anxious and bewildered. After all, it could be that either faction is somehow just mismeasuring the universe. But the tension may be a true reflection of reality, requiring exotic new physics and a dramatic revision to our understanding of cosmic evolution.

On July 4 fresh results from the late universe were released that reinforced the SH0ES figure, pushing the tension past a threshold of statistical significance that physicists use as a benchmark for genuine discoveries. For a moment, the prospect of new physics loomed larger than ever before. Yet days later, another independent batch of late-universe measurements muddled the debate, delivering an H0 value of 69.8, midway between the canonical values from Planck and SH0ES. Much of the drama unfolded in real time at the Tensions Between the Early and the Late Universe conference, held from July 15 to 17 at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, Calif.

“This week is too much. Go home H0, you’re drunk,” tweeted Dan Scolnic, a SH0ES member at Duke University, after yet another befuddling new result for H0 was revealed at the conference.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

So the crisis in cosmology is basically fake news?

To non-cosmologists? Almost certainly.

It's like an HR manager reading about the problem of third-party package dependencies in Java applications, and concluding that all of modern software development is in crisis and has to be replaced wholesale from first principles.

But the reality is that while it's a problem, it's a relatively minor problem, of serious importance to actual software developers but otherwise not significant. And the way to fix it will be further refinements of the current software development model, by actual software developers. Not by replacing it with whatever empty box the HR manager says will hold the new solution if they could just get software developers to put something in it.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Maybe 25 years ago.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ering-mystery/

Hubble Tension Headache: Clashing Measurements Make the Universe’s Expansion a Lingering Mystery

Researchers hoped new data would resolve the most contentious question in cosmology. They were wrong

How fast is the universe expanding?

One might assume scientists long ago settled this basic question, first explored nearly a century ago by Edwin Hubble. But right now the answer depends on who you ask. Cosmologists using the Planck satellite to study the cosmic microwave background—light from the “early” universe, only about 380,000 years after the big bang—have arrived at a high-precision value of the expansion rate, known as the Hubble constant (H0). Astronomers observing stars and galaxies closer to home—in the “late” universe—have also measured H0 with extreme precision. The two numbers, however, disagree. According to Planck, H0 should be about 67—shorthand for the universe expanding some 67 kilometers per second faster every 3.26 million light-years. The most influential measurements of the late universe, coming from a project called Supernova H0 for the Equation of State (SH0ES), peg the Hubble constant at about 74.

This discrepancy—the so-called Hubble tension—has been growing for years, increasing as study after study of both the early and late universe yield ever more precise results and leave scientists on both sides anxious and bewildered. After all, it could be that either faction is somehow just mismeasuring the universe. But the tension may be a true reflection of reality, requiring exotic new physics and a dramatic revision to our understanding of cosmic evolution.

On July 4 fresh results from the late universe were released that reinforced the SH0ES figure, pushing the tension past a threshold of statistical significance that physicists use as a benchmark for genuine discoveries. For a moment, the prospect of new physics loomed larger than ever before. Yet days later, another independent batch of late-universe measurements muddled the debate, delivering an H0 value of 69.8, midway between the canonical values from Planck and SH0ES. Much of the drama unfolded in real time at the Tensions Between the Early and the Late Universe conference, held from July 15 to 17 at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, Calif.

“This week is too much. Go home H0, you’re drunk,” tweeted Dan Scolnic, a SH0ES member at Duke University, after yet another befuddling new result for H0 was revealed at the conference.

No. Controversy at this point is based on the extreme level of observation achieved. Unless you understand all that, you are completely out of your league-

Hans

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Will find out.

If you take a look at my test page:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm

You'll see that my model and tired light models make different predictions.

Where on the page do I see that your model predicts all of the things we've actually observed?

Where on the page do I see that your model predicts things that we haven't yet observed, but could test now that you've made the predictions?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Where on the page do I see that your model predicts all of the things we've actually observed?

Set the y-axis to "z redshift".

It's what all the models predict.

You'll see v = c - H * D matches the expanding models over distance.

Quote:

Where on the page do I see that your model predicts things that we haven't yet observed, but could test now that you've made the predictions?

That would be on the main page, under "Tests"

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/#tests

Basically, if a telescope is blocked at a distance, and redshifted light is traveling slower, it should disappear from the telescopes view after non-redshift light disappears.

[Reformed Offlian]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

"This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe should be broadly similar in any direction we look."

Still not the same as saying spacetime isn't expanding. Still not the same as saying that the CMB doesn't match a blackbody out to at least five significant digits.

Quote:

There are pretty big gnarly problems with the standard model.

Of course there are, at least for some values of "big" and "gnarly", but you don't get to conclude from that that spacetime isn't expanding, or that the CMB isn't really a blackbody. Or that you don't have to explain why we observe that they are.

Quote:

I think the expansion of the universe should be open to questioning, not protected.

If you think expansion of the universe is a fact and not up for discussion, that's your choice.

It's up for discussion. But that discussion needs to have more than just: 'There are some unsolved problems with the standard model, therefore whatever I prefer to believe instead.'

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by MRC_Hans

No. Controversy at this point is based on the extreme level of observation achieved. Unless you understand all that, you are completely out of your league-

What do you mean?

Early universe is consistent with H_0 = 64.7, where current universe is 74.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

So the crisis in cosmology is basically fake news?

There's a crisis alright, but it's not what you think:-

A crisis in cosmology: New data suggests the universe expanding more rapidly than believed

Quote:

"Therein lies the crisis in cosmology," says Fassnacht. "While the Hubble Constant is constant everywhere in space at a given time, it is not constant in time. So, when we are comparing the Hubble Constants that come out of various techniques, we are comparing the early universe (using distant observations) vs. the late, more modern part of the universe (using local, nearby observations)."

This suggests that either there is a problem with the CMB measurements, which the team says is unlikely, or the standard model of cosmology needs to be changed in some way using new physics to correct the discrepancy.

How a Dispute over a Single Number Became a Cosmological Crisis

Quote:

In recent years a discrepancy has emerged between two ways of measuring the rate of the universe’s expansion, a value called the Hubble constant (H0). Measurements beginning in today’s universe and working backward to earlier and earlier stages have consistently revealed one value for H0. Measurements beginning at the earliest stages of the universe and working forward, however, have consistently predicted another value—one that suggests the universe is expanding faster than we had thought...

Nobody is suggesting that the entire standard cosmological model is wrong. But something is wrong—maybe with the observations or maybe with the interpretation of the observations, although each scenario is unlikely. This leaves one last option—equally unlikely but also less and less unthinkable: something is wrong with the cosmological model itself.

This Is The Most Exciting Crisis in Cosmology

Quote:

It's still hard to measure the Hubble constant with gravitational waves. But initial calculations are promising. In 2017, neutron star collision allowed astronomers to narrow it down to around 70 (km/s)/Mpc, with error bars large enough on either side to cover both 67 and 74, and then some.

But for one single observation, Davis said, such a precise measurement was amazing.

"We've measured thousands of supernovae now," she said. "We've measured millions of galaxies to measure the baryon acoustic oscillation, we've surveyed the entire sky to measure the cosmic microwave background.

"And this single object, this one measurement of a gravitational wave, got an error bar that was about 10 percent, which took decades of work on the other probes."

Gravitational wave astronomy is still in its infancy - it's only a matter of time before we detect enough neutron star collisions to sufficiently refine those results. With luck, that will help ferret out the cause of the Hubble tension.

Either way, it's going to make history.

What's missing from this 'crisis in cosmology'? The idea that space is not expanding at all. No science supports that theory.