The Astronomy Thread

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Araxen

Araxen

Golden Baronet of the Realm
10,563
7,999
phys.org

Dark energy 'doesn't exist' so can't be pushing 'lumpy' universe apart, physicists say

One of the biggest mysteries in science—dark energy—doesn't actually exist, according to researchers looking to solve the riddle of how the universe is expanding.
phys.org phys.org
Now a team of physicists and astronomers at the university of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand are challenging the status quo, using improved analysis of supernovae light curves to show that the universe is expanding in a more varied, "lumpier" way.

The new evidence supports the "timescape" model of cosmic expansion, which doesn't have a need for dark energy because the differences in stretching light aren't the result of an accelerating universe but instead a consequence of how we calibrate time and distance.

It takes into account that gravity slows time, so an ideal clock in empty space ticks faster than inside a galaxy.

The model suggests that a clock in the Milky Way would be about 35 percent slower than the same one at an average position in large cosmic voids, meaning billions more years would have passed in voids. This would in turn allow more expansion of space, making it seem like the expansion is getting faster when such vast empty voids grow to dominate the universe.
Click to expand...

Pretty big change if it holds out to be true.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions: 3 users
Kharzette

Kharzette

Watcher of Overs
5,432
4,402
Good. Dark energy and matter are stupid, and they've been lazily believing in that crap for years.
 
  • 3Like
  • 2Truth!
Reactions: 4 users
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,232
13,770
If only because of a lack of better evidence for something else - superior evidence for an alternative will change the generally accepted model

It took a long time for plate tectonics to be widely accepted and it took pretty convincing evidence for that to occur
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,559
29,802
Kharzette said:
Good. Dark energy and matter are stupid, and they've been lazily believing in that crap for years.
Click to expand...
Gravitational decay of light over distance which varies based on how deep the well transitioned (not just left), is a far more simple and straightforward theory imo. Extremely difficult to experimentally test, though, but in such a universe the entire concept of dark energy, and matter would be eliminated, along with the concept of "expanding universe". Theories to this end have been put forward before.

The problem is that it completely upends the big bang theory too, and would at a minimum make our universe far older than the big bang would allow for. But we're also getting close to the point where there's a strong argument that the big bang is simply observationally excluded from being possible. See old and developed galaxies at the edge of observational space, stars in our galaxy older than the universe, or questions that the big bang simply has no possible answer to, like lithium abundance. But I've always thought the big bang theory to be rather imaginative and convenient, and the evidence surrounding it to be spurious at best. The CMB would just as easily be explained and expected by an infinite sea of galaxies and stars if light for some reason decayed as it traveled.
 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
Burns

Burns

Avatar of War Slayer
7,599
14,888
Going to "touch" the sun (corona) on this pass:
2024-12-25 16.22.53 www.reddit.com 3934134e6522.png


 
  • 3Like
Reactions: 2 users
TheBeagle

TheBeagle

JunkiesNetwork Donor
8,970
31,151
Furry said:
Gravitational decay of light over distance which varies based on how deep the well transitioned (not just left), is a far more simple and straightforward theory imo. Extremely difficult to experimentally test, though, but in such a universe the entire concept of dark energy, and matter would be eliminated, along with the concept of "expanding universe". Theories to this end have been put forward before.

The problem is that it completely upends the big bang theory too, and would at a minimum make our universe far older than the big bang would allow for. But we're also getting close to the point where there's a strong argument that the big bang is simply observationally excluded from being possible. See old and developed galaxies at the edge of observational space, stars in our galaxy older than the universe, or questions that the big bang simply has no possible answer to, like lithium abundance. But I've always thought the big bang theory to be rather imaginative and convenient, and the evidence surrounding it to be spurious at best. The CMB would just as easily be explained and expected by an infinite sea of galaxies and stars if light for some reason decayed as it traveled.
Click to expand...
The CMB is a pretty big hurdle to get past in disproving the Big Bang but dark energy/matter are so gay that we're probably closer to being completely wrong about everything than being right about anything.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,559
29,802
TheBeagle said:
The CMB is a pretty big hurdle to get past in disproving the Big Bang but dark energy/matter are so gay that we're probably closer to being completely wrong about everything than being right about anything.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced by the argument that the CMB somehow proves the big bang. Following the idea that the further a light source is from us, the more decayed it is, it's entirely natural to expect stars to produce the CMB, as we would be limited to observing only microwaves of stars that were far enough.

Honestly, big bang should have been tossed aside as completely broken already. The oldest galaxies we've found frequently break even the most convenient of mathematical models. And the models are so convoluted at this point they might as well just have the computer print "God guided the stars into place.", and even then a large number of things are well outside the range we'd expect.
 
C

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
5,424
9,249
Furry said:
I'm not convinced by the argument that the CMB somehow proves the big bang. Following the idea that the further a light source is from us, the more decayed it is, it's entirely natural to expect stars to produce the CMB, as we would be limited to observing only microwaves of stars that were far enough.
Click to expand...

The problem is that the CMB starts at a consistent distance from us. It's not a slow haze into galaxies that are merely unresolvable with today's microwave telescopes, and it doesn't continue to cool the farther you look. As best we can tell, it's truly uniform. The operating theory is that it represents light emitted shortly after the Big Bang when the energy density of the universe fell enough that space became transparent to photons. Before that, there literally was no light because the energy density was so high that photons could not pass through the sea of sub-atomic plasma. Space everywhere simultaneously "emitted" the cooped-up photons at extremely high energy, which has dropped relatively to near absolute zero as the universe expanded.

Furry said:
Honestly, big bang should have been tossed aside as completely broken already.
Click to expand...

The Big Bang is one of the best-corroborated theories in all of science. These alternative proposals invariably fail to explain existing data or push confirmation onto claims which are unverifiable.

The idea that cosmologists as a monolithic cabal are somehow lazy and are invested in the status quo to absorb grants or whatever is fucking laughable. I know a few at Cal Tech - physicists are among the most intellectually cutthroat motherfuckers on the planet, and they would literally murder each other for the opportunity to be immortalized for developing a theory that overturned the Big Bang. The fact is, the Big Bang is the best explanation we've got, built, confirmed, and reconfirmed over 100 years by thousands of the smartest people in the history of humanity.

Reality doesn't owe it to us to be intuitively explainable from our couches.
 
Last edited:
  • 4Like
Reactions: 3 users
Kharzette

Kharzette

Watcher of Overs
5,432
4,402
Nothing confirmed about it. Like any theory it makes predictions and most of them have been falsified.
 
Cybsled

Cybsled

Naxxramas 1.0 Raider
17,232
13,770
You're mixing up theory and hypothesis. In science, nothing becomes a theory without a shitload of evidence to support it
 
Gavinmad

Gavinmad

Mr. Poopybutthole
43,980
52,763
Captain Suave said:
The problem is that the CMB starts at a consistent distance from us. It's not a slow haze into galaxies that are merely unresolvable with today's microwave telescopes, and it doesn't continue to cool the farther you look. As best we can tell, it's truly uniform. The operating theory is that it represents light emitted shortly after the Big Bang when the energy density of the universe fell enough that space became transparent to photons. Before that, there literally was no light because the energy density was so high that photons could not pass through the sea of sub-atomic plasma. Space everywhere simultaneously "emitted" the cooped-up photons at extremely high energy, which has dropped relatively to near absolute zero as the universe expanded.



The Big Bang is one of the best-corroborated theories in all of science. These alternative proposals invariably fail to explain existing data or push confirmation onto claims which are unverifiable.

The idea that cosmologists as a monolithic cabal are somehow lazy and are invested in the status quo to absorb grants or whatever is fucking laughable. I know a few at Cal Tech - physicists are among the most intellectually cutthroat motherfuckers on the planet, and they would literally murder each other for the opportunity to be immortalized for developing a theory that overturned the Big Bang. The fact is, the Big Bang is the best explanation we've got, built, confirmed, and reconfirmed over 100 years by thousands of the smartest people in the history of humanity.

Reality doesn't owe it to us to be intuitively explainable from our couches.
Click to expand...
Sure but in the end they're still scientists and scientists are probably the second least trustworthy people on the planet after politicians.
 
  • 1Moron
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 users
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,559
29,802
Captain Suave said:
The problem is that the CMB starts at a consistent distance from us. It's not a slow haze into galaxies that are merely unresolvable with today's microwave telescopes, and it doesn't continue to cool the farther you look. As best we can tell, it's truly uniform. The operating theory is that it represents light emitted shortly after the Big Bang when the energy density of the universe fell enough that space became transparent to photons. Before that, there literally was no light because the energy density was so high that photons could not pass through the sea of sub-atomic plasma. Space everywhere simultaneously "emitted" the cooped-up photons at extremely high energy, which has dropped relatively to near absolute zero as the universe expanded.



The Big Bang is one of the best-corroborated theories in all of science. These alternative proposals invariably fail to explain existing data or push confirmation onto claims which are unverifiable.

The idea that cosmologists as a monolithic cabal are somehow lazy and are invested in the status quo to absorb grants or whatever is fucking laughable. I know a few at Cal Tech - physicists are among the most intellectually cutthroat motherfuckers on the planet, and they would literally murder each other for the opportunity to be immortalized for developing a theory that overturned the Big Bang. The fact is, the Big Bang is the best explanation we've got, built, confirmed, and reconfirmed over 100 years by thousands of the smartest people in the history of humanity.

Reality doesn't owe it to us to be intuitively explainable from our couches.
Click to expand...
That's some pretzel logic. The big bang being close to observationally excluded is a simple fact. Adhering to it in spite of that is not commendable and goes against the entire point you are trying to make. Infact, dark matter, universe expansion, and all sorts of other bizarre non-observable phenomenon that were created to keep an observationally excluded big bang theory from being disproven. It's rather convenient that all of these bizarre supporting theories have no way to verify, test or observe them, or that all methods that would make sense for doing so have failed. But of course, people like you often make the mistake that observing something and then creating a theory is the same as observing the phenomenon theorized.

I'm not here to present any alternative theory. I'm only here to point out the big bang theory has lots of problems and terrible answers to them.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,559
29,802
Captain Suave said:
How to you think these concepts came to exist, if not as the result of observations?
Click to expand...
They came to result from observations that disproved the big bang theory, so an explanation needed to be created which would satisfy observations.

The big bang theory itself came from the bible. (I wish this were a joke).
 
C

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
5,424
9,249
Furry said:
They came to result from observations that disproved the big bang theory
Click to expand...

They didn't disprove anything, rather drove an adjustment. Understanding is built piecemeal as data are observed. You don't chuck your entire framework in the bin and operate on nothing because the current state of knowledge is incomplete. Dark matter, etc, are definitely SOMETHING, and everyone knows that we're not sure what. There's probably always going to be a frontier of knowledge.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,559
29,802
Captain Suave said:
They didn't disprove anything, rather drove an adjustment. Understanding is built piecemeal as data are observed. You don't chuck your entire framework in the bin and operate on nothing because the current state of knowledge is incomplete.
Click to expand...
As long as you realize that the big bag theory has repeatedly been changed and adjusted to meet observations rather than predicted much of anything, we're in the same state of understanding.

I don't give much weight to theories which do not have a predictive nature. Space is cool, and we should push our limits to what we can observe. I'll take it as it is though.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 user
C

Captain Suave

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
5,424
9,249
Furry said:
As long as you realize that the big bag theory has repeatedly been changed and adjusted to meet observations
Click to expand...

That's how it's supposed to work, lol. Theories don't spring forth in perfect form. Someone has an idea, which inspires someone else to do some checking, the results of which force the first guy to adjust the idea.

Furry said:
I don't give much weight to theories which do not have a predictive nature
Click to expand...

The Big Bang (in it's current form) was not constructed wholesale as a predictive theory. It's an implication of our understanding of gravity and relativity. if you take what we know about space, time, and gravity (which has been tested to death) and run it backwards, that's what you get. And then it predicts the CMB, which we can see.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Worf
Reactions: 1 user
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
22,559
29,802
Captain Suave said:
The Big Bang (in it's current form) was not constructed wholesale as a predictive theory. It's an implication of our understanding of gravity and relativity. if you take what we know about space, time, and gravity (which has been tested to death) and run it backwards, that's what you get. And then it predicts the CMB, which we can see.
Click to expand...

I've never read the paper which is used to say that the CMB was predicted by the big bang. Decided to go read it (The Evolution of the Universe - Nature if you are interested).

It deals with mathematically calculating the temperature of the universe that would have had to existed historically for isotopes of some types to exist in the abundances that we've observed, given the idea that the big bang is true. Never mind that this line of reasoning has been largely undermined since because no one formula can satisfy the abundance of all types of isotopes we see, only some (as in this paper).

Never knew that the big bang predicted the CMB was just a straight up lie. Because in any system where distance means light decay, a microwave background is to be expected outside of general universal spectroscopic absorption lines crossed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.