If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Phys Org2)   The rate of expansion of the universe may not be accelerating, unfortunately the same cannot be said of your mother   ( phys.org) divider line
    More: Cool, dark energy, General relativity, type ia supernovae, Royal Astronomical Society, old cosmic expansion, dark energy model, average expansion, average expansion law  
•       •       •

1265 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Sep 2017 at 9:54 PM (36 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



20 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2017-09-13 07:53:47 PM  
My mother was a Saint!!

img.fark.netView Full Size


This .gif will never get old...

/for me at least... ;)
 
2017-09-13 08:25:31 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 08:28:55 PM  
So the pull of clustered galaxies against supernovae energy pulses, is affecting their (supernovae) expansion. Thereby negating the assumed theory of 70% dark matter, or any at all?

If I'm understanding the study correctly..
Each galaxie or mass of galaxies produces their own energy or field. So, what's in the middle?

The study is significant and well worth developing tools to explore the idea.

The dark matter theorem has been batted around since 1884. It's about time we observed a new horizon!
 
2017-09-13 08:44:01 PM  
So all that shiat up there is eventually going to be coming back down???

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2017-09-13 10:02:42 PM  
Don't get comfy with Falco's ghost.....flutes and shiat
 
2017-09-13 10:23:59 PM  
I must admit that it would be nice to see 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' consigned to the same bin as the 'cosmological constant'.
or Phlogiston, come to that.
 
2017-09-13 10:49:20 PM  
I'm 100% certain that our understanding of expansion is wrong.

By how much is the question.
 
2017-09-13 11:41:14 PM  

Redh8t: My mother was a Saint!!

[img.fark.net image 424x348]

This .gif will never get old...

/for me at least... ;)


Yes. I'm sure she was unimpeachable.
 
2017-09-14 12:57:05 AM  
More space wanking.

Get boots on Mars!
 
2017-09-14 01:24:18 AM  

Tillmaster: I must admit that it would be nice to see 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' consigned to the same bin as the 'cosmological constant'.
or Phlogiston, come to that.


Two things. Einstein's cosmological constant is generally regarded to be correct now.

The other is that dark matter is not the same as dark energy. Dark matter's existence has been confirmed unambiguously. We know where it is in many places. We simply still don't know what it actually is, and there are several competing possible candidates.

Dark energy is what TFA is talking about, and is indeed nebulous and mysterious enough that we may find out we were missing something basic in our calculations themselves which explains it... or not.

But dark matter isn't going anywhere.
 
2017-09-14 02:54:21 AM  

mongbiohazard: Tillmaster: I must admit that it would be nice to see 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' consigned to the same bin as the 'cosmological constant'.
or Phlogiston, come to that.

Two things. Einstein's cosmological constant is generally regarded to be correct now.

The other is that dark matter is not the same as dark energy. Dark matter's existence has been confirmed unambiguously. We know where it is in many places. We simply still don't know what it actually is, and there are several competing possible candidates.

Dark energy is what TFA is talking about, and is indeed nebulous and mysterious enough that we may find out we were missing something basic in our calculations themselves which explains it... or not.

But dark matter isn't going anywhere.


Dark Matter got cancelled a week ago.
 
2017-09-14 07:44:37 AM  
Rather than comparing the standard ΛCDM cosmological model with an empty universe, the new study compares the fit of supernova data in ΛCDM to a different model, called the 'timescape cosmology'. This has no dark energy. Instead, clocks carried by observers in galaxies differ from the clock that best describes average expansion once the lumpiness of structure in the Universe becomes significant. Whether or not one infers accelerating expansion then depends crucially on the clock used.

I dated a Timescape Cosmology Model and she was  a sweet sensitive girl.  But, she tended to vomit after every meal so I had cut her loose...
 
2017-09-14 07:45:13 AM  

Redh8t: So the pull of clustered galaxies against supernovae energy pulses, is affecting their (supernovae) expansion. Thereby negating the assumed theory of 70% dark matter, or any at all?

If I'm understanding the study correctly..
Each galaxie or mass of galaxies produces their own energy or field. So, what's in the middle?

The study is significant and well worth developing tools to explore the idea.

The dark matter theorem has been batted around since 1884. It's about time we observed a new horizon!


What this study is saying is that red shift we observe is not caused not by an expanding universe. It is caused by distortions in space time.

Our planet is not sitting in empty space. It is itself a gravity well, orbiting another gravity well (the sun), which itself is under the influence of an even more powerful gravity well (the supermassive black hole at the heart of our galaxy.)

The further light has to travel to get to us the more distortions in space it encounters. Every one of those distortions is a shift in spacetime frame. In each distortion time slows down. And the net affect is that there is a speed up in the apparent time the light took to travel to us, and thus the red shift.

Because mass is distrubuted in clumps, and because light tends to travel from those clumps (because that is where the stars are) this illusion is pervasive through the observable universe.
 
2017-09-14 08:31:50 AM  
Isn't it entirely possible that the rate of expansion of the universe is not a constant, but relative to the energy at various points throughout it? And that the value that we attribute to "dark energy" itself is not a constant, but rather an average of the total energy expenditure? The best way I can describe this is that it would be much like a series of bubbles expanding throughout various points inside of a gel. Different bubbles will expand quicker because of the air (energy) that's put into the process, and it's going to be different for each spot because the air (energy) output is going to be either greater or lesser in each unique instance. I mean, I'm certainly no astrophysicist by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems like with these findings that we can apply a little bit of Occam's razor to the whole shebang.
 
2017-09-14 10:21:31 AM  

Smoking GNU: mongbiohazard: Tillmaster: I must admit that it would be nice to see 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' consigned to the same bin as the 'cosmological constant'.
or Phlogiston, come to that.

Two things. Einstein's cosmological constant is generally regarded to be correct now.

The other is that dark matter is not the same as dark energy. Dark matter's existence has been confirmed unambiguously. We know where it is in many places. We simply still don't know what it actually is, and there are several competing possible candidates.

Dark energy is what TFA is talking about, and is indeed nebulous and mysterious enough that we may find out we were missing something basic in our calculations themselves which explains it... or not.

But dark matter isn't going anywhere.

Dark Matter got cancelled a week ago.


I stand corrected! Canadian scifi... It kind of has it's own special flavor. The leading woman in it was really pretty.
 
2017-09-14 10:44:24 AM  
TIL timescape cosmology.  Which seems to have some good points vis a vi how the clumpiness of the modern universe hasn't really been factored into most cosmological theories as we've been assuming homogeneity.  Thanks, subby!
 
2017-09-14 11:50:25 AM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Redh8t: So the pull of clustered galaxies against supernovae energy pulses, is affecting their (supernovae) expansion. Thereby negating the assumed theory of 70% dark matter, or any at all?

If I'm understanding the study correctly..
Each galaxie or mass of galaxies produces their own energy or field. So, what's in the middle?

The study is significant and well worth developing tools to explore the idea.

The dark matter theorem has been batted around since 1884. It's about time we observed a new horizon!

What this study is saying is that red shift we observe is not caused not by an expanding universe. It is caused by distortions in space time.

Our planet is not sitting in empty space. It is itself a gravity well, orbiting another gravity well (the sun), which itself is under the influence of an even more powerful gravity well (the supermassive black hole at the heart of our galaxy.)

The further light has to travel to get to us the more distortions in space it encounters. Every one of those distortions is a shift in spacetime frame. In each distortion time slows down. And the net affect is that there is a speed up in the apparent time the light took to travel to us, and thus the red shift.

Because mass is distrubuted in clumps, and because light tends to travel from those clumps (because that is where the stars are) this illusion is pervasive through the observable universe.


So, instead of directly challenging General Relativity, they're challenging the Cosomological Principle.

[its_a_bold_move_cotton.jpg]
 
2017-09-14 04:04:42 PM  

mongbiohazard: Tillmaster: I must admit that it would be nice to see 'dark energy' and 'dark matter' consigned to the same bin as the 'cosmological constant'.
or Phlogiston, come to that.

Two things. Einstein's cosmological constant is generally regarded to be correct now.

The other is that dark matter is not the same as dark energy. Dark matter's existence has been confirmed unambiguously. We know where it is in many places. We simply still don't know what it actually is, and there are several competing possible candidates.

Dark energy is what TFA is talking about, and is indeed nebulous and mysterious enough that we may find out we were missing something basic in our calculations themselves which explains it... or not.

But dark matter isn't going anywhere.


I wouldn't say that the existence of dark matter had been confirmed unambiguously. The supposed effects of dark matter have, but the fact that we haven't determined what it is, where it is, or how to observe it... kind of pushes it toward the ambiguous column. Dark matter is the prevailing theory, but there are other models which attempt to account for observed effects without dark matter.
 
2017-09-14 04:37:14 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: What this study is saying is that red shift we observe is not caused not by an expanding universe. It is caused by distortions in space time.

Our planet is not sitting in empty space. It is itself a gravity well, orbiting another gravity well (the sun), which itself is under the influence of an even more powerful gravity well (the supermassive black hole at the heart of our galaxy.)

The further light has to travel to get to us the more distortions in space it encounters. Every one of those distortions is a shift in spacetime frame. In each distortion time slows down. And the net affect is that there is a speed up in the apparent time the light took to travel to us, and thus the red shift.

Because mass is distrubuted in clumps, and because light tends to travel from those clumps (because that is where the stars are) this illusion is pervasive through the observable unive

BKITU: Evil Twin Skippy: Redh8t: So the pull of clustered galaxies against supernovae energy pulses, is affecting their (supernovae) expansion. Thereby negating the assumed theory of 70% dark matter, or any at all?

If I'm understanding the study correctly..
Each galaxie or mass of galaxies produces their own energy or field. So, what's in the middle?

The study is significant and well worth developing tools to explore the idea.

The dark matter theorem has been batted around since 1884. It's about time we observed a new horizon!

What this study is saying is that red shift we observe is not caused not by an expanding universe. It is caused by distortions in space time.

Our planet is not sitting in empty space. It is itself a gravity well, orbiting another gravity well (the sun), which itself is under the influence of an even more powerful gravity well (the supermassive black hole at the heart of our galaxy.)

The further light has to travel to get to us the more distortions in space it encounters. Every one of those distortions is a shift in spacetime frame. In each distortion time slows down. And the net affect is that there is a speed up in the apparent time the light took to travel to us, and thus the red shift.

Because mass is distrubuted in clumps, and because light tends to travel from those clumps (because that is where the stars are) this illusion is pervasive through the observable universe.

So, instead of directly challenging General Relativity, they're challenging the Cosomological Principle.

[its_a_bold_move_cotton.jpg]


Not really bold.  The map of the observable universe puts the Milky Way right at the end of a dense filament of the Laniakea supercluster, with huge and smaller void areas making up most of everything.  This puts the Earth at a place that makes it hard to test the principle, of observing "the large enough scale ". Local effects have to be looked past from  the earth.
 
2017-09-14 07:33:30 PM  
I guess they'll be taking back that Nobel Prize, then?
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report