The universe may not be expanding as fast as currently believed

Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
The universe may not be expanding as fast as currently believed

Accelerating universe? Not so fast

Date:
April 11, 2015

Source:
University of Arizona

Summary:
Astronomers have found that the type of supernovae commonly used to measure distances in the universe fall into distinct populations not recognized before. The findings have implications for our understanding of how fast the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang.

Exerpt:
Certain types of supernovae, or exploding stars, are more diverse than previously thought, a University of Arizona-led team of astronomers has discovered. The results, reported in two papers published in the Astrophysical Journal, have implications for big cosmological questions, such as how fast the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang.
Most importantly, the findings hint at the possibility that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe might not be quite as fast as textbooks say.
The team, led by UA astronomer Peter A. Milne, discovered that type Ia supernovae, which have been considered so uniform that cosmologists have used them as cosmic "beacons" to plumb the depths of the universe, actually fall into different populations. The findings are analogous to sampling a selection of 100-watt light bulbs at the hardware store and discovering that they vary in brightness.
"We found that the differences are not random, but lead to separating Ia supernovae into two groups, where the group that is in the minority near us are in the majority at large distances -- and thus when the universe was younger," said Milne, an associate astronomer with the UA's Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory. "There are different populations out there, and they have not been recognized. The big assumption has been that as you go from near to far, type Ia supernovae are the same. That doesn't appear to be the case."

Complete Article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150411091607.htm

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
 What is your opinion on

 What is your opinion on the inflation rate? Are we headed for a big crunch? Eternal expansion and a big rip? 

 

I assume an oscilating universe.... but that might just be my OCD and a need for symmetry. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I don't really have a view

I don't really have a view anymore, There's too much supposition and assumption on this level, and not enough hard data. Dark energy and dark matter, for example. There is still absolutely no evidence for either, yet the majority of scientists in the field assume they exist to account for the expansion of the universe and the way galaxies move. I will not be shocked if it is determined neither exist one day.
And there are so many theories and hypothesises now. From holographic universes stuck in the event horizon of a 4th dimensional black hole to heat death to white holes to cosmic string collisions to multiverses to colliding universes...

It's all too much lol. I accept entropy is a fundamental part of the universe, and that life is a necessary result and "goal" (for lack of a better term). I suspect that with sufficient growth, life can create new universes (If a universe can happen then it can happen. It happened so it can happen). I don't think there's necessarily an end or beginning.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I don't really

Vastet wrote:
I don't really have a view anymore, There's too much supposition and assumption on this level, and not enough hard data. Dark energy and dark matter, for example. There is still absolutely no evidence for either, yet the majority of scientists in the field assume they exist to account for the expansion of the universe and the way galaxies move. I will not be shocked if it is determined neither exist one day.

Interesting. I wonder what would keep galaxies from flying apart if that were true... 

Quote:
And there are so many theories and hypothesises now. From holographic universes stuck in the event horizon of a 4th dimensional black hole to heat death to white holes to cosmic string collisions to multiverses to colliding universes... It's all too much lol. I accept entropy is a fundamental part of the universe, and that life is a necessary result and "goal" (for lack of a better term). I suspect that with sufficient growth, life can create new universes (If a universe can happen then it can happen. It happened so it can happen). I don't think there's necessarily an end or beginning.

 

My own pet theory is that we are a simluation universe being run on a massive computer within a "real" universe.. which would mean that theists have a point... i.e. we are created by an intelligence after all.... they just get all the details wrong. 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I have sometimes wondered if

I have sometimes wondered if the universe might not be a structure that is so vast we are literally incapable of perceiving it. What would a star look like to a life form the size of a quark which resides within?
It is a bit fanciful I admit, but an interesting thought none-the-less.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2830
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I have

Vastet wrote:
I have sometimes wondered if the universe might not be a structure that is so vast we are literally incapable of perceiving it. What would a star look like to a life form the size of a quark which resides within? It is a bit fanciful I admit, but an interesting thought none-the-less.

 

Now this is an excellent point. We tend to think that we pretty much know it all, don't we, when it comes to the universe itself. We "know" it's about 14.6 billion years old, we know that there was a transition event we call the big bang.... we can talk about every step of this process going

back to picoseconds from the event... but what if all we know is just a speck and there is something absurdly larger? Something by definition unknowable to us.... even more than just a megaverse.

 

Oddly enough, it's theistic in nature.... in the grand, majestic sense that theism ought to have striven for...

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I agree. All of the wonder

I agree. All of the wonder and (almost) none of the assumptions in one package. It makes everything seem huge and more interesting, instead of small and boring. It can inspire instead of suffocate.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4898
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
What baffles me is no matter

What baffles me is no matter what every one throws out there as a theory, for example a simulation, then what is beyond that simulation? or beyond the boundries of the Universe? or what is beyond the beyond?

I've attempted to apply the same realization of 'there doesn't need to be a god for me to exist' to 'there doesn't need to be a boundry to the Universe' but I haven't wrapped my brain around it yet.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Best to simply assume

Best to simply assume nothing, but speculate on everything; I think.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15620
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:What

digitalbeachbum wrote:

What baffles me is no matter what every one throws out there as a theory, for example a simulation, then what is beyond that simulation? or beyond the boundries of the Universe? or what is beyond the beyond?

I've attempted to apply the same realization of 'there doesn't need to be a god for me to exist' to 'there doesn't need to be a boundry to the Universe' but I haven't wrapped my brain around it yet.

 

Science certainly does not know what is behind that background radiation, outside the "tiny dense spot". But I would place my bets on what we don't currently know simply being a yet to be understood cycle of this giant weather pattern. If what science constantly uncovers leads to the natural which it does, then what we uncover will simply give us a natural explinaiton.

There most certainly does not need to be a god or even a cosmic Bill Gates for "all this" to happen, just like you already accept Thor is not needed to explain lightening, or Poseidon isn't needed to explain hurricanes. Humans have too much of a tendency to project thier own qualities on non human events.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
^ WARNING FOR ENTERTAINMENT

^ WARNING FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY.

Brian isn't qualified to have an educated opinion on any scientific subject.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5408
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:^ WARNING FOR

Vastet wrote:
^ WARNING FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. Brian isn't qualified to have an educated opinion on any scientific subject.

Nor is he qualified to say anything about ancient deities. Nowhere in Norse mythology is Thor creditied with creating or causing lightening. The only references are statements like the Swedish "godgubben åfar" as a reference to thunder literally mean "the good old is taking a ride"- iow, the thunder was caused by Thor's chariot. Although, there is nothing that suggests people actually believed it was physically Thor riding in a chariot. Imagine that, humans used colloquialisms before Brian was born!

Nor was Poseidon believed to cause hurricanes. Strong winds weren't "caused" by anything in Greek mythology. They simply existed and were locked up on the island Aeolia, where the god Aeolus was appointed by Zeus to guard the door and only releasing them at the request of other gods. The Greek gods didn't really create anything, they just had power to manipulate things, much more like modern superheros than the abrahamic god, complete with very human personality flaws.

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13094
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
It is quite amazing how

It is quite amazing how ignorant he is on everything. Science, theology, economics, sociology, politics, logic, and the list goes on. About the only thing he has any proficiency in is English, but even in that he only has sufficient grasp to say things. Not enough to comprehend what other people say. Not even enough to comprehend what he says!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4111
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It is quite

Vastet wrote:
It is quite amazing how ignorant he is on everything. Science, theology, economics, sociology, politics, logic, and the list goes on. About the only thing he has any proficiency in is English, but even in that he only has sufficient grasp to say things. Not enough to comprehend what other people say. Not even enough to comprehend what he says!

 

                                         Spot on.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.