Notices
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Changing the Hubble constant?

  1. #1 Changing the Hubble constant? 
    Forum Junior Cuete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    4722,28 miles away from home
    Posts
    218
    New measurements suggest the universe is 15% larger and older than we tought (2 billion years older)... which means the hubble constant might change.

    --> New Scientist Article


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    how did they got that the universe is 15% older then?


    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    N.Y.
    Posts
    270
    "The Mt. Wilson astronomer, Carl Sandage, found that stars in a cluster called NGC 188 appeared to be at least 24 billion years old. 'We are in trouble', said Sandage... for the earth could certainly be younger than the universe, but if the universe has been expanding at the present rate for 24 billion years, it would seem that it should be more spread out than it is. So the astronomers have a new problem to resolve." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49-50

    Asimov states in the same discussion on the only recently discovered 'expanding universe':

    "Astronomers have now generally accepted the fact of this expansion, and Einstein's 'field equations' of his General Theory of Relativity can be construed to fit an expanding universe." - Isaac Asimov, THE INTELLIGENT PERSON'S GUIDE TO SCIENCE, p. 49
    _____________________

    The Editors, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN,

    415 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10017

    14 May 1976


    "An Accelerating Universe?"

    "...that most reasonable observational data.... fit closely all models to which the expansion is accelerating. "The prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... "something must be terribly wrong."..."The net forces between (receding) glaxies really are repulsive (Re: 'Hubble's Law - the more distant a given stellar or galactic light source the faster it's rate of recession from the point of observation". Re: Einstein's Cosmological Constant <repelling force acting parallel to and in the opposite direction as the popular concept of 'Newtonian impelling force>, a force different from others in that its velocity increases - rather than decreases, with distance.) - SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, 'Science and the Citizen', December 1975, James E. Gunn and Beatrice M. Tinsley.


    'I point out this apparent conflict with the understanding that Gunn and Tinsley concluded "...the prediction of accelerating expansion is contrary to expectation... and that something must be terribly wrong." Especially so if "...the net forces between (receding) galaxies... really are repulsive... and if gravitational values really are "equivalent to and synchronous with inertial acceleration values beyond a billionth of a second and the technical ability to measure any difference" (THE NEW GRAVITY <Is The 4th Dimension>, April 1975, Kent Benjamin Robertson).

    'Is it possible we are overlooking a rather obvious consideration, concerning the real nature of 'gravity?'

    Very Truly Yours,


    David F. Sicks, Anchorage, Alaska cc - Mr. Kent Robertson

    (Of course Mr. David F. Sicks received no response whatsoever.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 One problem with that new measurement of the universe age: 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    slatington
    Posts
    15
    The problem I see is it directly contradicts the COBE CBR data. That is where they supposedly pegged the age of the universe at 13.7 bil and counting. That data comes from measuring the background radiation and is a lot more fundamental a measurement that any data from some galaxy only a few dozen million LY away I would think. I think the COBE data trumps the galaxy data, just my opinion but they will certainly have a fight on their hands from the COBE crowd, eh.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    18
    Honestly! I don't know how you "scientists" could call ANYTHING a constant. There are some many variables and our technology is so limited... how could you expect there to be constants. There are so many variables affecting constants that once you think about it's pretty dumb to call them constants. Sure our gravity is 9.8. But according to Einstein's theory if the world was cut and half and the toher part of earth discarded by let's say a giant explosion (bare with me; almost done with this rant) then the earth would distort less space time and gravitational pull would reduce.

    Now, that was only an example there are other constants that could change. We should at least call them something else. Like constants under current state. Yeah, CUCS.
    "Then HaShem G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - G-d
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    18
    I was going to talk about strange matter but I won't because it's been done to death.
    "Then HaShem G-d formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." - G-d
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •