I don't think space is expanding.

[Ziggurat]

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?

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.

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.

Well, this says there are black body stars:

https://aasnova.org/2018/10/31/perfect-blackbodies-in-the-sky/
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/aac88b

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

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Dude, the papers are endless:

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

 

[theprestige]

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]

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]

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

https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/51...-cold-spot-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background

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

 

[MRC_Hans]

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]

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]

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/...-the-universes-expansion-a-lingering-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]

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]

Maybe 25 years ago.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...-the-universes-expansion-a-lingering-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]

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]

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.

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]

"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.

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.

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]

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]

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

"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

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

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.