And quite apart from your lie with regard to galaxy and stellar composition, there is the fact that the universe at the edge of our technology’s ability to observe it looks like perfect black body radiation with an astonishing uniformity of temperature no matter which direction we look, so no, it doesn’t turn out not to be different in that respect either. Nor will it.
I agree with Zig here - you’ve moved on from being an ignoramus making silly suggestions to a full fat crackpot completely impervious to reason.
Multiple times, people have pointed out hard data showing significant observed differences between earlier universe and today. When you claim there's no difference, you're lying.
You aren't just some naive amateur who is skeptical of our understanding. You're a crackpot.
Many much better educated and smarter persons than you have much more interesting, logical, and mathematically consistent questions about the beginnings of the universe that generate serious discussion. The only reason that anyone here might be "bothered" by your questions is that those questions are frustratingly naive.
Secure? Well, the same evidence that convinced me of the reality of BBT was the same evidence that convinced former supporters of steady-state and static models. In fact, most of them were convinced before COBE had ever been dreamed up, never mind WMAP and Planck. Which is why you will do very well to find anyone with a clue still proposing SS and static models in the literature.
So, people are allowed to question it, but they need to question and explain all of the evidence that supports BBT/LCDM. And have a model that not only explains what BBT/LCDM does, but more besides. Nobody is even close to doing that. As far as I can see, nobody is even trying.
Secure? Well, the same evidence that convinced me of the reality of BBT was the same evidence that convinced former supporters of steady-state and static models. In fact, most of them were convinced before COBE had ever been dreamed up, never mind WMAP and Planck. Which is why you will do very well to find anyone with a clue still proposing SS and static models in the literature.
So, people are allowed to question it, but they need to question and explain all of the evidence that supports BBT/LCDM. And have a model that not only explains what BBT/LCDM does, but more besides. Nobody is even close to doing that. As far as I can see, nobody is even trying.
Multiple times, people have pointed out hard data showing significant observed differences between earlier universe and today. When you claim there's no difference, you're lying.
You aren't just some naive amateur who is skeptical of our understanding. You're a crackpot.
So, you don't believe in an expanding universe, despite all the evidence to the contrary, and you don't believe in the SS universe models. What is left? A static universe? Lol.
And, quite frankly, nobody really cares what is convincing to you personally. All the evidence that the Earth isn't flat is not convincing to some. It matters not.
Did it make the CMB disappear? Or cosmological redshift? Or SNe 1a time-dilation measurements? Or the BAO observations? Or the ISW effect?
And the authors suggest ways in which the high metallicity, if shown to be robust, may have occurred. That is why they suggest follow-up observations. It does not require us to throw out all the very robust evidence for LCDM, however it turns out. It just means that galaxy formation models, based on sod all previous data, may need to be revised. Surprising nobody. For most scientists, this is an exciting prospect. For some cranks it means the whole of LCDM just went up in a puff of smoke!
Sorry, but the bar is set very high to disprove the foundations of LCDM, namely BBT and expansion And neither you, nor anybody else, is even close to doing that.
Mike Helland doesn't believe in an expanding universe, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Mike Helland also doesn't believe in steady-state models of the universe, because they posit expansion.
Which means jonesdave116 nailed it, but Mike Helland wanted readers to think jonesdave116 was misrepresenting Mike Helland's ridiculous beliefs.
According to the supernovae data and LCDM, the universe is 12.8 billion years old.
No cosmologist believes this is true. Either the measurements are messed up somehow, or the model is wrong. Not a single cosmologist entertains the idea that the universe is actually 12.8 billion years, despite that being what the model and the most direct measurements of Hubble's constant say.
According to LCDM, the CMB should be the same temperature in all directions. It is not. There's a hemispheric asymmetry and a cold spot and a correlation with our own solar system.
None of this is reason to abandon the theory.
Those are perfectly good reasons to doubt it's relationship with reality though. As many cosmologists do.
According to the supernovae data and LCDM, the universe is 12.8 billion years old.
No cosmologist believes this is true. Either the measurements are messed up somehow, or the model is wrong. Not a single cosmologist entertains the idea that the universe is actually 12.8 billion years, despite that being what the model and the most direct measurements of Hubble's constant say.
First of all, let's note that the sentence I highlighted reveals Mike Helland's ignorance of the situation he's trying to describe. According to supernovae data, the universe is about 12.8 billion years old. According to LCDM and measurements of the CMB, however, the universe is about 13.8 billion years old.
In the above, Mike Helland neglects to mention that the estimated age of 12.8 billion years is based upon an estimated value of the Hubble constant. He also neglects to mention that other methods of estimating the Hubble constant yield estimates that imply older ages for the universe.
The figure astronomers derive for the Hubble Constant using a wide variety of cutting-edge observations to gauge distances across the cosmos is 73.5 km/s/Mpc, with an uncertainty of only two percent....
Alternatively, the Hubble Constant can also be estimated from the cosmological model that fits observations of the cosmic microwave background, which represents the very young Universe, and calculate a prediction for what the Hubble Constant should be today....
When applied to Planck data, this method gives a lower value of 67.4 km/s/Mpc, with a tiny uncertainty of less than a percent.
....in principle these two figures should agree to within their respective uncertainties, causing what cosmologists call a 'tension' – an oddity that still needs explaining.
That web page also cites a third method of estimating the Hubble constant, which yields an estimated value of 70 km/s/Mpc.
The Hubble constant H0 is the rate at which the universe is expanding today. As explained within the spoiler, all credible estimates for the Hubble constant H0 indicate its value lies somewhere between 65 and 75 km/s/Mpc.
Mike Helland wants us to believe that uncertainty counts as evidence that the rate of expansion is H0 = 0 km/s/Mpc.
Yes, that is a strikingly stupid argument, but it is the argument Mike Helland has been making.
To disguise the stupidity of his argument, Mike Helland engages in dishonest equivocation, whereby he pretends the Hubble constant H0 is not the rate at which the universe is expanding, but is instead an unmotivated numerical parameter whose value is determined by whichever data base Mike Helland is curve-fitting this week.
Because Mike Helland's own estimates of that numerical parameter vary from week to week, his own estimates are just as uncertain as the mainstream Hubble tension that he uses to argue for a non-expanding universe, in which the rate of expansion is H0 = 0.
It is not possible to overestimate the stupidity of Mike Helland's argument.
According to LCDM, the CMB should be the same temperature in all directions. It is not. There's a hemispheric asymmetry and a cold spot and a correlation with our own solar system.
None of this is reason to abandon the theory.
Those are perfectly good reasons to doubt it's relationship with reality though. As many cosmologists do.
All theoretical models, such as the LCDM, are idealized simplifications of the reality they seek to model. The LCDM prediction of an isotropic cosmic microwave background (CMB) with a black-body temperature spectrum is one of the most spectacular predictions in the history of science. Empirical measurements have confirmed that prediction to a degree seldom seen in nature (outside the artificially controlled conditions of a laboratory).
At z=9, H = 67.4 * (0.3 * 10**3 + 0.7)**0.5 = 1168 km/s/Mpc.
(eta, forgot the square root, seemed high, even for LCDM)
Why?
Because the universe was 10 times denser at z=9. Which means gravity would really pulling back on the expansion.
Therefore, the expansion of the universe had to be over 1000 km/s/Mpc. Otherwise matter would just collapse it.
As the density of matter in the universe goes down, the expansion rate goes down.
This is given the strikingly stupid interpretation that gravity slows expansion. It's pretty clear that trying to shoehorn Hubble's law into the Friedmann equations has been an abject failure. The denser matter is in the universe, the higher the expansion rate is. Why? Cuz it has to be or the whole affair is dismal failure. It's a hack.
Our "accelerating universe" will never be expanding faster than a universe with a constant expansion rate of about 50 km/s/Mpc.
I used to doubt the expansion of the universe. But if it was expanding, then I assumed there had to be a big bang. After actually learning about how this all works, it seems pretty unlikely there would be a big bang, even if the universe is expanding.
The big bang requires an angular diameter turnaround, which requires a value for Hubble's parameter that actually increases with density solely to keep the universe for collapsing in itself.
What I find most unbecoming about all of this is that the self-proclaimed skeptics here can admonish those with an inclination to believe supernatural, magical stuff, and then act like anyone who doubts their version of creation, that the universe is a mere 3 times older than the rock we live on, that needs inflation and dark energy, is, at best, misguided.
If Mike Helland understood general relativity, he'd realize that gravity slows expansion for the same reason the upward vertical velocity component of footballs being thrown today by NFL quarterbacks diminishes and becomes negative as those footballs return toward earth.
I used to doubt the expansion of the universe. But if it was expanding, then I assumed there had to be a big bang. After actually learning about how this all works, it seems pretty unlikely there would be a big bang, even if the universe is expanding.
The big bang requires an angular diameter turnaround, which requires a value for Hubble's parameter that actually increases with density solely to keep the universe for collapsing in itself.
Mike Helland apparently does not realize that "a value for Hubble's parameter that actually increases with density" is another way of saying the value of the Hubble parameter has diminished over time, even as the density of the universe has diminished over time.
That is of course a property of any FLRW model for an expanding universe with positive mass-density or pressure and a sufficiently small cosmological constant, regardless of whether the universe expands forever or collapses back into a Big Crunch.
But Mike Helland doesn't understand such things.
He tries to hide his ignorance through cargo-cult copying and pasting of equations that contradict what he's said above. Ultimately, his arguments come down to repetitive assertions of his unsupported beliefs, as in the following quotation.
What I find most unbecoming about all of this is that the self-proclaimed skeptics here can admonish those with an inclination to believe supernatural, magical stuff, and then act like anyone who doubts their version of creation, that the universe is a mere 3 times older than the rock we live on, that needs inflation and dark energy, is, at best, misguided.
"According to our best measurements, the current expansion rate is around 70 km/s/Mpc, but will someday drop to around 45 km/s/Mpc, but no lower, in the Universe we inhabit."
That's a strange thing to say considering that you, personally, implemented v=-c+Hd and produced accurate results for any FLRW model (or at least flat ones).
This works because things are traveling away at Hd. For light (that's moving toward us) to be moving at c relative to those things, it has to be moving at -c+Hd.
If that were a "first order approximation" you wouldn't get the right answers.
If you replace H with H0 you get a low redshift approximation. But that's a total non-sequitur.
Not only did it get that backwards, he's so clueless that he responded to my sarcasm by confirming he got it backwards without realizing he was admitting he got it backwards.
"According to our best measurements, the current expansion rate is around 70 km/s/Mpc, but will someday drop to around 45 km/s/Mpc, but no lower, in the Universe we inhabit."
Yes, the current expansion rate is around 70 km/s/Mpc, but that Hubble parameter is diminishing and is expected to drop to around 45 km/s/Mpc, where it is expected to stabilize. The reason the expansion rate is expected to stabilize is because the density of matter decreases as the universe expands, causing the gravitational slowing of the expansion to become less important, causing the positive cosmological constant (estimated at about 0.7 of the critical density) to become more important than the gravitational slowing of expansion.
As seen in the first quotation above, Mike Helland thought our universe "will never be expanding faster
than a universe with a constant expansion rate of about 50 km/s/Mpc".
What's true is that our universe will never be expanding slower
than a universe with a constant expansion rate of roughly 50 km/s/Mpc. (The asymptotic expansion rate is more precisely estimated at 45 km/s/Mpc, but 50 is close enough for this discussion.)
That is of course confusing to someone with Mike Helland's command of mathematics, because a constant Hubble parameter (expansion rate) corresponds to an exponentially increasing scale factor. Because Mike Helland doesn't understand differential equations, he can't possibly understand the very definition of the Hubble parameter H, which explains why he is having so much trouble understanding that a constant expansion rate H gives rise to an exponentially increasing scale factor.
The Hubble parameter is defined by H = (da/dt) / a. If that Hubble parameter diminishes to some constant H1, then from that time onward we have
da/dt = H1 a(t)
from which it follows that
a(t) = eH1 t + C
where C is some constant.
(Given Mike Helland's struggles with calculus, he probably won't understand that either.)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
