You might say as it relates to it all that gravity is messed up. 😉 Or current views on it. There could be a number of reasons for that including Einstein at galactical distances. Time itself - why should it's rate remain constant?
So as things don't fit come up with 2 entities. It appears these can be manipulated to make things fit. But why 2? It seems just matter won't fit.
Standard candles Type 1a supernova. This mentions why they have caused a rethink.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07018
Last night the universe explained how they occur. White dwarf and a gas giant. Net effect appears to be that carbon and oxygen go super nuclear. Spectrum and red shift allow them to be differentiated from other types. Have they ever directly observed a potential one?
The broadcast also went into the big bang. LOL No comment.
So as things don't fit come up with 2 entities. It appears these can be manipulated to make things fit. But why 2? It seems just matter won't fit.
Standard candles Type 1a supernova. This mentions why they have caused a rethink.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.07018
Last night the universe explained how they occur. White dwarf and a gas giant. Net effect appears to be that carbon and oxygen go super nuclear. Spectrum and red shift allow them to be differentiated from other types. Have they ever directly observed a potential one?
The broadcast also went into the big bang. LOL No comment.
Had a quick read - seems it calls into question not all but some SN Ia observations if G has changed over time (from proposals in some MNG theories).
The "Type 1a supernovae, standardisable candles, and gravity" link suggests that these supernovae are no longer standardisable candles in scenarios where the strength of gravity evolves over time.
But of what type of scenario do they speak?
An alternative to General Relativity is the Brans-Dicke theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brans–Dicke_theory
In addition to spacetime and the matter within it, the Brans-Dicke model has a third ingredient, known as a scalar field, who's one job is to change the strength of gravity from place to place or from time to time.
Ever since astronomers postulated dark energy in the late 1990s, physicists have been working to see if there's a potential way for this previously discarded model of gravity to explain the accelerated expansion of the Universe more naturally than does General Relativity with its Gravitational Constant.
Attachments
The point I noted is that 1a's are essentially the "proof" of increasing rate of expansion.
Also on the BBC broadcast the rather specific conditions needed to produce them. A little like a black hole stripping material off a star.
Isn’t the paper calling into question some of the assumptions about SN Ia’s that make the standard candles less precise than originally assumed? Separately, I see there is still some disagreement on the expansion rate although most seem to have settled on 74.3 km/s per MpSec +-2.1 km pet sec.
What the paper is saying is that the strength of gravity in the area of a type 1a supernova determines the mass of the white dwarf progenator right before the explosion - and hence the supernova's brightness.
So, if the strength of gravity is not constant throughout the Universe in both location and time, that puts the use of type 1a supernovae as candles of standard brightness "oot the windae" - as we say in Scotland!
See my post # 1,529 about the Chandrasekhar limit and the challenge posed to the use of type 1a supernovae as standard candles.
So, if the strength of gravity is not constant throughout the Universe in both location and time, that puts the use of type 1a supernovae as candles of standard brightness "oot the windae" - as we say in Scotland!
See my post # 1,529 about the Chandrasekhar limit and the challenge posed to the use of type 1a supernovae as standard candles.
A recent X-ray study of galaxy clusters suggests that the rate of expansion of the universe may not be the same in every direction.
https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-rate-may-vary.html
Question: Have the astronomers actually uncovered a region that seems to expand slower than the rest of the Universe, as well as one that seems to expand faster?
Answer: As far as I am aware, the jury is still out! 😉
My schooling is, of course, extended to everyone.
But rest assured, Bonsai, that you are always...
In the regions expanding more slowly, is the density of galaxies lower?
On a denser galaxy cluster level, does time pass more slowly than in regions with lower density?
On a denser galaxy cluster level, does time pass more slowly than in regions with lower density?
The above may not exactly explain gravity, but it does explain >
how the end & beginning join in A MOMENT THAT IS LESS THAN A MOMENT
IE. Repeating 'BIG BANGS'
It is also an exact mathematical representation of > Yin & Yang ...
the X and Y components exactly depict the 'dots' found in the Yin/Yang symbol.
THE ABOVE EQUATION IS ALSO A PARADOX !
how the end & beginning join in A MOMENT THAT IS LESS THAN A MOMENT
IE. Repeating 'BIG BANGS'
It is also an exact mathematical representation of > Yin & Yang ...
the X and Y components exactly depict the 'dots' found in the Yin/Yang symbol.
THE ABOVE EQUATION IS ALSO A PARADOX !
PS.
It is also my belief, (concurrent with my theory) that all black holes go to the same place >
regardless of their location within the universe.
It is also my belief, (concurrent with my theory) that all black holes go to the same place >
regardless of their location within the universe.
The BOTTOM LINE IS >
Eternal motion that has always existed ... and always will.
( A PARADOX )
Eternal motion that has always existed ... and always will.
( A PARADOX )
@Bonsai
The only alternative explanation given in my previous link is that "gravitational tugs" between galactic clusters could be giving the illusion of different expansion rates in the anomalous areas.
As I said, I have found no follow up to the X-ray emission analysis.
Perhaps "time" will tell. 😉
The only alternative explanation given in my previous link is that "gravitational tugs" between galactic clusters could be giving the illusion of different expansion rates in the anomalous areas.
As I said, I have found no follow up to the X-ray emission analysis.
Perhaps "time" will tell. 😉
I've been trying to find out more about galaxy clusters, the X-ray observations of which provide information on the rate of expansion of the Universe,
Galaxy clusters are the biggest objects in the Universe that are held together by gravity. They contain hundreds or thousands of galaxies.
Type Ia supernovae led to the discovery that the universe is not just expanding but has begun a phase of accelerating expansion.
Astronomers say the source of this acceleration is 'dark energy' which provides a sort of 'anti-gravity' to speed up cosmic expansion.
Dark energy would suppress the formation of galaxy clusters, so by counting the number of galaxy clusters formed over time we may learn more about dark energy and the expansion of the Universe.
So far, observations have shown that dark energy appears to be uniform in space and constant in time.
Some more background here: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/physics/research/astrophysics/areas/clusters-galaxies/
Here's more information on the lopsided expansion of the Universe to which I referred earlier:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-lopsided-universe1/
Galaxy clusters are the biggest objects in the Universe that are held together by gravity. They contain hundreds or thousands of galaxies.
Type Ia supernovae led to the discovery that the universe is not just expanding but has begun a phase of accelerating expansion.
Astronomers say the source of this acceleration is 'dark energy' which provides a sort of 'anti-gravity' to speed up cosmic expansion.
Dark energy would suppress the formation of galaxy clusters, so by counting the number of galaxy clusters formed over time we may learn more about dark energy and the expansion of the Universe.
So far, observations have shown that dark energy appears to be uniform in space and constant in time.
Some more background here: https://www.bristol.ac.uk/physics/research/astrophysics/areas/clusters-galaxies/
Here's more information on the lopsided expansion of the Universe to which I referred earlier:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-we-live-in-a-lopsided-universe1/
The above video outlines Roger Penrose's self-confessed ‘outrageous’ theory of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) - no less than a daisy-chain of universes.
The response from his peers has been one of 'deathly silence'.
Sir Roger hates the term 'dark energy'. He prefers to call it ‘lambda’, referring to the ‘cosmological constant’ that Einstein had used to balance the force of gravity.
His CCC theory or, more accurately, hypothesis is described here: https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/sir-roger-penroses-mathematical-art-of-the-cyclic-cosmos/
The response from his peers has been one of 'deathly silence'.
Sir Roger hates the term 'dark energy'. He prefers to call it ‘lambda’, referring to the ‘cosmological constant’ that Einstein had used to balance the force of gravity.
His CCC theory or, more accurately, hypothesis is described here: https://blog.sciencemuseum.org.uk/sir-roger-penroses-mathematical-art-of-the-cyclic-cosmos/
