James Webb Space Telescope deepens major debate over universe's expansion rate

[Admin]

Scientists still can't nail down the rate at which our universe is expanding. New JWST observations didn't make things any easier.

James Webb Space Telescope deepens major debate over universe's expansion rate : Read more

 

[Classical Motion]

They never will explain it. Nature can not explain man's foolishness, arrogance, leading to this absurdity.

But classic physics can explain this. And no one of today knows of classical physics. It is not taught, and when mentioned in class it is misrepresented. But that's a VERY long story.

Do we measure a very deep red shift? Yes we do. Much, much deeper shift than anyone can explain. Especially after 10 decades of nothing can surpass c. So that means...space itself is expanding at such rates. That's goo goo garbage. If space has physical properties that can be varied.......then space too, can not exceed c. You have turned all previous scientific knowledge into crap. With these absurd concepts. It's a cartoon.

The shift we measure is not a Doppler shift. That's your first mistake. Also the shift we measure is not symmetrical. What does that mean? With Doppler shift, it does not matter whether the emitter is moving or the detector is moving, the shift will be the same. This is because the shift is a sine wave shift. And because the time it takes to emit a sine wave, is the same time it takes to detect a sine wave. The emission dynamic and the detection dynamic take the same amount of time. So the movement of either the emitter or detector provides the same shift.

But light or EM radiation is not a sine wave. Light is a blinking intermittent dynamic, not an alternating dynamic. It has a duty cycle, not a alternating cycle. It's a duty cycle. But it's different than a man's work producing duty cycle. Such as motor and power control. This duty cycle does not vary the pulse, or the "on" time. The on time remains constant. And that "on" time takes no time to emit. With man's duty cycle, the on time, takes that amount of time to emit from a power source. But with light, that on time is emitted as a chuck. A chunk of duration, cut and emitted in an instant. So with light, the emission duration is instant. Zero time. However, when the emission flies by, it has duration. And when the light is detected....it takes duration. This is an asymmetric dynamic. Because emission takes no time and detector takes time. Therefore the shift.......is much different....depending....on whether the emitter or the detector is moving.

Now for the un-reconnizable part. We use what's called PWM to control power flow with a duty cycle. PWM is pulse width modulation, that varies the pulse length for the amount of power we transfer. But with light that pulse length remains constant. So what changes with movement.......is the off time between pulses, not the on time. This is called space width modulation. The space, the time, between pulses changes. Not the pulse. With no relative motion, the duty cycle is 50%.

You can play and see this for yourself with a function generator, a speaker and a scope. Play with this new duty cycle control and see....and listen to the shift.

The redshift we measure.......is a duty cycle shift.......not a sine frequency shift. And it's an off time change, not an on time change. This effect increases with distance. More space to vary.

Your light measurements are based on and calculated with sine waves. Like media waves. But light is discrete space waves. Not alternating media waves.

Only a duty cycle has the properties of a wave and the properties of a particle.

 

[TruthB Told]

"That leaves us a major gap in our understanding of the universe." Well Duh ! The hubris of humanity shines thru. You take a sip of water & think you know everything about liquid refreshment. We have only just begun to have any KIND of understanding of the universe. What we KNOW compared to what we have yet to LEARN is like comparing a grain of sand to the Sahara Desert. "There are more things in heaven and earth Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet Act 1 Scene 5

 

[ARTGLICK]

They never will explain it. Nature can not explain man's foolishness, arrogance, leading to this absurdity.

But classic physics can explain this. And no one of today knows of classical physics. It is not taught, and when mentioned in class it is misrepresented. But that's a VERY long story.

Do we measure a very deep red shift? Yes we do. Much, much deeper shift than anyone can explain. Especially after 10 decades of nothing can surpass c. So that means...space itself is expanding at such rates. That's goo goo garbage. If space has physical properties that can be varied.......then space too, can not exceed c. You have turned all previous scientific knowledge into crap. With these absurd concepts. It's a cartoon.

The shift we measure is not a Doppler shift. That's your first mistake. Also the shift we measure is not symmetrical. What does that mean? With Doppler shift, it does not matter whether the emitter is moving or the detector is moving, the shift will be the same. This is because the shift is a sine wave shift. And because the time it takes to emit a sine wave, is the same time it takes to detect a sine wave. The emission dynamic and the detection dynamic take the same amount of time. So the movement of either the emitter or detector provides the same shift.

But light or EM radiation is not a sine wave. Light is a blinking intermittent dynamic, not an alternating dynamic. It has a duty cycle, not a alternating cycle. It's a duty cycle. But it's different than a man's work producing duty cycle. Such as motor and power control. This duty cycle does not vary the pulse, or the "on" time. The on time remains constant. And that "on" time takes no time to emit. With man's duty cycle, the on time, takes that amount of time to emit from a power source. But with light, that on time is emitted as a chuck. A chunk of duration, cut and emitted in an instant. So with light, the emission duration is instant. Zero time. However, when the emission flies by, it has duration. And when the light is detected....it takes duration. This is an asymmetric dynamic. Because emission takes no time and detector takes time. Therefore the shift.......is much different....depending....on whether the emitter or the detector is moving.

Now for the un-reconnizable part. We use what's called PWM to control power flow with a duty cycle. PWM is pulse width modulation, that varies the pulse length for the amount of power we transfer. But with light that pulse length remains constant. So what changes with movement.......is the off time between pulses, not the on time. This is called space width modulation. The space, the time, between pulses changes. Not the pulse. With no relative motion, the duty cycle is 50%.

You can play and see this for yourself with a function generator, a speaker and a scope. Play with this new duty cycle control and see....and listen to the shift.

The redshift we measure.......is a duty cycle shift.......not a sine frequency shift. And it's an off time change, not an on time change. This effect increases with distance. More space to vary.

Your light measurements are based on and calculated with sine waves. Like media waves. But light is discrete space waves. Not alternating media waves.

Only a duty cycle has the properties of a wave and the properties of a particle.

Huh?

 

[rod]

I note from the space.com report, "...Basically, settling Hubble tension once and for all is dependent on resolving the true value of the Hubble constant, which is a crucial number in calculating the universe's expansion rate. Yet, for whatever reason, our theoretical predictions of the constant do not appear to match up with reality. According to most models, the Hubble constant should equal something around 68 kilometers per second per megaparsec (km/s/Mpc). One megaparsec is 1,000 parsecs, or about 3,260 light-years, for context. But after scanning stars and galaxies across our universe, some experts calculate the constant to be 69.8 km/s/Mpc, while others find it to be as high as 74 km/s/Mpc, depending on the method of measurement. Still others have suggested solutions that fall between the two."..."Webb measurements provide the strongest evidence yet that systematic errors in Hubble’s Cepheid photometry do not play a significant role in the present Hubble tension,"

The reference report and paper provided, Crowded No More: The Accuracy of the Hubble Constant Tested with High Resolution Observations of Cepheids by JWST, https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15806, 28-July-2023.

My note, from the 20-page PDF report. "The most significant differences are seen between measurements of local Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) calibrated by Cepheid variables, which yield H0 = 73.0 ± 1.0 km s^−1 Mpc^−1 (Riess et al. 2022, hereafter R22), and the analysis of Planck observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020), which predict H0 = 67.4±0.5 km s^−1 Mpc^−1 in conjunction with ΛCDM.", https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.15806.pdf

My note using Ned Wright cosmology calculator, the universe age is 12.906 Gyr using H0 = 74 km/s/Mpc. https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/toolbox/calculators.html. Using https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, the universe age = 12.5292 Gyr. The Hubble tension using different values for H0 results in some bouncing ages for the Universe in BB cosmology

Another recent report showed 76.9 km/s/Mpc for H0. Billion-light-year-wide 'bubble of galaxies' discovered, https://phys.org/news/2023-09-billion-light-year-wide-galaxies.html

My note. H0=76.9 km/s/Mpc is a much higher value than 67 or 68 km/s/Mpc. Using Ned Wright calculator, H0=76.9 km/s/Mpc and z=0, "It is now 12.420 Gyr since the Big Bang. The age at redshift z was 12.420 Gyr." The universe age shrinks to less than 12.5E+9 years old Using this calculator, https://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php, z=0.068 and H0 = 76.9 km/s/Mpc, "age of the Universe at z = 11.2337 Gyr.

In my home database for 2023, I see 10 reports that present H0 ranging from 66.6 km/s/Mpc (https://forums.space.com/threads/ho...supernova-data-could-help-nail-it-down.61362/) up to 85.3 km/s/Mpc, How fast is the universe expanding? New supernova data could help nail it down, https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07022

I find it interesting to keep track of these H0 reports and the bouncing age for the Universe presented

Edit. Using kempner calculator and H0 = 76.9 km/s/Mpc and z=0, the Universe age =

age of the Universe at z

= 12.0567 Gyr

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Dark Energy influencing many of these estimates of BB expansion and redshifts for reaching consensus at Hubble constant are soon to be understood as a function of what we are measuring and by detecting what.
The universe in near and far IR itself appears different and thereby similar other measurements.
We can so far measure Gravity universe, EM universe and Particle (astrophysics and Colliders etc.) universe but each is different appearence of a larger Dark Matter based universe.
Hence there are different values in this Hubble tension.
More later.

Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSFEB Apollo time frame
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect