• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Hubble Constant Inconstant?

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent


Hmmm.



Scientists are baffled: What’s up with the universe?
The astronomers and physicists trying to nail down how fast the universe is growing are now wondering whether they need to revise cosmic history.


The universe doesn’t look right. It suddenly looks . . . out of whack.

That is the strange message coming from astronomers and physicists, who are wondering whether they need to revise cosmic history.

The universe is unimaginably big, and it keeps getting bigger. But astronomers cannot agree on how quickly it is growing — and the more they study the problem, the more they disagree. Some scientists call this a “crisis” in cosmology. A less dramatic term in circulation is “the Hubble Constant tension.”


Nine decades ago, the astronomer Edwin Hubble showed that the universe is orders of magnitude vaster than previously imagined — and the whole kit and kaboodle is expanding. The rate of that expansion is a number called the Hubble Constant.


It’s a slippery number, however. Measurements using different techniques have produced different results, and the numbers show no sign of converging even as researchers refine their observations. . . .




 
Some people say the Hubble Constant is settled science and some people say it's not. Kinda like the settled science of man made global warming.
 
Some people say the Hubble Constant is settled science and some people say it's not. Kinda like the settled science of man made global warming.

Kind of like it obviously exists, but a precise outcome is difficult to calculate given the many variables involved!
 
If the Hubble Constant isn't constant why do they call it that. I'm not a scientist I just have questions about these things.
 
Some people say the Hubble Constant is settled science and some people say it's not. Kinda like the settled science of man made global warming.

Who said the Hubble Constant is settled science?
 
If the Hubble Constant isn't constant why do they call it that. I'm not a scientist I just have questions about these things.

Because the number was presumably a single, static figure of some sort, but measuring exactly what that constant works out to is difficult.

A rough analogue would be the length of a piece of wire. The wire definitely has a single, numerical length but you don't have a ruler so it's hard to work out exaaactly how long it is. One guy eyeballs it and says "about five and a half inches." And the other guy says "naah it's closer to six inches."

They're trying to measure things over incomprehensibly large distances and incomprehensibly long periods of time, our technology can only measure these things so accurately.
 
Back
Top Bottom