🧵 Untitled Thread
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 08:13:19 UTC No. 16634825
husbant, the data does not fit your theory..
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 08:28:23 UTC No. 16634827
The latest results say otherwise.
https://news.rub.de/english/press-r
>>16634826
If you can't understand the idea of a collaboration, you are officially too dumb to debate cosmology.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 08:33:37 UTC No. 16634829
>>16634827
>rub.de
might as well go to /pol/
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 08:48:12 UTC No. 16634834
>>16634825
YWNBAP
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 09:44:12 UTC No. 16634852
> enough to suggest that there's something we're missing, and that there may be some sort of fundamental mistake we've made in the standard cosmological model
Gee no shit, that's why there's 500 other models, because nobody can come up with an experimentally testable theory of everything, just math.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:33:13 UTC No. 16634887
Oh so it turns out the universe may not be accelerating in its expansion and potentially not expanding at all depending how strong the effects of time dilation are on light that travels between us and visible supernovae, since that light is the entire basis of the idea that it's expanding.
It's certainly a more comforting idea that life could persist forever, even if it all dies through the crunch phase of a "big bounce" than to assume eventual infinite entropy and heat death. An optimistic cosmology speaks to me more... what can I say, I'm human.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:42:02 UTC No. 16634894
>>16634887
you are not human though but a literal chatbot
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 10:46:23 UTC No. 16634896
>>16634887
>potentially not expanding at all depending how strong the effects of time dilation are on light that travels between us and visible supernovae, since that light is the entire basis of the idea that it's expanding.
Nope. The idea you're referring to is still based on an expanding universe, it's also driving acceleration. If there was no expansion at all then time dilation would average out to zero and there would be no redshift or Hubble's law. And there are many tests of the expanding universe.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 11:17:18 UTC No. 16634914
Waifu fix the data.
And post link.
>>16634896
I was under the assumption we have no idea.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 12:27:01 UTC No. 16634963
>>16634914
There are no confirmed redshift discrepancies, only claims. Most were just apparently close galaxies or merging galaxies.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:08:16 UTC No. 16634990
>>16634914
First, start with the observation
>i am the science I am right
then we reach the conclusion
>I am the science and I am right
This is the scientific method.
Also, profit.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:30:40 UTC No. 16635009
>>16634826
They should have a sentence or two for each person explaining what they did like some journals require.