Comments on: Bigger, Stronger, Faster

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:49:34 +0000

If galaxies were simply speeding away from us due to their motion (as if we were the center of the universe) distant galaxies would look different. The brightness and size of distant galaxies shows us that the Universe really is expanding, so we aren't the center of the Universe.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:41:31 +0000

There’s nothing false about that statement at all. Hubble did demonstrate cosmic expansion. He was also a cautious scientist and knew that it led to a cosmic age that contradicted geology, among other things, and so didn’t claim cosmic expansion to be true. However in the larger historical context we now know about systematic errors in Hubble’s data, and further observations have confirmed this, which is why cosmic expansion is now at the heart of modern cosmology.

By: Rafał Krych (@rakr)

Rafał Krych (@rakr) — Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:11:44 +0000

There are false statements in this article. For example this sentence: “The fact that galaxies are receding away from us was first demonstrated by Edwin Hubble in 1929, building upon the work of Henrietta Leavitt and others.”
Edwin Hubble didn’t ever claimed that his red-shift measurements are proof that “galaxies are receding away from us”. Reality is that he was claiming that there might be different explanation of his famous red-shift measurements. It is a common misunderstanding about Edwin Hubble is that he is a founder of “Big Bang” theory.

See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble#Redshift_increases_with_distance

Hubble’s opinion published in Los Angeles Times on 31 December 1941:
Astronomer Edwin P. Hubble says that after a six-year study, evidence does not support what we now call the Big Bang theory, according to the Associated Press. “The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size.”

By: Mike S

Mike S — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 19:22:10 +0000

Hi. I have a question. I’ve read many times about Hubble’s discovery that galaxies are all moving away from us, and that formed the basis of inflation of the universe. But, I’m having a hard time digesting this. If all galaxies are moving away from us, than this would imply (to me, anyway) that we must be the center of the universe (which I seriously doubt). In order to actually “know” this, wouldn’t we need perspective from another point (many light years away) in order to triangulate?

If you haven’t guessed, I am not a physicist, astronomer, et al. I don’t have a degree in science. But I read, and I try to understand. I’d appreciate someone explaining this to me.

By: genialityofevil

genialityofevil — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:54:26 +0000

In linear expansions the universe would be ~14.4 billion years old, which is also known as Hubble time.

By: Brian Koberlein

Brian Koberlein — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:59:20 +0000

About 13.81 billion years, give or take about 40 million years.

By: RichK

RichK — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:54:26 +0000

Thank you. I read several other reports of this study. None made clear how specifically the lensing was used to measure expansion, nor why the difference in techniques raised fundemental questions about cosmological theory. It is very frustrating to read articles where the writers don’t understand enough to explain it to a layperson.

By: Mr Jan David Fisher

Mr Jan David Fisher — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:09:22 +0000

What is the age of the Universe based on the new value? What would the age be if we assume a linear rate of acceleration expansion, even second order rate?