24 september 2020

Boeiend: de ESO H0 2020 e-conferentie deze week

Credit: ESO.

Deze week is een e-conferentie gaande over de Hubble-spanning, de al jaren voortslepende discussie over de vraag hoe snel het heelal uitdijt en welke oorzaken er zijn voor de verschillende resultaten die metingen aan die snelheid hebben opgeleverd. De ESO H0 2020 e-conferentie, zoals ‘ie officieel heet (H0 – spreek uit H knot – is de Hubble constante in het huidige heelal), is gisteren begonnen en hij duurt tot en met vrijdag – hier het programma. De presentaties zijn dagelijk te volgen op YouTube tussen 14.45 en 17.15 uur Nederlandse tijd. Door het coronavirus zijn grote evenementen zoals astronomische conferenties fysiek niet meer toegestaan, dus zijn ze online én in dit geval door iedereen live te volgen. Op maandag gaf o.a. Nobelprijswinnaar Adam Riess – medeontdekker in 1998 van de versnelde expansie van het heelal – een presentatie, welke je hieronder kunt volgen (vanaf 11 minuten ongeveer, daarvoor is nog een intro).

Over de Hubble-spanning gesproken: recent is er weer een nieuwe meting gedaan aan H0, eentje die gekeken heeft naar de zogeheten Tully-Fisher relatie, de empirische relatie tussen de massa, of de intrinsieke lichtkracht van een spiraalvormig sterrenstelsel en zijn asymptotische rotatiesnelheid, of de breedte van zijn emissielijnen. Ze keken daarbij naar vijftig sterrenstelsels en de uitkomst van het onderzoek was:

H0 = 75.1 +/- 2.3 (stat) +/- 1.5 (sys) km/s/Mpc.

Een waarde die overeenkomt met die van het ‘lokale kamp’ in de discussie rondom de Hubble-spanning, ver van de waarde van het ‘vroege kamp’. Hier het vakartikel over deze waardebepaling, te verschijnen in the Astrophysical Journal. Hieronder een grafiek met de resultaten aan de vijftig sterrenstelsels, waarvan er 27 zijn waarbij de Cepheïde-methode van afstandsbepaling is gehanteerd (de blauwe stippen) en 23 met de Tip of the red Giant Branch methode (rood).

De baryonische Tully-Fisher relatie van de vijftig sterrenstelsels, op de x-as hun rotatiesnelheid, op de y-as hun massa. Credit: Schombart et al.

Bron: Triton Station.

Comments

  1. David Hine zegt

    I’m sorry the following is in English language, but here goes!! :-

    An interesting equation from ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ (Kindle Books) :-

    2 X a mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 70.98047 K / S / Mpc. This is the one and only fixed

    Hubble’s Constant value. For this equation, a parsec is the standard 3.26 light years, and C is the speed of light in

    the Aether, derived from Maxwell’s Electric Aether equations. The reciprocal of 70.98047 is a fixed 13.778 billion

    light years, which is NOT the age of the universe (because it’s also fixed), but the Hubble Horizon distance. This

    equation has survived countless challenges, and settles the ongoing Hubble tension disputes (see the Wikipedia

    Hubble Chart for the approximate measured Hubble values). It also tells us the Big Bang hypothesis is false. The

    search for dark matter / dark energy is today’s attempt in a study of the Aether of (Faraday / Maxwell / Einstein). David Hine

    • @David (what´s in the name…) , your holy “book” dates from 2008, which is completely outdated. That´s why is cost less than 1 quid I guess. So what can astronomers expect from such a cheap outdated novel based on religion?

      • David Hine zegt

        So Nico, anyone can insult, but can you disprove the Astrogeometry Hubble equation??? Unlikely. The price was fixed low by me, so as to assist its circulation. Remember, the Prophet Isaiah knew all about Hubble’s Constant (Chapter 40). These lasting equations are designed by the Lord Jesus (Universe Creator God). Maxwell (Christian believer) and Einstein (a devout Jew and Torah follower) knew that, and drew their inspiration from that fact. No one can challenge the Creator God and the Aether, through which the Universe draws its dynamics, David Hine

        • I must be one of those many “no ones” then @David. Go and seek your religious followers somewhere else please, because your nonsense has nothing to do with real science.

          • David Hine zegt

            So Nico, go ahead and disprove that Hubble equation. You will fail in deepest humiliation. This is science you do not understand. Just accept it as truth, David Hine

    • David Hine, what’s your thought? “Peter Coles’ blog In the Dark isn’t interesting anymore, so let’s see if I can export my biblical thoughts into the dutch market?”

    • That equation most definitely does not produce an answer even close to the one you say and even if it did, it makes no sense. 80 minus 10 is also close but just as meaningless.

      The aether is an outdated concept and has absolutely been disproven and btw, no one can stop me from challenging your creator god.

      • David Hine zegt

        This equation has been tested by a Professor at Imperial College, London. You obviously do not do algebra, or you could follow it and obtain 70.98047. Until you can come up with a proper criticism, and not insults, you may be worth an audience, and sensible discussion. Also The Lord Jesus is OUR Creator God, so you need to have a think about that too, David Hine.

        • So what you really tell me here is that you are unable to work out your own equation. Basic math needs testing by anonymous prof? I think not.

          If you somehow become able to count after all, please just show me: replace all your empty terms with the actual numbers you think must be used, since clearly the use of terms like c and mpc is completely useless if these must have a fixed value in a fixed unit before it produces the answer you want.

          Which in itself makes the use of anything else than these very numbers rather useless of course, but regardless, the burden of proof is on you.

          And another thing: I reject your false god and if that is why you feel insulted, I’m fine with that. So leave your false god of of the picture – or prepare to feel insulted much more. Anansi forever.

          @Arie Als ik de trol met rust moet laten, doe ik dat hoor.

          • David Hine zegt

            Last thing first. I do not feel insulted, for I am not your judge. Jesus will judge you, and meter out the punishments for both you and I. That’s how it works. The Torah is the rule book of both science and behaviour.
            Now to the equation. All you need to do is either accept it, but if you can’t, study it, spot errors if you can, but always think Aether, as Maxwell and Einstein did, and you will understand it better. Good Luck, David Hine.

  2. Het lijkt Peyton Place wel… “This week is too much. Go home H0, you’re drunk,” tweeted Dan Scolnic, a SH0ES member at Duke University, after yet another befuddling new result for H0 was revealed at the conference. En die conferentie was precies een jaar geleden. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hubble-tension-headache-clashing-measurements-make-the-universes-expansion-a-lingering-mystery/

  3. http://www.tritonstation.com/ interessante site….zie commentaar 🙂

  4. Einstein didn’t “think Aether”, he accepted the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887, which proofed the non-existence of the aether. Now David, can you accept a proof, or do you stay in your biblical numerology and reject all proofs?

  5. I asked David to walk me through his equation, to fill in his proposed values, and show me he’s right. He cannot even do that. So I did it for him, except, since he is not right, it shows how bad his math really is. I hope the number formats I used will work, apologies if it becomes a mess.

    David’s equation:
    2 X a mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21

    Rewritten:
    2 Mpc × c / ?²¹

    Solving, with c in m/s and Mpc converted to meters:
    2 Mpc × c /?²¹ ? 6.715 × 10²? m²/s

    Anyone can check this! Just don’t forget to convert the values for Mpc and c to equal units, such as meters. This is needed, just like you’d do that to calculate the surface of a floor which measures 5 meters by 450 centimeters – you wouldn’t do 5×450.
    If you know a bit about what the Hubble parameter is, you can also see right away that at the very least, David’s equation has the wrong units.

    What else? David claims the answer is 70.98047 K / S / Mpc. Or, almost 71 km/s/Mpc. Not only are his units wrong, the answer itself is, too, as I’ve just shown. How does he get that value of 71? I’ll show you. Remember how David demands that the term ‘mega parsec’ (Mpc) in his own equation must not actually be Mpc but lightyears (ly)? Let’s forget the stupidity of naming it ‘Mpc’, let’s just go along for a moment.

    David’s equation:
    2 X a mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21

    Rewritten:
    2 × 3.26 ly × 1,000,000 × 299,792 km/s / ?²¹

    Note about c: since David puts a K in the units in his answer and does not bother to specify the units for his version of c, I’m going to have to assume that K stands for km, so c=299,792 km/s

    You also have to forget the fact that light years and kilometers are not the same thing, so forget convertions, because David does not understand what he is doing wrong here. So the whole thing wrongly becomes:

    2 × 3.26 × 1,000,000 × 299,792 / ?²¹ = 1,954,643,840,000/?²¹?70.9448 (still a wrong answer)

    Because David is aware that the Hubble parameter is usually given in km/s/Mpc and does not want to look stupid (another fail), he now simply adds back these units to the number he got. But, pointing these mistakes out to him triggers insults and contempt. So it’s not just stupidity but also likely narcissism at the helm, making any discussion fruitless indeed.

    Therefore, this post is not as much intended for him as it is for anyone who is tempted to go along his reasoning. Don’t just accept this post – think for yourself. Always.

    • It became a mess. Rewritten.

      I asked David to walk me through his equation, to fill in his proposed values, and show me he’s right. He cannot even do that. So I did it for him, except, since he is not right, it shows how bad his math really is. I hope the number formats I used will work, apologies if it becomes a mess.

      David’s equation:
      2 X a mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21

      Rewritten:
      2 Mpc × c / pi^21

      Solving, with c in m/s and Mpc converted to meters:
      2 Mpc × c /pi^21 = 6.715 × 10^20 m²/s

      Anyone can check this! Just don’t forget to convert the values for Mpc and c to equal units, such as meters. This is needed, just like you’d do that to calculate the surface of a floor which measures 5 meters by 450 centimeters – you wouldn’t do 5×450.
      If you know a bit about what the Hubble parameter is, you can also see right away that at the very least, David’s equation has the wrong units.

      What else? David claims the answer is 70.98047 K / S / Mpc. Or, almost 71 km/s/Mpc. Not only are his units wrong, the answer itself is, too, as I’ve just shown. How does he get that value of 71? I’ll show you. Remember how David demands that the term ‘mega parsec’ (Mpc) in his own equation must not actually be Mpc but lightyears (ly)? Let’s forget the stupidity of naming it ‘Mpc’, let’s just go along for a moment.

      David’s equation:
      2 X a mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21

      Rewritten:
      2 × 3.26 ly × 1,000,000 × 299,792 km/s / pi^21

      Note about c: since David puts a K in the units in his answer and does not bother to specify the units for his version of c, I’m going to have to assume that K stands for km, so c=299,792 km/s

      You also have to forget the fact that light years and kilometers are not the same thing, so forget convertions, because David does not understand what he is doing wrong here. So the whole thing wrongly becomes:

      2 × 3.26 × 1,000,000 × 299,792 / pi^21 = 1,954,643,840,000/pi^21 = 70.9448 (still a wrong answer)

      Because David is aware that the Hubble parameter is usually given in km/s/Mpc and does not want to look stupid (another fail), he now simply adds back these units to the number he got. But, pointing these mistakes out to him triggers insults and contempt. So it’s not just stupidity but also likely narcissism at the helm, making any discussion fruitless indeed.

      Therefore, this post is not as much intended for him as it is for anyone who is tempted to go along his reasoning. Don’t just accept this post – think for yourself. Always.

      • David Hine zegt

        You are wrong on all counts. All you are dong is changing the equation into something else by meddling with the inputted units. You are so wrong about Einstein too, because an uncle of mine, who was a Rabbi, was a personal friend of Einstein. Many Rabbi enjoy maths, and Einstein never left his and Maxwell’s Aether belief, because the Morley experiment was based on a fictional fixed Aether, and not the fluid ‘Relative’ Aether of real life. Einstein chose to ignore the Morley conclusion, as it simply did not apply, and arguing with fools was not his interest area. Einstein was magnificently Jewish, and tolerating fools was not his favourite way of passing his time !!!!!. Einstein’s fool tolerance fuse was very short. I will chat happily with fools, such as you, and find it amusing..
        Just accept a parsec is 3.26 LIGHT years, and the speed of light in relativistic Aether is taken in Kilometres per SECOND. This keeps the units right, and satisfies stating Hubble’s Constant as K / S / Mpc. I do algebra the old way, which works very well, and is more beautiful. Doing Algebra the old way is less liable to get wrong answers, and added confusion, which you demonstrate openly.
        Stick EXACTLY to 2 X a mega parsec X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 70.98047 K / S / Mpc.
        So a parsec is 3.26 light years, and C is the speed of light in the Aether, in K / Second. Stick precisely to
        this, and it works correctly in the accepted Hubble Constant format. If you want the Imperial Hubble value, simply substitute Miles / Second as C, in the Aether, and Hubble then is around 42. Not too difficult?? David Hine.

    • Zo komen we nooit van die pseudo Einstein af als je blijft reageren @June. Laat deze fool de Rambam krijgen 🙂 https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides en vooral niet meer reageren dus, je geeft hem alleen maar een platform om namens zijn oom die onzin verder te ventileren!

      • Ik heb zojuist actie ondernomen tegen deze amateur-HTK’er. Mooi exemplaar van het Dunning-Kruggereffect. Ik zal m’n HTK-blog van jaren terug weer eens updaten met dit soort gevallen. Ik begin een soort van psychiater te worden. 😀

  6. David Hine zegt

    A simple Algebra lesson for you. In your floor area example of 5 metres X 450 centimetres, what do you get?? It’s not wrong in old type algebra, such as Maxwell might use to do this. The answer is simply is 2250 Metres / Centimetre. That is the correct answer as an expression in Aether format. To get the floor area in square metres, divide 2250 by 100 This is where you are getting confused, David Hine

    • Now I’m confident discussing with you is useless, you are not open to logical arguments, you stay in your ‘Huis-Tuin-Keuken-kosmologie’ as we call it. So therefore I put you on the blacklist. Hopefully Peter Coles in the UK and Stacy McGaugh in the States do the same.

    • Go away @David!

  7. David Hine zegt

    Apologies for a typo. I meant divide 2250 by 1000, David Hine

Speak Your Mind

*

Deze website gebruikt Akismet om spam te verminderen. Bekijk hoe je reactie-gegevens worden verwerkt.

%d bloggers liken dit: