James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe

[admin]

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe : Read more

 

[A Duck]

Ok, so maybe the universe expands at different rates. There's no reason to believe the universe is round or consistent, it could be amoeba-shaped. What if the amount of dark energy isn't consistent throughout the universe? That would mean expansion in inconsistent rates, potentially explaining the "dark spots" we see. Those could just be "fingers" of the amoeba extended out further from the main body.

 

[jnawf]

The obvious problem in my mind is the Big Bang. It seems like everyday I read another article about how observations made by the JWST challenge our understanding of so many different things. The speed at which galaxies formed after the Big Bang, the speed at which galaxies began to die after the big bang, etc. And now we confirm that the universe is inconsistently expanding.

Remove the Big Bang from the equation and suddenly it all makes more sense. There was no beginning. There is no end. It's the same in mathematics. Why do we need a beginning and end so badly. Energy has no beginning, matter has no beginning. It just transfers and changes. So does the universe.

 

[Sharkbyte]

Mmaybe the simulation only draws in the direction you are looking like minecraft. It would appear that the universe is expanding at different rates when really its just limited by the processor speed and available memory of the system running the simulation...

 

[gardendude67]

Could it be that mathematics is a man made construct? Numbers can solve human problems. The expansion of the universe may be beyond our understanding. We limit ourselves by assigning limits and numbers to the behavior of the Cosmos. All the same- it’s fascinating.

 

[sgtcook1]

I’m not a scientist, but why would we expect that the universe would expand in some sort of order? If we believe in the Big Bang, then we are only seeing one face and one plane of the expansion and surely the energy of the bang was not uniformly distributed. The expansion coming directly in our view does not necessarily have to equal that of 5 degrees on either side of our direct line of sight.

 

[fingers]

No scientists but the weird observations seems to make sense as to 2 bubbles of light hitting each other.

If the big bang was bigger then you originally thinking vast sections of space would begin emmiting light around the same time but be in massively separate areas of space.

All light in our light bubble is visible but, we see what our light and connected light permiates. But other more further out bubbles wont be visible or seen as expanding until light from those and our bubbles light meet godether. It would look like it's expanding way faster but in reality has been then the same amount of time and instead of expanding its just sort of becoming visible.

The same method would stand true to any other means of testing the universe, like using radiation since it would be connected in multiple directions also representing expansion but actually its just like 2 laser running into one and other.

 

[Bruins]

Ok, so maybe the universe expands at different rates. There's no reason to believe the universe is round or consistent, it could be amoeba-shaped. What if the amount of dark energy isn't consistent throughout the universe? That would mean expansion in inconsistent rates, potentially explaining the "dark spots" we see. Those could just be "fingers" of the amoeba extended out further from the main body.

Yes, I like this train of thought. It would also fit into the idea that there could be multiple universes. Could it be that other universes are pulling or pushing our universe, like balloons would do if you would try to inflate a hundred balloons together inside a box?

 

[CaptainGoose]

We live in a super massive black hole. The big bang was the formation of the black hole, expansion is the hole constantly getting larger.

 

[Jamesapeterson]

Also not a scientist here … just wondering if there could be multiple bangs. Could it be possible that after the initial big bang, there were others in various areas of the universe resulting in faster expansion in those areas? Is it possible to have the biggest bang and then subsequential bangs that lead to a universe which doesn’t come from just one immense detonation?

 

[David B]

As far as I understand, the measurements are made just based on optical information. This means that expansion is measured independently of galaxies, which could pose a fundamental problem, if my understanding is correct in general. My understanding is that the expansion is happening usually between galaxies. Gravitational dependencies between stars and planets aren't considered, and I'm not sure if galaxies can be clearly defined, I think the border areas are probably only very approximate.
So assumed that expansion happens at different speed, it has to be considered if that happens under the same conditions, or if there is just one or several galaxies between which pose completely a different condition.

 

[Trainer Paul]

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe : Read more

I know this might sound a little out of the box thinking, but I'm a long time troubleshooter of many things.

Consider this : Nothing says that our solar system can't be moving in space as well as growing further apart. We rely on other objects for reference, those object could actually be moving in space with us, without a known solid fixed point. ( Just like all others could be as well )

The start of what we call the universe could have been a perfect start with everything moving at the same speed in all directions, or might not have been. If everything was moving at the same speed large planets and black holes could have had the ability to change that forward motion by pulling on each other in the forward motion stream causing a slow down or sling shot effect. So it's very plausible that everything within our ability to see or grasp by instruments might actually be moving in space.

Gravity is a strange thing sometimes...

Gravity works on large object in space - we have always said that space has no gravity. But this isn't really true - space crafts are so small with hardly any mass that gravity in space has no noticeable effect. But gravity in space is large enough to keep the moon from flying into space, but not effect a ship that might be in-between due to mass.

Note : Our solar system is constantly pushing and pulling on all planets including the sun. ( We could also be moving in space at the same time with the sun, no one has put a stop pin on the sun to keep it from moving in space

I’m not a scientist, but why would we expect that the universe would expand in some sort of order? If we believe in the Big Bang, then we are only seeing one face and one plane of the expansion and surely the energy of the bang was not uniformly distributed. The expansion coming directly in our view does not necessarily have to equal that of 5 degrees on either side of our direct line of sight.

) This is how and why our solar system is in a pattern. The loss of one planet would cause a cascade failure that keeps us in the pattern.

I hope I have explained my troubleshooting of this issue. Wish everyone the best.

 

[Beefeater]

Once again proving just how arrogant we primitive humans are when it comes to understanding the universe.

 

[Giovani]

Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe : Read more

A reoccurring muse of mine is the posit that the universe is a sphere.
The most common feature in the cosmos is the sphere. Graduated to universal dimensions, somehow this makes sense.
Would it explain the conundrum concerning measurements and such?
I view the matter in space as continents and plate tectonics create motion on the planet's surface, floating with various velocities and events creating a universe ostensibly spherical.

 

[Ty T]

lumpy cmb, uneven from the start

 

[nrowland]

OK no surprise. We can be so naive at times, thinking we can understand the vast universe (vast in so many dimensions) from just one vantage point and within such a miniscule timeframe. We will continue to learn and be "surprised". And just when we think we have it figured out....

 

[Ratwrangler]

Since we have never actually seen the outer edge of the universe, we don't actually know if it's expanding or not. We see objects very far away, and we calculate how fast they are moving, and in which direction, we then assume that these objects are near the edge of the universe. Even in space, different areas have different densities, so a galaxy passing through a hydrogen cloud might move more slowly than one that is not. Or as yet undetected black holes or other massive gravitational field could be influencing things. This is not so much a universe expansion thing as it is a relative speeds thing.

 

[mschreiber47]

Do we even know where we are in the universe? Why wouldn't the speed of expansion be different depending on where you look? For simplicity, say we are in a donut shape shock wave (big bang) and it is mapped out as: North South East West. Now say we are on the east side looking West, things on the West side would be moving away faster then say things in the North or South. And things ahead of us that are even further to the east of would appear much slower then the items in view on the other side of the donut. Just a simpleton thinking aloud. Roast away!

 

[122lite]

As far as I understand, the measurements are made just based on optical information. This means that expansion is measured independently of galaxies, which could pose a fundamental problem, if my understanding is correct in general. My understanding is that the expansion is happening usually between galaxies. Gravitational dependencies between stars and planets aren't considered, and I'm not sure if galaxies can be clearly defined, I think the border areas are probably only very approximate.
So assumed that expansion happens at different speed, it has to be considered if that happens under the same conditions, or if there is just one or several galaxies between which pose completely a different condition.

To know the rate of expansion of the universe, one would have to reverse engineer the universe until it formed a circle. An explosion without interference would form an isotropic diameter. As it flattened out, the expansion rate would have had a compounding effect until the isotropic center collapsed. At which point expansion would begin to slow. You can't assume only one rate.

 

[Crabbers]

Light travels in all directions and the frames of reference for places other than ‘ours’ will distort the space-time continuum in different ways; thus explaining galaxies moving away from each other at speeds greater than the speed of light.
In the end the Earth is the Center of Our Universe

 

[RLKing2]

The obvious problem in my mind is the Big Bang. It seems like everyday I read another article about how observations made by the JWST challenge our understanding of so many different things. The speed at which galaxies formed after the Big Bang, the speed at which galaxies began to die after the big bang, etc. And now we confirm that the universe is inconsistently expanding.

Remove the Big Bang from the equation and suddenly it all makes more sense. There was no beginning. There is no end. It's the same in mathematics. Why do we need a beginning and end so badly. Energy has no beginning, matter has no beginning. It just transfers and changes. So does the universe.

Scientists have removed the logical beginning...read Genesis. It works. They can't even find the edge of the universe...how can they be sure of anything when they don't know the beginning, middle and boundaries of the Universe ?
Let there be light!

 

[simin]

The obvious problem in my mind is the Big Bang. It seems like everyday I read another article about how observations made by the JWST challenge our understanding of so many different things. The speed at which galaxies formed after the Big Bang, the speed at which galaxies began to die after the big bang, etc. And now we confirm that the universe is inconsistently expanding.

Remove the Big Bang from the equation and suddenly it all makes more sense. There was no beginning. There is no end. It's the same in mathematics. Why do we need a beginning and end so badly. Energy has no beginning, matter has no beginning. It just transfers and changes. So does the universe.

Among these comments, when I read your comment, it was as if I had written this comment and it was very interesting to me. I completely agree with your opinion. In my opinion, by believing in the Big Bang theory, we have imprisoned the infinity of the universe in the Big Bang theory! In the vast extension (infinity), opposites are synonymous with each other; the concept of the beginning will be equal to the same end and the understanding of the end will be the same as the understanding of the beginning.
In other words, the cosmic understanding of the beginning and the end will not be included in the human understanding of the beginning and the end because there is no beginning and end in the universe;

 

[Crabbers]

The obvious problem in my mind is the Big Bang. It seems like everyday I read another article about how observations made by the JWST challenge our understanding of so many different things. The speed at which galaxies formed after the Big Bang, the speed at which galaxies began to die after the big bang, etc. And now we confirm that the universe is inconsistently expanding.

Remove the Big Bang from the equation and suddenly it all makes more sense. There was no beginning. There is no end. It's the same in mathematics. Why do we need a beginning and end so badly. Energy has no beginning, matter has no beginning. It just transfers and changes. So does the universe.

Ultimately the Earth is the center of our Universe.

 

[RLKing2]

They have no idea what happened and won't for many centuries.
When they can identify the edge of the Universe....I'll pay attention.
But they don't have a clue.

 

[RobertMBlevins]

Right now, our understanding of the universe can be compared to two ants sitting on an anthill in the middle of the Sahara and making educated guesses as to what the rest of the world might be like. The article in question has probably thrown physicists into the Twilight Zone figuring it out.