Or the effect we see on gravitational lensing that is accounted for by “dark matter”? I don’t see how that could be explained by “light losing energy”…
Not an astronomer but if I read the article correctly the observations gathered about galaxies rotating and colliding would be explained instead by regional changes in what were previously assumed universal constants, which would be very interesting if true but 1 paper isn’t consensus yet
How long until the young earth dipshits jump on this as “evidence” to claim that if there’s room to question whether the universe is 13.8 billion or 26.7 billion years old, that means it must actually be 6000?
“Contrary to standard cosmological theories where the accelerated expansion of the universe is attributed to dark energy, our findings indicate that this expansion is due to the weakening forces of nature, not dark energy,” he continued.
IANAP, but isn’t universal expansion understood to be accelerating? How would “weakening forces of nature” account for that? Assuming this energy could be “lost” (breaking an even longer standing and well tested principle of physics), that loss wouldn’t accelerate anything. At best the speed would remain neutral.
The tired light theory is an alternative explanation to the red shift of distant light that says it’s not because distant objects are all moving away from us but instead that the light somehow loses energy as it travels, which lowers its frequency.
There was another alternate theory that suggested everything was shrinking instead of the universe expanding (thus wavelengths seem longer by the time they get to us).
Personally, I’m more “open to the idea” than “sold” for the idea of the universe’s accelerated expansion. I like theories that eliminate the need for dark matter or energy, especially given that the current ones requiring them assume that they make up 95% of everything. It just seems more likely that we don’t understand things as well as we do than to assume we’re right about everything we think but just need to add 19 times what’s already here to balance it all out.
“Tired light” has been theorized before, and it just doesn’t hold up to most of the evidence gathered.
It’s entirely possible that there’s something there, but most data currently backs up the Lambda-CDM model of the universe. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model
Only time will tell if this theory pans out, but I wouldn’t put much money on it.
This thing is just a mosaic of ordinary CCDs. I’m sure the name has something to do with it’s specific scientific goals, but that’s not explained at all in this article. They didn’t even attempt to make any kind of connection between the veil and dark energy. Or even between supernovae and dark energy.
I’m so glad society has teams allocated to identifying these hard-hitting issues. It’s true - we don’t have enough consumer protections in place for space tourists. A poor innocent space tourist could “go to space” without fully understanding that “space can be dangerous”. Thankfully, these analysts discovered this issue before too many people were “at risk”. Future space tourists will have to sign a waver, or watch a presentation, or something.
The interesting question here is who paid for this “study”, and who from the register accepted the bribes to get this dogshit published.
A half dozen years ago, or thereabouts, I entered the Canadian version of this competition, just to see how I’d fare, and to look at the process. Made it through the first couple levels of screening (from 3200 applicants, I was still in the hunt at 300 remaining) but then got filtered.
Some interesting bullet points if you’re thinking of applying, assuming the NASA questions are similar to the CSA ones:
(1) ham radio, morse code, or other amateur radio operator experience is an asset.
(2) Anything aviation or amateur rocketry is an asset, but in particular a pilot’s license. Anything aviation adjacent is still useful.
(3) Russian language (this might be changing in the current political environment)
(4) Experience in an “operational environment” – I suspect this is military jargon, but if you’d don’t field research as a scientist out of wilderness camps, or anything like that where you’re in a small group for work/adventure might apply here.
(5) Medical degrees, or advanced science degrees.
(6) Physical fitness and perfect vision
When I applied, my Russian sucked, my aviation experience was tangential (but copious), and I was a grad school dropout (from a planetary science program), so I didn’t float to the top. But it was enough to make it through the first layers.
There person who ended up winning was a medical-degree air force pilot. Hard to compete haha.
astronomy
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.