Big Bang Cosmology Intelligent Design

At National Geographic: A million to one odds that the universe’s expansion mystery is a statistical fluke

Spread the love

Hubble is still in business and provides a mystery that maybe James Webb can help with:

It’s one of the biggest puzzles in modern astronomy: Based on multiple observations of stars and galaxies, the universe seems to be flying apart faster than our best models of the cosmos predict it should. Evidence of this conundrum has been accumulating for years, causing some researchers to call it a looming crisis in cosmology.

Now a group of researchers using the Hubble Space Telescope has compiled a massive new dataset, and they’ve found a-million-to-one odds that the discrepancy is a statistical fluke. In other words, it’s looking even more likely that there’s some fundamental ingredient of the cosmos—or some unexpected effect of the known ingredients—that astronomers have yet to pin down.

Michael Greshko, “The universe is expanding faster than it should be” at National Geographic December 17, 2021

It’ll be no surprise if James Webb creates bigger mysteries than Hubble as well as solving some.

8 Replies to “At National Geographic: A million to one odds that the universe’s expansion mystery is a statistical fluke

  1. 1
    martin_r says:

    UD:

    It’ll be no surprise if James Webb creates bigger mysteries than Hubble as well as solving some.

    touche …

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    as to:

    That difference might not sound like much, but if this discrepancy is real, it means the universe is now expanding faster than even dark energy can explain—implying some breakdown in our accounting of the cosmos.

    To echo the late Steven Weinberg’s words to Richard Dawkins, “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in.”

    “I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws of nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
    The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe,,,”
    (Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
    “No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
    – Steven Weinberg – as stated to Richard Dawkins at the 8:15 minute mark of the following video

    – Leonard Susskind – Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg – 1 in 10^120 – Cosmological Constant points to intelligent design – video
    https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk?t=495

    The following site lists several bible verses that ‘predicted’ God ‘Stretching out the heavens’ long before ‘dark energy’, and the present discrepancy, were even known about.

    Bible References to God Stretching Out the Heavens
    http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.g.....retch.html

    Since it indirectly alludes to Jesus walking on water, this is my favorite verse out of that group of verses,

    Job 9:8
    He alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the waves of the sea.

  3. 3
    Joe Schooner says:

    The odds against winning any of the big lotteries is far greater than one in a million, yet people win them.

    Probability arguments are often misleading because they are often based on false assumptions.

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    “The odds against winning any of the big lotteries is far greater than one in a million, yet people win them.”

    They are configured to have an eventual winner every time.

    Andrew

  5. 5
    JVL says:

    Joe Schooner: Probability arguments are often misleading because they are often based on false assumptions.

    Example?

  6. 6
    Joe Schooner says:

    Example?

    Probability arguments are often made about the probability of “A” occurring. This implies a pre-defined goal.

    For example, prior to your conception, the probability of “YOU” being born is millions to one. However, the probability of your parents having a child was pretty high.

  7. 7
    JVL says:

    Joe Schooner: For example, prior to your conception, the probability of “YOU” being born is millions to one. However, the probability of your parents having a child was pretty high.

    Yes . . . I guess I was thinking of more concrete examples like rolling dice, roulette, cards or the lottery.

  8. 8
    Joe Schooner says:

    Yes . . . I guess I was thinking of more concrete examples like rolling dice, roulette, cards or the lottery.

    The example provided is more analogous to the probability arguments often used to support ID. The argument takes the end product (eg flagellum)and works backward. This would be a proper use of probability if the flagellum as it is seen today was the goal. But biologists do not propose that the flagellum is the goal. This changes the interpretation of probability estimates.

Leave a Reply