Talk:Hubble's law
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hubble's law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 2 months  |
 | Hubble's law was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status: Delisted good article | |||||||||||||
 | This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
| A summary of this article appears in Big Bang. |
Explanation of time delay cosmography
editThere are plenty of mentions of results from strong lensing time-delay measurements, including STRIDES, H0LiCOW, and SN Refsdal results. But it doesn't look like there's actually any explanation of how time delay measurements work, or constrain the Hubble constant, as first proposed by Refsdal (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1964MNRAS.128..307R/abstract). There should be some explanation of this class of measurements, possibly under the "Other kinds of measurements" section? TetrarchTurtle (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think you can make the changes yourself (see WP:BOLD). Banedon (talk) 07:19, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- done! thanks @Banedon TetrarchTurtle (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Contradiction with observation, reality versus theory.
editthis isn't a discussion forum unfortunately, this page is only for discussing direct improvements to the article Remsense 🌈 论 06:02, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
Contradiction with observation, reality versus theory. v = H*D, at some D speed bigger than light speed. c~=300 000 000 m/s, 70 km/s = 70 000 m/s. c/70 km/s ~= 4 285. 1 megaparsec, 3.09×1019 km , 3 260 000 light years. 4 285 * 1 megaparsec ~= 13969100000, or =~ 14 billions light years. At distance 14 billions light years objects faster than light. That in contradiction with observations. At ~ 14 billions light years observed galaxies and stars. Expansion speed radial, spherical, but not 3 dimensional, because every next megaparsec by radius added 70 km/s. Universe became sphere limited by light speed, in center of observer. Universe have center. Every observer see different Universe. Objects near end of radius move away speed will be also very big. That cause impossible to create stars and galaxies at that speed. Also at some distance even nearby objects speed will be faster than light speed. That make impossible any particles collision, that create other sphere of Universe. Sphere Universe where no particles can collide. Hubble law consequences, every observer in different places will see different Universe. For example. In 1 place objects move very fast, and not collide. Other place, near that objects, objects move very slow and collide under gravitation. Theory of relativity postulate 1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in any inertial frame of reference relative to one another (principle of relativity). Theory of relativity postulate 2. The speed of light in vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the light source. 64.37.184.27 (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
|
Hubble-Lemaitre law, why Hubble?
editThe article states: "after Hubble confirmed cosmic expansion and determined a more precise value for it two years later". It may have been more precise, but Hubble's estimate was wildly inaccurate (classic example of confusing precision and accuracy!). His published estimate was 500 km/s/Mpc, giving an age for the universe of 2 billion years - very problematic as the Earth was known to be older than that! Astronomers weren't bothered by the discrepancy, as they could see the idea of the law was correct even if the value was wrong, they just had to wait for better data. Hubble had more data points than Lemaitre, as he was extending the data Lemaitre had used (Strömberg's list, which included some measurements by Hubble). Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Do you have a suggested change to the article with a source for it? Johnjbarton (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)
- Talk:Hubble's law/Archive 4 - Wikipedia See previous discussion on this. Banedon (talk) 04:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, that clears that up in that we're reflecting the IAU. Aarghdvaark (talk) Aarghdvaark (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Hubble Time
edithttps://www.google.com/search?q=1%252F((67.8+km%252Fs)%252FMpc) returns 251,711,776 years. 73.147.27.140 (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
- Since around the beginning of this year, Google calculator now gives blatantly wrong answers for calculations involving parsecs. Here's the same expression using a calculator that works: https://gutcalc.com/?q=MS8oNjcuOCBrbS9zL01wYykgaW4geXI= Aseyhe (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
- As best I can tell, you are pointing to the output of an LLM. Don't do that, see WP:LLM, LLMs are not authoritative and have no place on Wikipedia. And even at that, you seem to have misinterpreted the summary paragraph, 1/67.8 km/s/Mpc. If you click "show more" on that LLM's output, you see that it actually does the arithmetic (or quotes someone who does) to come up with 14.4 billion years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarl N. (talk • contribs)