Earth and our entire Milky Way galaxy may sit inside a mysterious giant hole which makes the cosmos expand faster here than in neighbouring regions of the
universe, ...
Because they are not, in fact, older than the universe. That is literally, definitionally impossible.
The age of objects are derrived from simplified equations that proximate real-world phenomina. They’re mathematical models, not absolute facts. When an object appears to be “older than the universe”, it can mean many specific things, like the acceleration of the expansion of the universe changes over time when most mathematical models do not account for that. It could mean the object is simply further away than we expect to be able to see. It could mean it’s simply traveling away from us in some uniquely fast way.
Basically, it means the mathematical model used to derive how “old” the object is, is likely wrong in some way, or that the measurements taken may have inaccurate results, both of which are absolutely and wholly normal for science. Again, they’re mathematical models, based on measured observation, not absolute universal truths. There are many, many, many ways data can both be gathered incorrectly or analyzed incorrectly, not even requiring anyone to make a mistake. Science at the fringe of knowledge is very difficult, and requires rigerous testing and validation before it should be trusted. NEVER trust clickbait BS, especially if it’s not directly from a scientist’s mouth.
We already know our mathematical models are inaccurate in several ways (see dark matter and dark energy for the obvious ones). We just need to figure out how and why they are wrong.
I’m saying the article is absolute clickbait trash and the assumption of a void’s effects would be miniscule compared to the effects of dark energy. … presuming something like MOND is still incorrect, which is closer to the truth as far as we have evidence for. (MOND models do not match observation)
The density of the void we’re in is not like some mystical lack of particles for light-milenia. It’s just less dense to the point where the assumed distribution the Cosmological Principal would make most probable doesn’t match observation exactly. It’s been known about for years. Note I said most probable, not possible. It doesn’t even break the MANY assumptions made that create the cosmological principle.
Well then how do you explain detected objects that are older than what we know as the age of the universe?
Because they are not, in fact, older than the universe. That is literally, definitionally impossible.
The age of objects are derrived from simplified equations that proximate real-world phenomina. They’re mathematical models, not absolute facts. When an object appears to be “older than the universe”, it can mean many specific things, like the acceleration of the expansion of the universe changes over time when most mathematical models do not account for that. It could mean the object is simply further away than we expect to be able to see. It could mean it’s simply traveling away from us in some uniquely fast way.
Basically, it means the mathematical model used to derive how “old” the object is, is likely wrong in some way, or that the measurements taken may have inaccurate results, both of which are absolutely and wholly normal for science. Again, they’re mathematical models, based on measured observation, not absolute universal truths. There are many, many, many ways data can both be gathered incorrectly or analyzed incorrectly, not even requiring anyone to make a mistake. Science at the fringe of knowledge is very difficult, and requires rigerous testing and validation before it should be trusted. NEVER trust clickbait BS, especially if it’s not directly from a scientist’s mouth.
We already know our mathematical models are inaccurate in several ways (see dark matter and dark energy for the obvious ones). We just need to figure out how and why they are wrong.
Exactly why I mention the RED SHIFT that we use to detect the age of distance between objects visually.
If this article is true, that means we can’t rely on red shift to determine the distance or age of anything.
And exactly what I already said: The shift we see IS NOT from light traveling through a void.
Okay, so that’s still the same question:
So you’re saying this article is all bullshit, or what?
I’m saying the article is absolute clickbait trash and the assumption of a void’s effects would be miniscule compared to the effects of dark energy. … presuming something like MOND is still incorrect, which is closer to the truth as far as we have evidence for. (MOND models do not match observation)
The density of the void we’re in is not like some mystical lack of particles for light-milenia. It’s just less dense to the point where the assumed distribution the Cosmological Principal would make most probable doesn’t match observation exactly. It’s been known about for years. Note I said most probable, not possible. It doesn’t even break the MANY assumptions made that create the cosmological principle.