Looking at local galaxies, the Hubble expansion rate has been measured to be 73 km/s/Mpc. That is, galaxies one megaparsec (Mpc) away from us are apparently moving away from us at 73 km/s. Recently, a new method was devised to predict the Hubble constant from observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background, that represents the cosmos at a redshift of Z=1000, and then extrapolate forward using standard models assuming dark matter and dark energy. Perhaps not surprisingly they predicted a slower cosmos: 67.7 km/s/Mpc. The difference between these values is now beyond a plausible level of chance, so it is a real problem (See Ref).

Now let us calculate what part of this predicted Hubble constant they would miss given that they do not include the extra acceleration due to quantised inertia. It would be 2×10-10 m/s2 over the lifetime of the universe (4.4x1017s) at the cosmic edge (radius = 4.4x1026m). OK. So what would it be at only 1Mpc distance (1Mpc = 3x1022m)?

dH = 2×10^-10 x 3×10^22 x 4.4×10^17 / 4.4×10^26 = 6 km/s/Mpc

The observed discrepancy in the Hubble constant is 5.3 km/s/Mpc. Nice!

The theories that were generated before Webb began its service were based on a set of incomplete data. The theories generated due to Webb will be formed based upon another set of incomplete data.

Our model of the universe (called “the standard model”), the theory, is based upon what we know at any given time, but it changes regularly when new instruments present us with new knowledge. We had a model before telescopes, another model with telescopes, another model with radio telescopes, another model when probes flew past planets, and additional models with new space telescopes.

We launched all these telescopes in order to modify the model. We make models so that we can make predictions, such as the weather, how many products we will make next week, or what we might find in the universe (e.g. what we might find in the Kuiper belt or the Oort cloud, which are merely locations where hypothesis says we should find objects).

As Robert‘s quote from Richard Feynman means, if the model does not properly predict the future, then it is wrong. As with other areas of science, such as global warming (AKA climate change, AKA the coming ice age), the model is not the real world. People confuse the map for the territory and insist that the models should continue to be used without correction. Because global warming models do not properly predict future climate, they are wrong. As we explore the territory, we modify the map — or should. It is the purpose of science, the activity of learning about the universe around us. However, when scientists modify the data to fit the model, then the scientists have confused the map for the territory.

“What cosmologists must do is back away from their theories and recognize the vast areas of ignorance that exist.”

The same with many other sciences, such as climate science. A major problem is that theories are based upon tested hypotheses, where the tests do not contradict the hypothesis, but hypotheses are merely educated guesses, based upon assumptions. As in engineering, assumptions are hazardous territory. Engineers list our assumptions in order to allow for better analysis; the assumption may be questioned.

In cosmology, the assumptions are sometimes accepted as axiomatic, unquestioned because they are held to be true, and the Space.com article does not question any assumption. In fact, the article states some assumptions as though they are axioms. The Big Bang Theory is rarely questioned, because we see Hubble’s evidence, the comic microwave background evidence, and other evidence, but evidence is not proof. It is all too easy to see a flat earth and assume that if we sail too far we will fall off. It is all too easy to assume that since we don’t see change, evolution does not exist. It is all too easy to assume that because CO2 has an affect on temperature and because humans release CO2 that humans are the cause of rising global temperatures, even during times when the temperatures don’t rise.

Dark matter and dark energy were invented to explain some observations in the universe. They are assumed to exist, but searches for them have come up empty. The article treats these two concepts as established fact, but they are not yet established, just assumed in the same way that in the 19th century aether was assumed by scientists or that for centuries heavier objects were assumed to fall faster than lighter ones.

“Complaining about the paradoxes will accomplish nothing.”

Resolving paradoxes is one of the strengths of science. It may take time to develop the new instruments needed to view the universe in a way that resolves a paradox, but it can be done, and it has been done several times in the past. But there will still be uncertainty in that answer, too.

As the telescopes improved, we began to collect images of amazing galaxies, of all shapes and sizes. There are even images of galaxies that are, or have, collided with each other.

When a Hubble astronomer decided to take long look (exposure over time) at a very small, but ‘empty’ part of the night sky, the result changed everything. Before this Hubble Deep Field Image, we estimated there were about 200 million galaxies in the known universe. When we let Hubble view this tiny, ‘empty’ spot, thousands of galaxies were revealed. After the Deep Field revelations, we now estimate there may be 2 trillion galaxies.

Recently, the James Webb telescope reaches even further into the universe. They are finding galaxies that ‘shouldn’t exist’ that do not go along with what is/was the current theory. Before Webb, they estimated the age of the universe at 14-15 billion years old. Since Webb is peering ever deeper, our estimates of size and age of the known universe will change. I love putting the adjective ‘known’ before universe. We use the curiosity that God gave us to explore and theorize. We now know that what Hubble gave us as the known universe is not everything. Webb will peer further and further. What is beyond the limit that Webb can detect? We shall see. Webb is an Infrared telescope. Cosmic sshhhhtuff that is not visible to our eyes is found with Webb. The Big Bang always seemed logical, and that background radiation comes from somewhere. Some of us today will not live to see what is beyond what Webb can detect, but it will be fascinating nonetheless.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/cosmologist-halton-arp-19272013/

Best known in professional circles for his landmark Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies ( https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/frames.html ),
this bestiary has been a veritable field guide for aiming first Hubble and then the Web Space Telescope. “Here there be dragons,” etc.
Happily, he also left behind two popular books that provide a great deal of insight into how establishment science “works” and how it deals with data — and ideas — that aren’t liked.

https://www.amazon.com/Quasars-Redshifts-Controversies-Halton-Arp/dp/0941325008/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=halton+arp&qid=1703858569&s=books&sr=1-3 (1987)

https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=halton+arp&qid=1703860344&s=books&sr=1-1

Chip Arp’s books remain worth reading, and it might be interesting, now, to go back and see how his interpretation of anomalous galaxy pairings comports with the new WST data. Sadly, as this quote from his obituary in Sky & Telescope makes clear, cancel culture was alive and well even back in the 20th Century.

“With time, as evidence mounted supporting the Big Bang, Arp’s contention was seen as less and less credible. Eventually he was no longer allotted observing time on the world’s big telescopes, and he retired from the Hale staff to join the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics near Munich, Germany. It’s in Munich that he died, at age 86, on December 28th.”

Rest in peace, Chip, and I’d like to think that you are smiling down on us.

I am reminded of the late 19th Century when Newtonian Physics broke down. It took Einstein to show that it was a special case within a new, non-Newtonian universe. Seeing as you get a Newton or Einstein every 500 years or so, we may be in for a wait.