Timeline for Why the Hubble constant is so inconsistent?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 8, 2019 at 15:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAstronomy/status/1203690840297791489 | ||
| Jan 11, 2017 at 17:16 | comment | added | samcarter_is_at_topanswers.xyz | illustration of this phenomenon cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/h1920.jpg | |
| Jan 7, 2017 at 15:46 | comment | added | Wayfaring Stranger | There's some controversy over the constant: arxiv.org/abs/1512.07364 and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Bubble_(astronomy) | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 22:22 | history | edited | Dac0 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 68 characters in body
|
| Jan 6, 2017 at 22:19 | comment | added | Dac0 | I was afraid that was exactly the case... thank you eshaya | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 22:15 | comment | added | eshaya | I can assure you, from my many years of experience in this, that the answer to your question is unequivocally -- No. Some may have strong opinions on this, but scientists differ on this and no one knows for sure. However, the situation now is better than it was before. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 18:31 | comment | added | John Davis | This is more a guess, so I haven't put as an answer, though I'm fairly certain it is very close to the truth: measuring the Hubble shift of nearby objects gives you a less model-dependent way of measuring H, but the measurement of the Hubble shift is more error-prone. Measurement of the Hubble shift of further away objects is less error-prone, but using them to measure H is much more model-dependent. | |
| Jan 6, 2017 at 18:16 | history | asked | Dac0 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
