|
|
|
|
|
|
by ajross
1039 days ago
|
|
|
> Won't a photon climbing out of a huge gravity well have a huge redshift, thus confounding estimates of distance from us and estimated age? Of course it will. It will also have a redshift related to the expansion of the space it's been travelling through. Both of those corrections are absolutely part of the model. It's not nearly as simple as "Astronomers forgot about General Relativity!". But I guess it's true (to be clear: I'm just an amateur in this field) that the ΛCDM model for cosmological evolution that we've all been looking at for the past decade or two isn't holding up well at all. It looked like it was pretty much there and just needed some fine tuning. Then we got a bunch of new data and everything's a mess. That's kind of exciting all by itself, though it's also leading to a bunch of nattering from the existing iconoclasts (MOND nuts in particular) whose theories are also not working very well to explain JWST observations. New insight needed, basically. We're all watching for updates. |
|
|
Is there a way to gain a better understanding of how these parameters are modeled and what the scientific evidence is for the various phenomena in astrophysics? It's somewhat perplexing to me as an outsider of the field to understand how things like mass and distance of stars and planetary bodies are determined when 1) the scales are so outside of conventional experience 2) observation is limited to 2D imaging of the night sky 3) the observations in general are not consistent with our knowledge of gravity and relativity without adding hidden parameters.