The universe is NOT expanding at an accelerated rate, here's why I
deserve the Nobel Prize instead:
A truck is delivering 10 000 apples and loses apples as it travels and
also this road is expanding (or diminishing) as the truck travels.
The Scientists determined the # of apples to arrive at their
destination SOLELY by the distance the truck has to travel (The # of
apples diminishes by the distance square the truck travels)
This is only the 1st part of the equation.
The 2nd part is that if the truck was NOT moving and the road
expanding then also the # of apples in the truck would diminish for
the apples would fall off (spread-out) the truck in ALL directions
that this road expands. This # of apples as opposed to the above
diminishes by the distance CUBE (NOT SQUARE) that the road expands.
The scientist did not do the above, this explains why they observed
the truck with less apples (less brightness) then expected...AND to
which they FALSELY presumed the Universe was expanding at an
Accelerated Rate.
2011: GUSKZ True Nobel Prize winner.
The equation needed is a little tricky ..can anyone formulate it?
You are wrong....if the far reached regions is *less* redshifted as
you asserted then the universe is not in a state of accelerating
expansion. Read the article in the following link:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47392
No idiot...a source moving away from you its light will be more
redshifted NOT less red shifted as you asserted. Gee you are so stupid.
> The universe is NOT expanding at an accelerated rate, here's why I
> deserve the Nobel Prize instead:
>
There are a number of independent measure... nothing to do with
supernovae that confirm accelerating expansion of the cosmos.
> > The whole business of accelerating expansion of your universe is
> > believe in the Chandrasekhar limit which itself is made up of several
> > dubious assumptions.
>
> You're nuts, KW. There's nothing in Hubble's OBSERVATIONAL MEASUREMENTS
> that depends on the Chandrasekhar limit at all. It's just a plot of
> redshift (measured with diffraction gratings) against distance (measured
> with standard candles).
The most two important hypotheses that claim an accelerated expansion
of your universe are:
**** Hubble expansion law
** z = k r
Where
** z = red shift
** k = constant
** r = distance
This law was never tested especially at such high-z distances. What
if Hubble’s law is not linear as claimed but goes like the following?
** z^2 = k^2 r
At the distance observable within Hubble’s technology, the law seems
to behave in the first order. However, at distances further out, it
would diverge from the linear model of near field. The law above fits
the observation without supporting such a ridiculous claim of
accelerated expansion of your universe. <shrug>
**** Chandrasekhar limit
Chandrasekhar fudged this up. So, in a stroke of a pen, he was able
to stop the mass gain of a companion star cannibalizing on its hapless
neighbor. Why don’t you worship Chandrasekhar as a god instead?
<shrug>
****
So, a college physics professor is ignorant of any of these, and
Einstein Dingleberries are as just as stupid and getting dumber as
usual. What else is new? <sigh> and <shrug>
Gawd! You're so indoctrinated with crap you will believe anything Jerry
tells you.
Complain to the newspaper not me.
>On Oct 7, 5:09�pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>
>> quote:
>> """"
>> ......The trio studied what are called Type 1a supernovae, determining that
>> more distant objects seem to move faster.
>> """"
>
>Science news reporters often report things incorrectly. You
>need to learn to read original source material, or at least
>you should read more accurate summaries made by professional
>astronomers or physicists rather than by journalists.
Complain to the newspaper not me.
>The Hubble "constant" is not constant. The Hubble constant,
>measured for regions of space distant from Earth and therefore
>far back in time, is less than the Hubble constant measured for
>regions near earth and therefore recent in time. THAT is what
>is meant by the accelerating expansion of the universe: the
>increasing value of the Hubble constant over time.
You're a dreamer, Crank.
>Jerry
[...]
Would learning to quote really kill you?
Unlike you, Henry, my exposure to the material is not confined to
newsgroups.
Though this may be true for you personally, it isn't wise to assume
that if two people agree on something in a newsgroup, it's because one
of them learned it from the other on a newsgroup.
PD
Note that this is an empirical law. That is, it is an *observational*
relationship between measured quantities.
Note also that this relationship, if it holds, indicates neither
acceleration or deceleration.
If there were a variation from this law, then it would indicate
acceleration or deceleration *observationally*, just as the observed
relationship between distance and time for a track runner would tell
you whether the track runner is running at constant speed or speeding
up or slowing down.
>
> This law was never tested especially at such high-z distances. What
> if Hubble’s law is not linear as claimed but goes like the following?
>
> ** z^2 = k^2 r
Why, then, you would have an indication of acceleration of the
universe. Do you see why?
Unlike you, Henry, I exercise some caution in which materials to refer
to for reliable information.
You don't, and then you invite me to police the unreliable information
so that you don't have to exercise any judgment?
Aha.
Sam is right, KW. You are a *profoundly* stupid person.
You may have been talented and competent at one point in your life. To
that, I would ask, what the hell happened?
Hey idiot the ratio is measured to be less than one does not mean less
redshift.
The graph shows that redshift for close by SNs follows the prediction
of the Standard BB theory....however, for far reached SNs the observed
redshift is more than the the predictions of the standard BB theory.
The idea of cosmological Constant (CC) is ad hoc. The true cause of
accelerated expansion for the far reached regions is due to that
gravity at those regions wrt the earth is repulsive.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>
> And no Henry (you idiot), with a nonzero cosmological constant,
> Einstein's theory of relativity actually fits this behavior quite
> nicely. That's what the dark energy term *in Einstein's theory* is all
> about. (You idiot.)
No non-zero CC would destroy the solutions of GR for close by regions.
Also there is nothing in the article that an accelerating universe the
far reached regions are *less* redshifted as you asserted. But in the
article the accelerating universe is caused by a repulsive dark energy
(anti-gravity) in the far reached regions and this means that the
spectrum for these far reached regions' are more redshifted.
> (And in fact there is nothing about redshift at all in that article.)
> Would you care to try to find an article that makes any reference to
> redshift at all, to try to find support for your assertion?
Then why did you asserted that the accelerated expansion is due to
less redshift??????
Hey idiot the higher is the rate of expansion the higher is the
redshift.
The following is a direct quote from the link you provided:
______________________________________________________________________
Supernova cosmology projects such as the Supernova Cosmology Project
and High-z Supernova Search in the late 20th century, have found
hundreds of supernovae at large red shift. The original goal of these
projects was to find confirmation that the expansion of the universe
is slowing down due to gravity. The surprising result has been however
that the objects furthest away are actually further than predicted by
a uniform expansion. In other words, the expansion of the Universe is
speeding up at very large distances.
Vertical scale is relative magnitude. High red shift supernovae are
dimmer than expected for a flat or decelerating Universe.
Image source: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/HighZ.html
__________________________________________________________________
Notice it says that:
"High red shift supernovae are dimmer than expected for a flat or
decelerating Universe."
So you and PD are wrong.....dimmer SN means high redshift instead of
less redshift as you and PD asserted..
Actually not. It's the most general form of the gravitational field
equations, which is why it's included. Making the cosmological term
zero is what's ad hoc. There's no good reason to do that.
And, what's interesting about general relativity is that it gets
things NUMERICALLY right.
You say you have an alternate explanation, but you get nothing
numerically right with your explanation.
> The true cause of
> accelerated expansion for the far reached regions is due to that
> gravity at those regions wrt the earth is repulsive.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
Of course it does. The expansion rate is the ratio of redshift to
distance. That's what the Hubble constant is.
At a fixed distance, a lower expansion rate means less redshift. Duh!
> The graph shows that redshift for close by SNs follows the prediction
> of the Standard BB theory....however, for far reached SNs the observed
> redshift is more than the the predictions of the standard BB theory.
WHICH GRAPH are you looking at? Be specific.
I did not refer to your article. You did. I am using the ORIGINAL
papers by the physicists who published the results.
> But in the
> article the accelerating universe is caused by a repulsive dark energy
> (anti-gravity) in the far reached regions
The repulsive dark energy is in ALL regions of the universe. And its
effect is best noted in the RECENT rate of expansion, which
corresponds to the NEARER supernovae.
> and this means that the
> spectrum for these far reached regions' are more redshifted.
No, it does not mean more redshifted. Ken, you are an idiot, and you
don't have the foggiest idea how to read the plot of the Hubble
expansion.
>
> > (And in fact there is nothing about redshift at all in that article.)
> > Would you care to try to find an article that makes any reference to
> > redshift at all, to try to find support for your assertion?
>
> Then why did you asserted that the accelerated expansion is due to
> less redshift??????
Because I am using REAL articles, not the stuff you dug up, Ken. Would
you please work harder to find the articles that talk about the
redshift?
That's right, and the higher rate of expansion is for the NEARER
galaxies, not the farther galaxies. The expansion rate -- the ration
of redshift to distance -- is higher for NEARER galaxies. Read the
papers written by the fellas that won the award.
NOT Discover magazine. NOT Science News. Not Time magazine. NOT
Wikipedia. Read the papers by the fellas that won the award.
Choose the right materials, Seto, or doom yourself to confusion
forever.
The following from an article provided by Jerry:
Supernova cosmology projects such as the Supernova Cosmology Project
and High-z Supernova Search in the late 20th century, have found
hundreds of supernovae at large red shift. The original goal of these
projects was to find confirmation that the expansion of the universe
is slowing down due to gravity. The surprising result has been
however
that the objects furthest away are actually further than predicted by
a uniform expansion. In other words, the expansion of the Universe is
speeding up at very large distances.
Vertical scale is relative magnitude. High red shift supernovae are
dimmer than expected for a flat or decelerating Universe.
Image source: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/HighZ.html
________________________________________________________________
As you can see high red shift supernovae are dimmer than expected for
a flat or decelarting universe. So do you now admit that you are wrong
by claiming that dimmer SNs mean lower redshift????????
>
> > The graph shows that redshift for close by SNs follows the prediction
> > of the Standard BB theory....however, for far reached SNs the observed
> > redshift is more than the the predictions of the standard BB theory.
>
> WHICH GRAPH are you looking at? Be specific.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That's right.
> So you and PD are wrong.....dimmer SN means high redshift instead of
> less redshift as you and PD asserted..
See Jerry? What did I tell you? To Seto, dimmer means more redshifted.
I told you he'd get this wrong, and that's exactly what he's done.
The GR equation without the CC will give correct predictionsfor close
by regions of the univserver....including a real value for the CC will
destroy these correct predictions. BTW what is the proposed value for
the CC that can accommodate all the regions of the universe?????
>
> And, what's interesting about general relativity is that it gets
> things NUMERICALLY right.
>
> You say you have an alternate explanation, but you get nothing
> numerically right with your explanation.
>
>
>
> > The true cause of
> > accelerated expansion for the far reached regions is due to that
> > gravity at those regions wrt the earth is repulsive.http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>
> > > And no Henry (you idiot), with a nonzero cosmological constant,
> > > Einstein's theory of relativity actually fits this behavior quite
> > > nicely. That's what the dark energy term *in Einstein's theory* is all
> > > about. (You idiot.)
>
> > No non-zero CC would destroy the solutions of GR for close by regions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dimmer does NOT mean higher redshift, you idiot.
> The following is a direct quote from the link you provided:
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Supernova cosmology projects such as the Supernova Cosmology Project
> and High-z Supernova Search in the late 20th century, have found
> hundreds of supernovae at large red shift. The original goal of these
> projects was to find confirmation that the expansion of the universe
> is slowing down due to gravity. The surprising result has been however
> that the objects furthest away are actually further than predicted by
> a uniform expansion. In other words, the expansion of the Universe is
> speeding up at very large distances.
>
> Vertical scale is relative magnitude. High red shift supernovae are
> dimmer than expected for a flat or decelerating Universe.
> Image source:http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/HighZ.html
> __________________________________________________________________
> Notice it says that:
> "High red shift supernovae are dimmer than expected for a flat or
> decelerating Universe."
> So you and PD are wrong.....dimmer SN means high redshift instead of
> less redshift as you and PD asserted..
As others have repeatedly pointed out, you are unable to parse
English language sentences.
The statement that you quoted, "High red shift supernovae are dimmer
than expected for a flat or decelerating Universe," is COMPLETELY
EQUIVALENT to my statements
For high Z, m-M is larger than expected.
For high Z, Type 1a supernovae are dimmer than expected.
For high Z, Type 1a supernovae are further away than expected.
Conversely,
For large m-M Type 1a supernovae, Z is less than expected.
For large distance Type 1a supernovae, Z is less than expected.
For large distance Type 1a SN, the redshift is less than expected.
Take ANOTHER look at the bottom illustration on this page.
http://www.ngawhetu.com/Resources/Cosmology/index17.html
Compare CAREFULLY what you see in the graph with each of my
statements above. LOOK at the graph!!!
Jerry
No, it does NOT. Adding the value of the cosmological constant gets
the Hubble curve right for ALL distances. That's the whole point.
As for what that value is, Ken, how is it that you can't look this up
yourself? Have you tried reading the papers by the guys that won the
prize? Ever occur to you that you might find it there?
> On Oct 8, 12:29�am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 7, 2:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On 10/7/2011 3:53 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> > > The whole business of accelerating expansion of your universe is
>> > > believe in the Chandrasekhar limit which itself is made up of
>> > > several dubious assumptions.
>>
>> > You're nuts, KW. There's nothing in Hubble's OBSERVATIONAL
>> > MEASUREMENTS that depends on the Chandrasekhar limit at all. It's
>> > just a plot of redshift (measured with diffraction gratings)
>> > against distance (measure
> d
>> > with standard candles).
>>
>> The most two important hypotheses that claim an accelerated expansion
>> of your universe are:
>>
>> **** �Hubble expansion law
>>
>> ** �z = k r
>>
>> Where
>>
>> ** �z = red shift
>> ** �k = constant
>> ** �r = distance
>
> Note that this is an empirical law. That is, it is an *observational*
> relationship between measured quantities.
It hasn't even been empirically true for 70 years, as the relationship
between distance and redshift is highly nonlinear once one gets into the
far reachers of time and space.
Not that the wublee has any clue about this, or willingness to learn.
[...]
If red shift is how to evaluate distance then they cannot be
nonlinear.
We would have no basis for cosmology.
> Not that the wublee has any clue about this, or willingness to learn.
Please teach us.
> [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Can I get a parchment?
For all we know, the universe has been retracting for the past several
billion years, just like how we're being drawn into the GA.
> > The most two important hypotheses that claim an accelerated expansion
> > of your universe are:
>
> > **** Hubble expansion law
>
> > ** z = k r
>
> > Where
>
> > ** z = red shift
> > ** k = constant
> > ** r = distance
>
> Note that this is an empirical law...
Do you have anything else to say besides more bullshit?
> Why, then, you would have an indication of acceleration of the
> universe. Do you see why?
You have totally missed the point as usual. <shrug>
This law was never tested especially at such high-z distances. What
if Hubble’s law is not linear as claimed but goes like the following?
** z^2 = k^2 r
At the distance observable within Hubble’s technology, the law seems
to behave in the first order. However, at distances further out, it
would diverge from the linear model of near field. The law above fits
the observation without supporting such a ridiculous claim of
accelerated expansion of your universe. <shrug>
**** Chandrasekhar limit
Chandrasekhar fudged this up. So, in a stroke of a pen, he was able
to stop the mass gain of a companion star cannibalizing on its hapless
neighbor. Why don’t you worship Chandrasekhar as a god instead?
<shrug>
****
So, a college physics professor is ignorant of any of these, and
Einstein Dingleberries are as just as stupid and getting dumber as
usual. What else is new? <sigh> and <shrug>
You got to be nuts to believe in all the assumptions that manifest the
But a non-zero CC will destroy the solutions for local regions of the
universe.
My theory of gravity DTG provides solutions for both the close by
regions and far reached regions of the universe. DTG says that gravity
at the far reached regions is repulsive and that's why the far reached
regions are in a state of accelerated expansion.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf
>
> Jerry
I already answered this. Then you would have evidence for an
accelerating universe.
You have your facts wrong, Seto. This is not why he discarded the CC.
READ.
> Now if you add a value for the CC to these
> equations you will not get the correct predictions.
Again you have your facts wrong. Stop making stuff up.
>
>
>
> > As for what that value is, Ken, how is it that you can't look this up
> > yourself? Have you tried reading the papers by the guys that won the
> > prize? Ever occur to you that you might find it there?
>
> Hey idiot.....they can get a value for the CC that will agree with
> local and distant observations. That's why there is no value for the
> CC is published.
There IS. Can you not find it? It's EASY to find it.
That's simply incorrect.
> My theory of gravity DTG provides solutions
That's an outright lie. Your "theory" makes NO predictions. At *best*
it makes qualitative but NO quantitative statements.