Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

TERRIBLE Nobel Prize for Accelerating Universe

2 views
Skip to first unread message

gu...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 9:21:45 AM10/4/11
to
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15165371

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?

jcon

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 2:53:03 PM10/4/11
to
On Oct 4, 8:21 am, "gu...@hotmail.com" <gu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (...snip...)
> The equation needed is a little tricky ..can anyone formulate it?

It's appalling how the Physics Nobel Prize committee
shamelessly discriminates against people who can't do
simple math.

If it weren't for that prejudice, there would be plenty
of Nobel laureates right here on this newsgroup.

-jc

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 6:36:21 PM10/4/11
to
You didn't describe your experiment very well.

No matter, the universe is not expanding at all. But if it did, theory says
that its outskirts should be slowing because of gravity. That is not what is
claimed to be observed. However thhe observations are based on the illusion
that all light travels at exactly c towards little planet Earth for its
entire journey, which is quite ridiculous.

The Nobel is justified even if its recipients have no idea of what they have
achieved.

Their findings fully support the tired light theory as well as the BaTh
concept that the intrinsic wavelength of a photon increases as it travels.

PD

unread,
Oct 4, 2011, 8:50:42 PM10/4/11
to
On 10/4/2011 5:36 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>
> The Nobel is justified even if its recipients have no idea of what they have
> achieved.
>
> Their findings fully support the tired light theory as well as the BaTh
> concept that the intrinsic wavelength of a photon increases as it travels.

As usual, Hank, you make stuff up when you don't know what you're
talking about, because it's not an option for you to have nothing to say
in that event. The problem is, Hank, is that it is far easier to get
something wrong when you make something up randomly than it is to get it
right, so the odds are against you.

It may not have occurred to you that an accelerating universe means that
the more distant galaxies are *less* redshifted than expected, which
means that a tired light hypothesis is *counter*indicated.

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 4:49:24 AM10/5/11
to
Wishful thinking boy!

The more distant galaxies ar MORE redshifted than expected.

That is the finding. That is why thr BB theory, the dream of yankee
creationists, is now fully exposed as being absolute crap.



Jerry

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 7:32:10 AM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 3:49 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2011 19:50:42 -0500, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >It may not have occurred to you that an accelerating universe means that
> >the more distant galaxies are *less* redshifted than expected, which
> >means that a tired light hypothesis is *counter*indicated.
>
> Wishful thinking boy!
>
> The more distant galaxies ar MORE redshifted than expected.
>
> That is the finding. That is why thr BB theory, the dream of yankee
> creationists, is now fully exposed as being absolute crap.

Look at the bottom illustration on this page.
http://www.ngawhetu.com/Resources/Cosmology/index17.html

m is the magnitude.
M is the absolute magnitude.

Remember that Type 1a supernovae are approximately constant in
absolute magnitude M, which is why they are useful as standard
candles.

m-M for Type 1a supernovae is hence a measure of distance.

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.

Jerry

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 11:34:09 AM10/5/11
to
Hey PD before you try to teach anybody you need to read the papers. An
accelerating universe means that the more distance galaxies are the
MORE redshifted than the current theory expected.
This observation is predicted by my theory in 1995 and it was
confirmed in 1998.
The reason for the accelerated expansion of the universe at the far
reached region is because gravity at those regions wrt the earth is
repulsive. A paper on this is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
OR
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.xps

Ken Seto

PD

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 12:46:57 PM10/5/11
to
Read the other reply in this thread about this.
You have it dead wrong.
At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
than expected. Since these are standard candles, this means they were
further *out* than expected by the Hubble law. If you turn that around
with simple algebra, it means that at a specific *distance* the redshift
is *lower* than expected. This should be obvious, if redshift is
proportional to distance. Higher distance should correspond to higher
redshifts. If you have a larger distance than expected for a particular
redshift, then this is equivalent to a lower redshift than expected for
a particular distance.

If you need another way to think about it, then just think about what an
accelerated expansion means. It means that TODAY the rate of expansion
-- the rise in redshift per distance away -- is higher than it was long
ago. This means that for nearby galaxies, we are probing the more recent
expansion rate and so should get a higher rise in redshift per distance
away. Conversely, if you look at faraway galaxies, you are probing the
older expansion rate and so should get a *lower* rise in redshift per
distance away.

gu...@hotmail.com

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 4:07:06 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 12:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2011 10:34 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 8:50 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> It may not have occurred to you that an accelerating universe means that
> >> the more distant galaxies are *less* redshifted than expected, which
> >> means that a tired light hypothesis is *counter*indicated.
>
> > Hey PD before you try to teach anybody you need to read the papers. An
> > accelerating universe means that the more distance galaxies are the
> > MORE redshifted than the current theory expected.
> > This observation is predicted by my theory in 1995 and it was
> > confirmed in 1998.
> > The reason for the accelerated expansion of the universe at the far
> > reached region is because gravity at those regions wrt the earth is
> > repulsive. A paper on this is available in the following link:
> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
> > OR
> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.xps
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Read the other reply in this thread about this.
> You have it dead wrong.
> At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
> than expected. Since these are standard candles, this means they were
> further *out* than expected by the Hubble law. If you turn that around
> with simple algebra, it means that at a specific *distance* the redshift


please,please, standard candles are related to luminance and
brightness of the object viewed not frequency red-shifting.

The #of apples I wrote about to compare with brightness is verily what
is occurring and the error they have made.

And if only one person was sufficiently competent to make the
calculations we would know the actual expansion/reduction rate of the
Universe.

PD

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 5:18:29 PM10/5/11
to
Yes, that's right. The plot that tells you something is amiss is a plot
of z (redshift) vs. distance. The measure of distance is (apparent
magnitude)-(absolute magnitude), where the absolute magnitude of
standard candles is known and apparent magnitude is measured.

>
> The #of apples I wrote about to compare with brightness is verily what
> is occurring and the error they have made.
>
> And if only one person was sufficiently competent to make the
> calculations we would know the actual expansion/reduction rate of the
> Universe.

And we do. It's called the Hubble constant. Except it doesn't seem to be
a constant.

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 6:40:30 PM10/5/11
to
Diaper, I am not surprised at your hopelessly idiotic error in logic. It is
consistent with everything you utter.

The finding is that the more distant galaxies have a greater redshift than
expected because they are moving faster than they should be if expansion was
constant. In fact, distant galaxies should be slowing down due to gravity
pull.

So it's Goodbye Einstein again!

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 6:41:40 PM10/5/11
to
Are you questioning the findings of a Nobel Prize winner?

You should apply for the next one, Crank.

>Jerry

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 6:45:41 PM10/5/11
to
You and Jerry should JOINTLY apply for the next Nobel.

>If you need another way to think about it, then just think about what an
>accelerated expansion means. It means that TODAY the rate of expansion
>-- the rise in redshift per distance away -- is higher than it was long
>ago. This means that for nearby galaxies, we are probing the more recent
>expansion rate and so should get a higher rise in redshift per distance
>away. Conversely, if you look at faraway galaxies, you are probing the
>older expansion rate and so should get a *lower* rise in redshift per
>distance away.

The universe is not expanding. Light loses energy as it travels.

Jerry

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 9:12:33 PM10/5/11
to
On Oct 5, 5:40 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

> The finding is that the more distant galaxies have a greater redshift than
> expected because they are moving faster than they should be if expansion was
> constant. In fact, distant galaxies should be slowing down due to gravity
> pull.

Your reading of the graphs is totally screwed up. Look at them
again.

As Paul pointed out, with greater distance, you are looking further
into the past.

The further into the past you look, the greater the slope of the
m-M/Z curve.

Far in the past, deltaZ/deltaDistance was LOWER than at present.

Currently, deltaZ/deltaDistance is HIGHER than it was long ago.

In other words, the expansion of the universe is accelerating as
the universe gets older.

Jerry

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 5, 2011, 9:58:52 PM10/5/11
to
HAHAHAHHHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAAHHA!

quote:
""""
......The trio studied what are called Type 1a supernovae, determining that
more distant objects seem to move faster.
""""

Jerry is wrong yet again....
....Goodbye Einstein.........

>Jerry

PD

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 10:20:14 AM10/6/11
to
That is in fact dead wrong for the reasons described. Read the papers.

PD

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 10:47:34 AM10/6/11
to
Why? All that's going on is that you don't understand what was done for
this year's Nobel. You can own up to that. Be a man.

>
>> If you need another way to think about it, then just think about what an
>> accelerated expansion means. It means that TODAY the rate of expansion
>> -- the rise in redshift per distance away -- is higher than it was long
>> ago. This means that for nearby galaxies, we are probing the more recent
>> expansion rate and so should get a higher rise in redshift per distance
>> away. Conversely, if you look at faraway galaxies, you are probing the
>> older expansion rate and so should get a *lower* rise in redshift per
>> distance away.
>
> The universe is not expanding. Light loses energy as it travels.
>

Well, there's the problem that the results for which the 2011 Nobel was
awarded are inconsistent with that.

You are free, of course, to completely get those results wrong and say
that they support something that they in fact counterindicate. There is
no accounting for boneheads.

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 4:38:27 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 5, 12:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2011 10:34 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 4, 8:50 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> It may not have occurred to you that an accelerating universe means that
> >> the more distant galaxies are *less* redshifted than expected, which
> >> means that a tired light hypothesis is *counter*indicated.
>
> > Hey PD before you try to teach anybody you need to read the papers. An
> > accelerating universe means that the more distance galaxies are the
> > MORE redshifted than the current theory expected.
> > This observation is predicted by my theory in 1995 and it was
> > confirmed in 1998.
> > The reason for the accelerated expansion of the universe at the far
> > reached region is because gravity at those regions wrt the earth is
> > repulsive. A paper on this is available in the following link:
> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
> > OR
> >http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.xps
>
> > Ken Seto
>
> Read the other reply in this thread about this.
> You have it dead wrong.
> At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
> than expected.

That means that thesae supernovae were more highly red shifted than
expected.

>Since these are standard candles, this means they were
> further *out* than expected by the Hubble law. If you turn that around
> with simple algebra, it means that at a specific *distance* the redshift
> is *lower* than expected. This should be obvious, if redshift is
> proportional to distance. Higher distance should correspond to higher
> redshifts. If you have a larger distance than expected for a particular
> redshift, then this is equivalent to a lower redshift than expected for
> a particular distance.
>
> If you need another way to think about it, then just think about what an
> accelerated expansion means. It means that TODAY the rate of expansion
> -- the rise in redshift per distance away -- is higher than it was long
> ago. This means that for nearby galaxies, we are probing the more recent
> expansion rate and so should get a higher rise in redshift per distance
> away. Conversely, if you look at faraway galaxies, you are probing the
> older expansion rate and so should get a *lower* rise in redshift per
> distance away.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Jerry

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 4:58:54 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 3:38 pm, seto...@att.net wrote:
> On Oct 5, 12:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Read the other reply in this thread about this.
> > You have it dead wrong.
> > At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
> > than expected.
>
> That means that thesae supernovae were more highly red shifted than
> expected.

No. Think about it.

Jerry

PD

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 5:07:34 PM10/6/11
to
No, it does not, Ken, because it is at a specific value of z, which is
the VALUE of the redshift. Magnitude is not redshift.

Good heavens, man, learn the basics of astronomy before you make
goofball statements like this.



Dirk Van de moortel

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 5:30:22 PM10/6/11
to
PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
j6l5ai$9ut$1...@speranza.aioe.org
Perhaps he should learn the basics of the English language first :-|

Dirk Vdm

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 5:34:31 PM10/6/11
to
You should know...being one of the biggest...

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 5:36:58 PM10/6/11
to
Diaper, as usual, you and Jerry have got it all back to front.


Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 5:39:51 PM10/6/11
to
Her's that quote again:
quote:
""""
......The trio studied what are called Type 1a supernovae, determining that
more distant objects seem to move faster.
""""

They should be slowing due to gravity pull. They aren't. They are actually
accelerating judging by their redshifts.

PD

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 5:48:36 PM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/2011 4:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>>
>> That is in fact dead wrong for the reasons described. Read the papers.
>
> Her's that quote again:

Quote from WHERE? Cite your source.

PD

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 5:50:55 PM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/2011 4:30 PM, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

>>
>> No, it does not, Ken, because it is at a specific value of z, which
>> is the VALUE of the redshift. Magnitude is not redshift.
>>
>> Good heavens, man, learn the basics of astronomy before you make
>> goofball statements like this.
>
> Perhaps he should learn the basics of the English language first :-|

He's a victim of his own guesswork. I'm sure he reads "redshifted...
that means dimmer, right? Because redder stars are dimmer stars...
Right?" And when that turns out to be wrong, he gets all in a huff that
people are trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

PD

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 5:51:58 PM10/6/11
to
On 10/6/2011 4:36 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

>
> Diaper, as usual, you and Jerry have got it all back to front.
>
>

Just keep telling yourself that, Ralph.
It's done you well, protecting yourself from learning anything for
decades now. Why stop that?

jon car

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 6:06:16 PM10/6/11
to
> > So it's Goodbye Einstein again!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

There is no energy needed to create the original large "immaterial
space." Matter is the energy then created spread out in this large 4
Dimensional space distance.
Space distance is not driven by anything matterial
only by the radius of the hypersphere.
You cannot stack wave-matter particles on top of each other. They are
exclusive.
There was no matter singularity. The singularity theorem is for space-
time immaterial.

Mitchell Raemsch

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:53:24 PM10/6/11
to
We know you are both clueless morons who are always wrong.

.....this again proves it.

You are claiming the opposite to the facts that resulted in a Nobel Prize
being granted.

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:55:45 PM10/6/11
to
On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:48:36 -0500, PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 10/6/2011 4:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>>>
>>> That is in fact dead wrong for the reasons described. Read the papers.
>>
>> Her's that quote again:
>
>Quote from WHERE? Cite your source.

I looked up the reference the OP provided. Didn't YOU look up anything?

I might have known.... :)

PD

unread,
Oct 6, 2011, 9:58:06 PM10/6/11
to
On Oct 6, 8:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:48:36 -0500, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 10/6/2011 4:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> >>> That is in fact dead wrong for the reasons described. Read the papers.
>
> >> Her's that quote again:
>
> >Quote from WHERE? Cite your source.
>
> I looked up the reference the OP provided. Didn't YOU look up anything?

You mean the NEWSPAPER?
Ah.

And they always get the science right.
Ever thought to look up the paper by Perlmutter?

Or at least something in a *physics* magazine?

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 10:23:25 AM10/7/11
to
On Oct 6, 5:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

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

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 10:28:20 AM10/7/11
to

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.

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 10:30:12 AM10/7/11
to
You think about it and read the following article.
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47392

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 10:38:01 AM10/7/11
to
On Oct 6, 9:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:48:36 -0500, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 10/6/2011 4:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> > >>> That is in fact dead wrong for the reasons described. Read the papers.
>
> > >> Her's that quote again:
>
> > >Quote from WHERE? Cite your source.
>
> > I looked up the reference the OP provided. Didn't YOU look up anything?
>
> You mean the NEWSPAPER?
> Ah.
>
> And they always get the science right.
> Ever thought to look up the paper by Perlmutter?
>
> Or at least something in a *physics* magazine?


Hey idiot how do you get less redshifted for a source accelerating
away from you?

Jerry

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 1:54:51 PM10/7/11
to
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Your fundamental problem is that you read WORDS and seem unable
to relate the WORDS that you read with the visual representation
of data. If something SOUNDS right to you, then you conclude that
your interpretation of the words must be correct, without
checking that your interpretation actually matches the data.

1) An accelerating rate of expansion of the universe means that
the Hubble constant is not in fact constant, but increases as
the universe ages.
2) The Hubble constant has dimensions (km/s)/Mpc. It tells us
how much redshift we measure per distance to the cosmological
object.
3) We observe distant objects as they were in the distant PAST.
4) In the distant PAST, the Hubble constant was less than it is
at present. The redshift that we measure to these distant
objects is therefore LESS than expected if the universe were
not undergoing an accelerated rate of expansion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Look at the bottom illustration on this page.
http://www.ngawhetu.com/Resources/Cosmology/index17.html

m is the magnitude.
M is the absolute magnitude.

Remember that Type 1a supernovae are approximately constant in
absolute magnitude M, which is why they are useful as standard
candles.

m-M for Type 1a supernovae is hence a measure of distance.

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.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Jerry

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 2:56:03 PM10/7/11
to
Sorry, Ken, but you're full of it.
There is nothing in the article you've linked that says that in an
accelerating universe the 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?

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 2:56:13 PM10/7/11
to
ANY source moving away from you will be redshifted. The question is HOW
MUCH it will be redshifted. In a constant *expansion* (that means,
expanding so that all stars are moving away, but not speeding up and not
slowing down), the AMOUNT of redshift would be strictly proportional to
how far away the source is. Something four times as far would have four
times the redshift. Something nineteen times as far away would have
nineteen times the redshift.

If the expansion is slowing down, then it is no longer proportional, and
the redshift is *higher* than the line of proportionality at large
distances.

If the expansion is speeding up, then it is no longer proportional, and
the redshift is *lower* than the line of proportionality at large distance.

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 2:56:22 PM10/7/11
to
On 10/7/2011 9:38 AM, set...@att.net wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:58 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 8:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:48:36 -0500, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/6/2011 4:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>
>>>>>> That is in fact dead wrong for the reasons described. Read the papers.
>>
>>>>> Her's that quote again:
>>
>>>> Quote from WHERE? Cite your source.
>>
>>> I looked up the reference the OP provided. Didn't YOU look up anything?
>>
>> You mean the NEWSPAPER?
>> Ah.
>>
>> And they always get the science right.
>> Ever thought to look up the paper by Perlmutter?
>>
>> Or at least something in a *physics* magazine?
>
>
> Hey idiot how do you get less redshifted for a source accelerating
> away from you?

It's not the source that it is accelerating away from you! It's the rate
of expansion.

Idiot.

Flaming idiot.

Self-igniting, flaming idiot.

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 2:56:39 PM10/7/11
to
On 10/7/2011 12:54 PM, Jerry wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:30 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
>> On Oct 6, 4:58 pm, Jerry<Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 3:38 pm, seto...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>>> On Oct 5, 12:46 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Read the other reply in this thread about this.
>>>>> You have it dead wrong.
>>>>> At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were
>>>>> *dimmer* than expected.
>>
>>>> That means that thesae supernovae were more highly red shifted than
>>>> expected.
>>
>>> No. Think about it.
>>
>> You think about it and read the following article.
>> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47392
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your fundamental problem is that you read WORDS and seem unable
> to relate the WORDS that you read with the visual representation
> of data. If something SOUNDS right to you, then you conclude that
> your interpretation of the words must be correct, without
> checking that your interpretation actually matches the data.

Indeed. I was aghast when he takes phrases like "acceleration of
expansion" and takes that to mean that distant objects are accelerating
away from us. (This is how he gets to increased redshift.)

It's also amazing to me how he says if something is moving away from us,
this means higher redshift, as though lower redshift corresponds to
something moving toward us.

Ken is simply incapable of reading *anything* with comprehension, and
it's no wonder it all ends up in a hopeless jumble in his head.

I've seen him read SINGLE SENTENCES and get confused on what they mean.

==================
Ralph is another story. He doesn't even try. He just says stuff and
sticks to it, no matter how stupid he looks as a result.

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 4:53:44 PM10/7/11
to
On Oct 5, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/5/2011 10:34 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:

> > Hey PD before you try to teach anybody you need to read the papers. An
> > accelerating universe means that the more distance galaxies are the
> > MORE redshifted than the current theory expected.

> At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
> than expected. Since these are standard candles, this means they were
> further *out* than expected by the Hubble law.

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 got to be nuts to believe in all the assumptions that manifest the
Chandrasekhar limit.

You are out of your mind to dictate how your universe behaves by
believing in the Chandrasekhar limit.

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 5:25:31 PM10/7/11
to
On 10/7/2011 3:53 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:46 am, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/5/2011 10:34 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>>> Hey PD before you try to teach anybody you need to read the papers. An
>>> accelerating universe means that the more distance galaxies are the
>>> MORE redshifted than the current theory expected.
>
>> At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
>> than expected. Since these are standard candles, this means they were
>> further *out* than expected by the Hubble law.
>
> 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).

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 5:36:24 PM10/7/11
to
>Henry is another story. He doesn't even try. He just says stuff and
>sticks to it, no matter how stupid he looks as a result.

HAHAHAHHHAHHAHA!
You and your moron colleague are getting into deeper and deeper trouble.

The plain discovery is that the more distant objects have greater redshifts
than they should because they are moving faster than they should be. THEY
ARE NOT SLOWING DOWN AS THE BB THEORY PREDICTS. THEY ARE IN FACT
ACCELERATING AWAY FROM US....AND THAT APPLIES IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

YOU are a pair of MORONS.

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 5:57:41 PM10/7/11
to
No, silly. More recent is probed by observing SN near us. Longer ago is
probed by observing SN far away from us. That's because the light has
taken so very long to get to us from further away, you see (you idiot).

You don't look to see if the objects themselves are accelerating (you
idiot).

You look at the expansion rate older (far from us) over the expansion
rate recent (near to us). If the ratio is more than one, then the
expansion is slowing down. If the ratio is less than one, then the
expansion is speeding up. (You idiot.)

The ratio is measured to be less than one. Which means the expansion
rate for distant SNs is LESS than expected from near SNs. (You idiot.)

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:04:26 PM10/7/11
to
hahahahhahhhahha! Very devious.

That's not the finding.

It is that the very distant ones are accelerating rather than slowing.

But even if your argument held, it would still mean tyhe end of the BB
theory as well as Einstein.

THE WHOLE EXPANSION SHOULD BE DECELLERATING.

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:09:06 PM10/7/11
to
quote:
""""
......The trio studied what are called Type 1a supernovae, determining that
more distant objects seem to move faster.
""""

...and YES YOU are a flaming idiot.

Jerry

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:01:59 PM10/7/11
to
On Oct 7, 4:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).

It's -possible- that KW is expressing doubts about the relative
constancy of Type 1a supernova peak luminosities, but it sure
isn't obvious from the way he writes. The assumption is that
gravitational collapse of the accreting white dwarf member of a
binary pair occurs as the white dwarf mass approaches the
Chandresekhar limit.

Jerry

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:20:33 PM10/7/11
to
On 10/7/2011 5:01 PM, Jerry wrote:
> On Oct 7, 4:25 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 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).
>
> It's -possible- that KW is expressing doubts about the relative
> constancy of Type 1a supernova peak luminosities, but it sure
> isn't obvious from the way he writes.

Well, we'll see. :)

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:24:09 PM10/7/11
to
Henry, Henry, Henry.
Read the freakin' paper (not a NEWSPAPER -- you idiot) and stop making
things up.

>
> But even if your argument held,

It's not an argument. It's the measurement.

> it would still mean tyhe end of the BB
> theory as well as Einstein.
>
> THE WHOLE EXPANSION SHOULD BE DECELLERATING.

If the cosmological constant is zero. Which is a natural but not
necessary assumption. Which is why the experimental result is so
amazing, and hence why it won the Nobel Prize.

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.)

PD

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:25:21 PM10/7/11
to
On 10/7/2011 5:09 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:56:22 -0500, PD<thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/7/2011 9:38 AM, set...@att.net wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 9:58 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 8:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:48:36 -0500, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/6/2011 4:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> That is in fact dead wrong for the reasons described. Read the papers.
>>>>
>>>>>>> Her's that quote again:
>>>>
>>>>>> Quote from WHERE? Cite your source.
>>>>
>>>>> I looked up the reference the OP provided. Didn't YOU look up anything?
>>>>
>>>> You mean the NEWSPAPER?
>>>> Ah.
>>>>
>>>> And they always get the science right.
>>>> Ever thought to look up the paper by Perlmutter?
>>>>
>>>> Or at least something in a *physics* magazine?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey idiot how do you get less redshifted for a source accelerating
>>> away from you?
>>
>> It's not the source that it is accelerating away from you! It's the rate
>> of expansion.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>> Flaming idiot.
>>
>> Self-igniting, flaming idiot.
>
> quote:

From a NEWSPAPER. (BBC)

Try getting a quote from the REAL paper. You know, by the guys who did
the work. Not some half-assed reporter.

eric gisse

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:26:15 PM10/7/11
to
Jerry <Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote in news:20411e3b-938a-4a5c-
8d1a-f67...@j10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
Or he's just an idiot who strings words together with no concept of their
meaning. I gave up trying to read the tea leaves.

Jerry

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 6:29:59 PM10/7/11
to
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.

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.

Jerry

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 10:19:23 PM10/7/11
to
On 10/4/11 8:21 AM, gu...@hotmail.com wrote:

> 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.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 7, 2011, 10:22:15 PM10/7/11
to Koobee Wublee
On 10/7/11 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 got to be nuts to believe in all the assumptions that manifest the
> Chandrasekhar limit.
>
> You are out of your mind to dictate how your universe behaves by
> believing in the Chandrasekhar limit.


There are a number of independent measures that confirm accelerated
expansion... nothing to do with supernovae, Type Ia or otherwise.

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 1:27:50 AM10/8/11
to
BULLSHIT!!!

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 1:29:18 AM10/8/11
to
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 (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>

Jerry

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:03:11 AM10/8/11
to
On Oct 8, 12:29 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ****  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>

Thus splutters the idiot who demonstrated a lack of understanding
of high school physics.

Do you remember your claim that a pure gradient refractive index
lens, with no distinct surface, will not focus light, but instead
will merely displace an incident beam without changing its
direction?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the thought experiment that you refused to answer:

Walk out on a moonless night into the clear dark country skies of
Oklahoma. The land is flat for miles around.

Jupiter has just risen above the horizon! I train my telescope
on the planet, but the atmospheric turbulence near the ground is
too great for me to make out anything. Patience. I have to wait
an hour before Jupiter is high enough above the horizon to make
it worthwhile to use a telescope.

Indeed, geometrically, Jupiter is half a degree BELOW THE HORIZON!
Atmospheric refraction allows me to see it two minutes before it
has actually risen above the horizon in the geometric sense.

Quick! Turn around 180 degrees from Jupiter! What star do you see
on the horizon, just about ready to set? Not star. STARS! The
Pleiades! I'd recognize that cluster anywhere!

Geometrically, however, the Pleiades already set a couple of
minutes ago. In a geometric sense, the Pleiades are actually half
a degree below the horizon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the above thought experiment, trace a line leading from Jupiter,
to you, and on to the Pleiades. That line is bent a total of about
a degree.

Earth's atmosphere does not merely displace light. It BENDS light
rays skimming its surface by up to a degree.

Earth's atmosphere represents a pure gradient refractive index
lens.

Jerry

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:08:38 AM10/8/11
to
On Oct 7, 11:03 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 12:29 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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>

> Do you remember your claim that a pure gradient refractive index
> lens, with no distinct surface, will not focus light, but instead
> will merely displace an incident beam without changing its
> direction?

What a fucking idiot! <shrug>

Jerry

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:26:18 AM10/8/11
to
For those who missed it, the thread in question was titled "Sobral
1919 eclipse involves deflection of star light by the Moons
gravity" http://tinyurl.com/3dyb7kw

Koobie Woobie's tremendously amusing contributions to this thread
began on July 20, 2011: http://tinyurl.com/3tsg7jt

Jerry

Peter Webb

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:36:39 AM10/8/11
to

"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bdba9786-464f-47ef...@k25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
________________________________
You do have a well deserved reputation for not knowing physics. For example,
you cannot solve very simple problems involving relative motion, such as the
scenario described in the so-called Twins Paradox. Nobody is going to
believe anything you say about cosmology if you can't solve simple SR
problems.


Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 3:54:33 AM10/8/11
to


Gawd! You're so indoctrinated with crap you will believe anything Jerry
tells you.

..

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 3:55:37 AM10/8/11
to
.......another irrelevant rant from a rabid relativist.

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 4:07:17 AM10/8/11
to

Complain to the newspaper not me.

Henry Wilson DSc.

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 4:07:47 AM10/8/11
to
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:29:59 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
<Cephalobu...@comcast.net> wrote:

>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

eric gisse

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 6:49:58 AM10/8/11
to
"Peter Webb" <webbf...@optusnetDIESPAMDIE.com.au> wrote in
news:4e8fef86$0$22470$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au:

[...]

Would learning to quote really kill you?

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 8:35:47 AM10/8/11
to
Here's some what you call "bullshit" for you, Koobee--

Dark Energy Measurement Sheds New Light on Universe's Expansion
http://www.physorg.com/news198431059.html

"Clusters of galaxies, the largest gravitationally bound objects in the
universe, began forming about 10 billion years ago. Because it takes a
long time for light from the farthest reaches of the universe to arrive
at Earth, the most distant clusters appear as they did when they were
much younger, while the closest ones look more their actual ages. By
looking at clusters both near and far, researchers were able to study
the evolution of clusters and deduce how changes in the universe over
billions of years helped shape their growth. The results offer insights
into the forces that made the universe we see today.

"As space expands faster and faster, it becomes more difficult for
gravity to pull matter together and form structures such as galaxy
clusters," said lead author Adam Mantz, a researcher at NASA's Goddard
Space Flight Center and former graduate student at KIPAC. By observing
clusters at a range of distances, the researchers found that the
present-day universe contains fewer clusters than would be expected if
the expansion of the universe weren't accelerating.

"At the same time," Mantz said, "whatever is causing the acceleration
leaves a distinctive fingerprint on the resulting cosmic structure."
Searching for a match to that fingerprint, the researchers compared
their observations of galaxy clusters with various models of dark
energy, a form of energy theorized to permeate all of space and drive
the universe's accelerated expansion. Although the general idea of dark
energy is relatively well accepted, there are a variety of models that
try to explain what it is and how it works, and a detailed understanding
remains elusive".


PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 8:41:46 AM10/8/11
to
On Oct 8, 2:54 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:24:09 -0500, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 10/7/2011 5:04 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:57:41 -0500, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >>> On 10/7/2011 4:36 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

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

PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 8:46:51 AM10/8/11
to
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 (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

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?

PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 8:49:51 AM10/8/11
to
On Oct 8, 3:07 am, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:25:21 -0500, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 10/7/2011 5:09 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:56:22 -0500, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:

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.

PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 9:15:54 AM10/8/11
to

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?

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 12:55:50 PM10/8/11
to
On Oct 7, 5:57 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 4:36 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 13:56:39 -0500, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> ==================
> >> Henry is another story. He doesn't even try. He just says stuff and
> >> sticks to it, no matter how stupid he looks as a result.
>
> > HAHAHAHHHAHHAHA!
> > You and your moron colleague are getting into deeper and deeper trouble.
>
> > The plain discovery is that the more distant objects have greater redshifts
> > than they should because they are moving faster than they should be. THEY
> > ARE NOT SLOWING DOWN AS THE BB THEORY PREDICTS. THEY ARE IN FACT
> > ACCELERATING AWAY FROM US....AND THAT APPLIES IN ALL DIRECTIONS.
>
> > YOU are a pair of MORONS.
>
> No, silly. More recent is probed by observing SN near us. Longer ago is
> probed by observing SN far away from us. That's because the light has
> taken so very long to get to us from further away, you see (you idiot).
>
> You don't look to see if the objects themselves are accelerating (you
> idiot).
>
> You look at the expansion rate older (far from us) over the expansion
> rate recent (near to us). If the ratio is more than one, then the
> expansion is slowing down. If the ratio is less than one, then the
> expansion is speeding up. (You idiot.)
>
> The ratio is measured to be less than one. Which means the expansion
> rate for distant SNs is LESS than expected from near SNs. (You idiot.)

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.

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 1:02:07 PM10/8/11
to
On Oct 7, 6:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 5:04 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 16:57:41 -0500, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> >> On 10/7/2011 4:36 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:

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.


set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 1:24:15 PM10/8/11
to
On Oct 7, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 9:23 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 5:07 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 10/6/2011 3:38 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 5, 12:46 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>    wrote:
> >>>> On 10/5/2011 10:34 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 4, 8:50 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>      wrote:
>
> >>>>>> It may not have occurred to you that an accelerating universe means that
> >>>>>> the more distant galaxies are *less* redshifted than expected, which
> >>>>>> means that a tired light hypothesis is *counter*indicated.
>
> >>>>> Hey PD before you try to teach anybody you need to read the papers. An
> >>>>> accelerating universe means that the more distance galaxies are the
> >>>>> MORE redshifted than the current theory expected.
> >>>>> This observation is predicted by my theory in 1995 and it was
> >>>>> confirmed in 1998.
> >>>>> The reason for the accelerated expansion of the universe at the far
> >>>>> reached region is because gravity at those regions wrt the earth is
> >>>>> repulsive. A paper on this is available in the following link:
> >>>>>http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.pdf
> >>>>> OR
> >>>>>http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011universe.xps
>
> >>>>> Ken Seto
>
> >>>> Read the other reply in this thread about this.
> >>>> You have it dead wrong.
> >>>> At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
> >>>> than expected.
>
> >>> That means that thesae supernovae were more highly red shifted than
> >>> expected.
>
> >> No, it does not, Ken, because it is at a specific value of z, which is
> >> the VALUE of the redshift. Magnitude is not redshift.
>
> >> Good heavens, man, learn the basics of astronomy before you make
> >> goofball statements like this.
>
> > 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
>
> Sorry, Ken, but you're full of it.
> There is nothing in the article you've linked that says that in an
> accelerating universe the far reached regions are *more* redshifted.

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??????

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 1:28:06 PM10/8/11
to
On Oct 7, 2:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/7/2011 9:38 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 9:58 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On Oct 6, 8:55 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
>
> >>> On Thu, 06 Oct 2011 16:48:36 -0500, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>> On 10/6/2011 4:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
>
> >>>>>> That is in fact dead wrong for the reasons described. Read the papers.
>
> >>>>> Her's that quote again:
>
> >>>> Quote from WHERE? Cite your source.
>
> >>> I looked up the reference the OP provided. Didn't YOU look up anything?
>
> >> You mean the NEWSPAPER?
> >> Ah.
>
> >> And they always get the science right.
> >> Ever thought to look up the paper by Perlmutter?
>
> >> Or at least something in a *physics* magazine?
>
> > Hey idiot how do you get less redshifted for a source accelerating
> > away from you?
>
> It's not the source that it is accelerating away from you! It's the rate
> of expansion.
>

Hey idiot the higher is the rate of expansion the higher is the
redshift.


set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 1:45:24 PM10/8/11
to
On Oct 7, 1:54 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 7, 9:30 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 6, 4:58 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:

>
> > > On Oct 6, 3:38 pm, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 5, 12:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Read the other reply in this thread about this.
> > > > > You have it dead wrong.
> > > > > At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were
> > > > > *dimmer* than expected.
>
> > > > That means that thesae supernovae were more highly red shifted than
> > > > expected.
>
> > > No. Think about it.
>
> > You think about it and read the following article.
> >http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47392
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Your fundamental problem is that you read WORDS and seem unable
> to relate the WORDS that you read with the visual representation
> of data. If something SOUNDS right to you, then you conclude that
> your interpretation of the words must be correct, without
> checking that your interpretation actually matches the data.
>
> 1) An accelerating rate of expansion of the universe means that
>    the Hubble constant is not in fact constant, but increases as
>    the universe ages.
> 2) The Hubble constant has dimensions (km/s)/Mpc. It tells us
>    how much redshift we measure per distance to the cosmological
>    object.
> 3) We observe distant objects as they were in the distant PAST.
> 4) In the distant PAST, the Hubble constant was less than it is
>    at present. The redshift that we measure to these distant
>    objects is therefore LESS than expected if the universe were
>    not undergoing an accelerated rate of expansion.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Look at the bottom illustration on this page.
>  http://www.ngawhetu.com/Resources/Cosmology/index17.html
>
> m is the magnitude.
> M is the absolute magnitude.
>
> Remember that Type 1a supernovae are approximately constant in
> absolute magnitude M, which is why they are useful as standard
> candles.
>
> m-M for Type 1a supernovae is hence a measure of distance.
>
> 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.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------

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..


PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:30:20 PM10/8/11
to

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

PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:32:20 PM10/8/11
to

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.


PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:37:32 PM10/8/11
to

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?

PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:39:43 PM10/8/11
to

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.

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:55:06 PM10/8/11
to

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 -

PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:33:50 PM10/8/11
to

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.

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 3:01:19 PM10/8/11
to

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 -

PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 3:01:19 PM10/8/11
to

Dimmer does NOT mean higher redshift, you idiot.

Jerry

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 2:55:24 PM10/8/11
to
On Oct 8, 12:45 pm, seto...@att.net wrote:

> 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

PD

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 3:04:23 PM10/8/11
to

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?

eric gisse

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 5:31:43 PM10/8/11
to
PD <thedrap...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:db4afd78-3cb0-405b...@m5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:

> 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.

[...]

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 6:30:11 PM10/8/11
to
On Oct 7, 1:53 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 9:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10/5/2011 10:34 AM, seto...@att.net wrote:
> > > Hey PD before you try to teach anybody you need to read the papers. An
> > > accelerating universe means that the more distance galaxies are the
> > > MORE redshifted than the current theory expected.
> > At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
> > than expected. Since these are standard candles, this means they were
> > further *out* than expected by the Hubble law.
>
> 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 got to be nuts to believe in all the assumptions that manifest the
> Chandrasekhar limit.
>
> You are out of your mind to dictate how your universe behaves by
> believing in the Chandrasekhar limit.

At best the expansion theory is only outdated by 13+ billion years.
So there is really no honest way of telling what's happening way the
hell out there.

BTW; eventually, if given 100 billion years, those galaxies should
burn out.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 7:02:21 PM10/8/11
to
On 10/8/11 5:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:

>
> At best the expansion theory is only outdated by 13+ billion years.
> So there is really no honest way of telling what's happening way the
> hell out there.
>

When we look at the moon we see is as it was 1.3 seconds ago.
When we look at the Sun the delay is 8+ minutes.

Because of the finite speed of light we can observer what has
happened in the very distant past and the early universe. Quit
complaining.

jon car

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 9:59:38 PM10/8/11
to
On Oct 8, 2:31 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.ons...@gmail.com> wrote:

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?

hanson

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 10:21:24 PM10/8/11
to

"Sam Wormley" <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
-- Brad Guth wrote:
>
Brad wrote:
At best the expansion theory is only outdated by
13+ billion years. So there is really no honest way
of telling what's happening way the hell out there.
>>
Sam wrote:
When we look at the moon we see is as it was 1.3
seconds ago. When we look at the Sun the delay is
8+ minutes.
Because of the finite speed of light we can observer
what has happened in the very distant past and the
early universe. Quit complaining.
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, Sam, Sam, listen. You were too quick on the
trigger with telling Brad what he already knows.
>
Brad meant to say: "there is really no honest way
of telling what's happening way the hell out there
RIGHT NOW, at this very moment. --- Get it, Sam!?
>
Reflect on it, Sam. Brad's statement touches on
some profound philoso-physical point: "It sucks
to never know what you can expect and much less
to find, at the time when you depart from here, onto
your cosmic trip into the "undiscovered land from
whose borne no traveler has yet returned".
Sam, all your SR/GR crud wont help you jack shit.
>
Thanks for the laughs though, guys... ahahahanson



set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 10:49:35 PM10/8/11
to
Yes it does....Einstein discarded the CC and the resulting equations
give correct predictions. Now if you add a value for the CC to these
equations you will not get the correct predictions.
>
> 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.

Brad Guth

unread,
Oct 8, 2011, 11:57:17 PM10/8/11
to

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.

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 2:32:29 AM10/9/11
to
On Oct 8, 5:35 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's some what you call "bullshit" for you, Koobee--
>
> Dark Energy Measurement Sheds New Light on Universe's Expansion
> http://www.physorg.com/news198431059.html

Sam, lay off the occult shit for a change, would you?

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE --- Sam
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

Koobee Wublee

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 2:36:49 AM10/9/11
to
On Oct 8, 5:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Oct 8, 12:29 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> > 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

Jerry

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 4:41:47 AM10/9/11
to
On Oct 8, 9:49 pm, seto...@att.net wrote:
> On Oct 8, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > No, it does NOT. Adding the value of the cosmological constant gets
> > the Hubble curve right for ALL distances. That's the whole point.
>
> Yes it does....Einstein discarded the CC and the resulting equations
> give correct predictions.

To the limit of accuracy of the data that was known for -MOST- of
the last century, yes.

> Now if you add a value for the CC to these
> equations you will not get the correct predictions.

Towards the end of the last century, two teams of researchers
published data that were consistent with the hypothesis that the
cosmological constant is non-zero.

Jerry

set...@att.net

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 9:07:40 AM10/9/11
to


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

PD

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 9:25:35 AM10/9/11
to
On Oct 9, 1:36 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 8, 5:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 8, 12:29 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > 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

I already answered this. Then you would have evidence for an
accelerating universe.

PD

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 9:27:23 AM10/9/11
to

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.

PD

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 9:28:36 AM10/9/11
to
On Oct 9, 8:07 am, seto...@att.net wrote:
> On Oct 9, 4:41 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 8, 9:49 pm, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 8, 3:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > No, it does NOT. Adding the value of the cosmological constant gets
> > > > the Hubble curve right for ALL distances. That's the whole point.
>
> > > Yes it does....Einstein discarded the CC and the resulting equations
> > > give correct predictions.
>
> > To the limit of accuracy of the data that was known for -MOST- of
> > the last century, yes.
>
> > > Now if you add a value for the CC to these
> > > equations you will not get the correct predictions.
>
> > Towards the end of the last century, two teams of researchers
> > published data that were consistent with the hypothesis that the
> > cosmological constant is non-zero.
>
> But a non-zero CC will destroy the solutions for local regions of the
> universe.

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.

Sam Wormley

unread,
Oct 9, 2011, 9:48:37 AM10/9/11
to
On 10/9/11 1:32 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>
> Sam, lay off the occult shit for a change, would you?
>

Did you read the article, Koobee? Dark Energy Measurement Sheds
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages