Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered

From: George Dishman (george_at_briar.demon.co.uk)
Date: 01/01/05 

Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2005 01:13:03 -0000

"George Dishman" <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cr3gdg$uj1$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>
> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
> news:FI2Ad.32991$Bw5.29243@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
>> George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:cqgl0m$u9d$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>>
>>> "greywolf42" <mingstb@marssim-ss.com> wrote in message
>>> news:s7Iyd.419$Bw5.333@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
>>> > George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> > news:cqabiq$9pu$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
<snip>
>>> > ... We typically don't use the resulting characteristic
>>> > distance, R (which is back-calculated, or ad hoc). R and mu are
>>> > inversely related.
>>>
>>> Your last two sentences appear to be in conflict.
>>> If mu can be derived from the theory, then just
>>> tkae the uinverse
>>
>> Tired light theories do not deal with universes. That's the big bang.
>
> I don't understand your comment. ...

Jeff Root just pointed out the source of the
confusion, I messed up. The last sentence of
my previous post should read

 "If mu can be derived from the theory,
  then just take the inverse."

Sorry for the confusion. Thanks Jeff.

Happy New Year to all.

George

Quantcast