Re: Accelerated expansion of the universe-some questions

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 00:25:50 +0100, "Androcles"
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"John Polasek" <jpolasek@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4qlb85djmgmoqqlpotii9eol2q218hv29s@xxxxxxxxxx
It seems to be widely accepted that the universe is expanding, rather
than succumbing to gravity from gravitational forces. One symptom is
that supernovas are seen as dimmer than their red shift z. This is one
example of a plain English statement and explainingthe logic, but I
have seen no others. What evidence is there to suggest that the
expansion of the universe is accelerating?
It seems quite evident that there must be a calculated intensity,
along with an observed intensity as some function of z. What are these
calculations so they may be examined for validity?
We have seen some curves by Reiss et al, showing a bump up of the
magnitude curve at z = .5 after which a definite decline in magnitude
Is undeserved for higher z, which clearly contradicts the dimmer-z
proposition. It would be naïve to accept these declarations at face
value without some mathematical demonstration.
As a matter of plain common sense, it's unreasonable to think that the
universe would be suddenly expanding or had suddenly expanded at any
time, but entirely reasonable for it to be expanding at a constant
rate.
I have searched the web for answers, and haven't found anything that
will justify the claim for acceleration of expansion.
John Polasek

It's pretty simple, even if stupid.
The further away the object is, the greater the redshift.
The greater the redshift, the higher the velocity of recession.
Therefore a galaxy at N megaparsecs distance is moving away
(supposedly) and when it gets to 2N megaparsecs M megayears
from now it will have more redshift than a nearby object and
therefore must have gained velocity. If it gained velocity then it
accelerated. Simple but stupid.
One common theory is "tired light", but that lacks a mechanism
for light to gradually slow down.
A better answer is this one:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
All you have to give up is the absurd notion that the speed of light
is independent of the motion of the source! Can't do that, of course,
because the tin god Einstein made the pronouncement and He
dictates how Nature will behave, being holy.

No there's more to it than that. The simple kinematics of Hubble's V =
HD are clear enough. The immediate implication is that every galaxy is
racing away from us, nicely radially, until we provisionally check out
the experience of another observer located, say, on Anteres who gets a
different radial direction for the same star. But we can fix that, but
then the center of the universe has to go away, and we begin to
calibrate expansion in terms of the anomalous size factor a.
So now all the geometry is gone.
Even if cosmology had a reason for the University to keep expanding,
it can't worry about gravity decelerating it because the universe has
become just a cloud with no center, and no center of mass, and thus no
gravity is.
But we have teams seriously looking to see if they can determine the
strength of the dark energy and quintessence and at what percentage to
admix Einstein's cosmological factor that would propel this
hypothetical expansion.
There was also an expansion that supposedly occurred at the moment of
creation suddenly expanding whatever was there by 10 to the 26th, as
an explanation for the horizon problem.That must be a different
effect.
The long and short of it is they can measure z and, using it, by one
of several methods, deduce a distance, being quite sure of the flux
output from a supernova. Then using another distance measure they
decide that the galaxy is too dim for the measured z.
We would like to see the confirming mathematics and try to locate the
error that must exist, but all the evidence so far has been strictly
recitational.
John Polasek
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Observations"
    ... Cosmological observations have recently indicated that the "expansion" ... force to cause the Universe to contract and the static Universe which was ... What is overlooked is the fact that when we observe extreme distances ... which we feel in a room at the earth as a result of the earth gravity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Need some assistance
    ... a lot of the other things in the universe. ... General Relativity says that gravity is the curvature of absolute ... These balloons are expanding. ... when you expand the balloon. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Our Expanding Universe
    ... To be honest there are issues regarding that expansion that I don't ... First off, let's dispense with the incorrect idea that the _Universe_, ... also known as "everything", is expanding. ... two-dimensional it could then be like the surface of a ball. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Question about the Big Bang and Dark Matter
    ... It wasn't an explosion of stuff, ... Which wouldn't apply to inflating or expanding space, ... assumed that the expansion is slowing because of the mutual ... to fly away from it until gravity and air resistance ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: expansion
    ... Therefore if you subscribe to 'expanding universe', ... And the expansion has no center. ... physicists to describe something that is *not completely like* what is ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading