Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 09/30/04
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: LeSagian Gravitational Field Momentum Flux linked to EM/QM constants"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: LeSagian Gravitational Field Momentum Flux linked to EM/QM constants"
- In reply to: Pax: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Next in thread: Bruce Richmond: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2004 02:44:41 GMT
"Pax" <pax1@whitesweb.com> wrote in message
news:bVf6d.14313$yp2.4530@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
{snip higher levels}
Your historical description requires a few corrections.
> Edwin Hubble noted a "dopplering" of the light from distant galaxies in
> 1929, their light was all shifted toward the red (longer wavelength), and
> the further away from us the galaxy was the faster it appeared to be
> receding from us. The rate of acceleration, depending on distance from us,
> was so stable a "constant" was discovered, Hubble's Constant (H).
Stability had nothing to do with it. In fact, the line of the 'hubble
constant' between redshift and apparent distance is drawn through a
pattern that approaches 'buckshot'.
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=10hnk5o6o754ld5%40corp.supernews.com
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=mt2.0-29007-1064668268%40star.bris.ac.uk
Carl Wirtz first published an empirical redshift-distance relation in
1924 (pre Cepheid variable identification). Lemaitre's publication of the
'expanding universe' theory came in 1927, and was based partly on Wirtz'
empirical work. Hubble's version of the redshift relation was not published
until 1929 (after Cephied variable identification made Wirtz' relationship
more certain).
> Using his constant, Hubble arrived at an age for the Universe that was
> much younger than that commonly held for the age of the Earth (he also
calculated
> that our galaxy, the Milky Way, was larger than all other galaxies). Other
> astronomers, positive he was mistaken, adjusted the value of Hubble's
> Constant in order to arrive at an age for the Universe more in line with
> popular belief, 10 to 20 billion years.
>
> One must wonder, if Hubble was considered on the one hand to be so right
> then why was he also considered to be so wrong? He found a value of 150km
> per second per 1,000,000 light years for H, however that has now been
> revised down to 15-30km per 1,000,000 light years for H. That's a huge
> revision, denoting a 70-85% error!
Recall that the original work was based on only a couple of dozen nearby
galaxies. And contained tremendous data scatter. Newer methods are based
on different data.
> Hubble's Law (the cosmological velocity-distance law), which uses as its
> basis Hubble's Constant, states that
> velocity = H times distance,
> the greater the distance of the galaxy, the faster it recedes. The fact of
> this acceleration according to distance was never officially questioned,
Hubble never accepted that view. So I guess he questioned it. However,
'modern' cosmologists certainly don't question it.
> yet
> it seems no one thought to apply it directly to Universal expansion... a
> least until very recently. This is exceedingly strange, since astronomers
> have been using Hubble's Constant for nearly three-quarters of a century.
The key is how they have been using it.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for e-mail}
- Next message: greywolf42: "Re: LeSagian Gravitational Field Momentum Flux linked to EM/QM constants"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: LeSagian Gravitational Field Momentum Flux linked to EM/QM constants"
- In reply to: Pax: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Next in thread: Bruce Richmond: "Re: Is the speed of light really constant ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
