Re: Anyone know how Hubble could be very wrong?

On Jul 3, 7:14 am, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:04 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Jul 2, 3:37 pm, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 2, 1:00 pm, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 2, 9:23 am, "g...@xxxxxxxxxxx" <g...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

If we skip progressive observation, Hubble ***AT LEAST*** could
identify between very close and very far objects....NO???

You have very badly misinterpreted an article you have
read (big surprise: all of your posts are the result
of very serious misinterpretations).

In this case, the observation in 1998, since confirmed,
is that the straight-line relationship of Hubble doesn't
hold out to the most extreme objects. The slope at which
redshift increases with distance seems to be less out
at the extreme distances.

You have somehow garbled "the slope is less for these
objects than for closer objects" to be "the RED-SHIFT
is less for these objects than for closer objects".

And the very far objects are more redshifted??

Yes, very much so.

Yet this disagrees with the 1998 observation that farther Supernova's
are less redshifted?

No. Farther supernovas are more redshifted.

Here's some more recent data:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/sne_cosmology.html

Notice on the first chart that the data points
still show a general increase in speed (y-axis)
with distance (x-axis), and therefore an increase in
red-shift with distance.

No where along that plot line is an earlier point HIGHER than a past
point in order to indicate a closer supernova was MORE REDSHIFTED than
a farther supernova and thus has a higher expansion rate?

The "expansion rate" refers to the universe, not one
star. It is measured by how much the redshift changes
between two stars of different distance.

When you talk about "redshift... and therefore expansion
rate..." of one star, you are talking nonsense.

"Redshift" is one point on the curve. "Expansion
rate" is the slope.

- Randy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Even 1 GPC (luminosity distance) represents "almost" 1 billion years
ago.

One gigaparsec represents a distance of 3.26 billion
light years, as one parsec = 3.26 ly.

Regardless of the graph:

Regardless of the data, you're going to tell me about
observations that came from somewhere other than
observed data? Where did they come from exactly?

Hubble observed at 12 GPC more redshift and "LINEARLY" less redshift,
with 1 GPC having the least redshift.

Yes, in general redshift increases with distance. The
data shows this for distant objects also, but the
slope may be less for the most distant objects.

1998 observed at 12 GPC less redshift then say 6 GPC

Really? Can you provide the exact citation for this?

- Randy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... > fact remains that linearity in the Hubble Law ... Hubble's data connects distance with redshift -- not with recession ... prior response was the first one after you brought that strawman in. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... >> is between speed and distance. ... > linear relationship between redshift and distance at ... > You finally admitted that tired light theories were conceivable in the ... > prior response was the first one after you brought that strawman in. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Anyone know how Hubble could be very wrong?
    ... redshift increases with distance seems to be less out ... objects than for closer objects" to be "the RED-SHIFT ... No. Farther supernovas are more redshifted. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... fact remains that linearity in the Hubble Law ... >> the law relates speed to distance, not redshift. ... your claim that I was "fixated" with linearity. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Anyone know how Hubble could be very wrong?
    ... redshift increases with distance seems to be less out ... The "expansion rate" refers to the universe, ... It is measured by how much the redshift changes ... of one star, you are talking nonsense. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)