Re: Explanation of why expansion redshift optical illusion of a different kind of redshift

On Apr 22, 1:09 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

You think the prospect of SR having limits is as absurd as cows
flying.

I thought scientists weren't supposed to "believe" their theories.

i believe that the evidence supports SR.... thats because I understand
the evidence.... do you?

<snip>

I just demonstrated, rather undeniably, that the evidence for
expansion corresponds directly to light that decelerates over the
megaparsecs.

no you demonstrated nothing, since you have yet to show me some
experimental evidence in support of your idea...

Then apparently you can't read, because all experimental evidence for
expansion also supports my idea.

no it actually does not.... since you obviously don't have a clue of
what Red Shift is and apparently never read the links I posted and
completely failed to grok them.

And apparently you still fail to comprehend the basic Tolman Surface
Brightness test which tiered light theory miserably fails... In fact
the link I posted was dealing with you very misunderstanding of red
shift as a proof of tiered light but apparently you couldn't grok
that....

<snip>

That's not a paper. It's a web page. It makes points about light
curves that this paper refutes:

You failed to grok the site, and i thought i was giving you a simple
thing to try to understand.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf
<quote>
Supernovae Ia (SNe Ia) light curves have been used to prove the
universe is expanding. As standard candles, SNe Ia appear to indicate
the rate of expansion has increased in the past and is now decreasing.
This independent evaluation of SNe Ia light curves demonstrates a
Malmquist Type II bias exists in the body of supernova data. If this
bias is properly addressed, there is very little budget for time
dilation in the light curves of supernova.
<snip>
For most of the 20th century astronomical observations such as
galactic evolution, heavy metal abundance, supernovae light curves and
the cosmic microwave background have fallen within the constraints of
the Einstein - de Sitter Big Bang model. In the last two decades these
relationships have become severely strained. The universe is too big
and too old; the magnitudes of supernovae are dimming too fast. There
are too many radio point sources. The far infrared continuum emissions
imply a dusty past that is completely at odds with multi-colored
supernovae and quasar spectrums. There is too little anisotropy in the
cosmic microwave background to support the observed galaxy
super-cluster structure. Heavy metal ratios equal to solar
concentrations have been quantified in the most redshifted objects we
observe. Something is wrong with this mature theory: It has failed in
too many predictions.
</quote>

Thanks genius you even fail to grok the paper since actually what they
are knocking down is aspects of the big bang. And it fails to get you
around the Tolman Surface Brightness Test which you still don't grok.


Cheers
.

Relevant Pages