Prev: At the extreme of gravity there is a limit
Next: ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS
From: guskz on 18 May 2010 20:43
On May 18, 10:20 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear gu...:
>
> On May 18, 7:11 am, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 10:57 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> > > On May 16, 6:40 pm, "gu...(a)hotmail.com" <gu...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Luminance doesn't change, but brightness does.
>
> > > > The same amount of luminance (light) over a 1
> > > > inch square surface is much more brighter than
> > > > the same amount of luminance over a 3 inch
> > > > square surface.
>
> > > > Comprehend? If so then continue below:
>
> > > > Every single scientist on this tiny planet,
> > > > estimated the distance from a star based on
> > > > the fact that BRIGHTNESS weakens from the
> > > > distance between the light source and the
> > > > observer.
>
> > > And
> > > - the red shift of the light, and
> > > - the duration of characteristic events, and
> > > - the subtended size of characterisitic objects
>
> > > > Comprehend? Then many already know what
> > > > continues below:
>
> > > > Since the Universe expanded with time then
> > > > likewise this same luminance got expanded,
> > > > therefore this same amount of luminance had
> > > > a larger surface area to cover (spread out
> > > > more)....Thus making the same far away star
> > > > less brighter not just because of it's
> > > > distance from the viewer but ALSO BY the
> > > > amount that space expanded.
>
> > > > In conclusion, the Universe is expanding BUT
> > > > NOT AT AN ACCELERATED expansion, doing the
> > > > math latter on....which may be a constant or
> > > > even a decelerated expansion (which would
> > > > lead to a BIG CRUNCH).
>
> > > You are as wrong about this as you are about
> > > the world ending due to LHC.  Understand that
> > > GR without the cosmological constant described
> > > an expanding Universe.  Adding the constant in
> > > provided a means of adjusting the theory to
> > > the *correct* or observed value.  It also
> > > opened the door to describing variable
> > > expansion, which would be in agreement with
> > > observation.
>
> > > > G.U.S.K.Z. ""is"" 21st Century's Einstein.
>
> > > You must not think much of Einstein.  Did you
> > > study *any* of the methods of cosmology before
> > > you posted?
>
> > >http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
> > > ... supernovae are studied using several
> > > distance measures.
>
> > Yes, including supernova's fixed luminosity.
>
> And your problem understanding luminosity, does not affect the other
> three methods.  The other three methods agree with luminosity.
>
> > I just clearly explained in a new post of a
> > new un-calculated factor that demonstrates
> > the universe is not expanding at an "accelerated"
> > rate.
>
> You failed to do so.  Four methods agree that the Universe's expansion
> is accelerating, or did accelerate in the past.
>
> The "larger surface area" you finally became aware of is the root
> cause of both the decreased luminosity we get, and the anomalously
> large size of objects in the ancient Universe.
>

That is completely incorrect, luminosity remains fixed, only
brightness changes.

Brightness = Luminosity / distance^2

Whereas distance, is the distance the light beam travels.

> If you studied at all before posting here, you could save yourself
> some embarrassment.  Next you will be discovering the paper clip...
>
> David A. Smith

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: At the extreme of gravity there is a limit
Next: ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS