Prev: At the extreme of gravity there is a limit
Next: ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS
From: guskz on 16 May 2010 21:40
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.

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).

G.U.S.K.Z. ""is"" 21st Century's Einstein.





From: guskz on 16 May 2010 21:54
On May 16, 9:40 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.
>
> 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).
>
> G.U.S.K.Z. ""is"" 21st Century's Einstein.

On May 16, 9:41 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.
>
> 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).
>
> G.U.S.K.Z. ""is"" 21st Century's Einstein.

Plain & simple:

You focus all the light from your flashlight over a tiny surface will
be much BRIGHTER than spreading the same amount of light over a larger
surface area.

Likewise as space expanded with time, the brightness of distant star
diminished by the amount of expansion.

No scientist ever used that fact, they only used the fact that
brightness diminishes with travel distance..



From: dlzc on 17 May 2010 10:57
Dear gu...:

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
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC
.... supernovae are studied using several distance measures.

David A. Smith
From: guskz on 18 May 2010 10:11
On May 17, 10:57 am, dlzc <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> Dear gu...:
>
> 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.htmhttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#CC
> ... supernovae are studied using several distance measures.
>
> David A. Smith

Yes, including supernova's fixed 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.

From: dlzc on 18 May 2010 10:20
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.

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