full paper: A Novel Hypothesis for Hubble Redshift
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Bungling Idiots And Their Political Agendas Re: MYTH: 'Obama admin turned down foreign assistance' (and other Right-Wing Noory Distortions)
Next: Quantum Gravity 401.2: USA Relates Intersection to Basic Game Semantics Logic
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jul 2010 12:58 On 7/13/10 11:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 13, 5:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/12/10 10:06 PM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >>> abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed >>> Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the >>> widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration >>> purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light >>> interpretation. >> >> Tired light hasn't make it in the empirical tests, Michael. >> >> Tired Light is Still Dead >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News > > > Sure. > > That's why I'm suggesting something else. > No need, the cosmic expansion fits the observational data, beautifully! No Center http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > >> 24 Apr 2008 - Blondin et al. (2008) studied distant supernovae using >> spectra to judge the age of the object during each observation. They >> found an aging rate that varied with redshift z like >> >> 1/(1+z)(0.97 +/- 0.10), >> >> compatible with the expected 1/(1+z) for expanding Universes, but 9.7 >> standard deviations away from the constant aging rate expected in the >> tired light model. >
From: Michael Helland on 13 Jul 2010 13:07 On Jul 13, 9:58 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/13/10 11:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > > On Jul 13, 5:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/12/10 10:06 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > >>> abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed > >>> Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the > >>> widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration > >>> purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light > >>> interpretation. > > >> Tired light hasn't make it in the empirical tests, Michael. > > >> Tired Light is Still Dead > >> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News > > > Sure. > > > That's why I'm suggesting something else. > > No need, the cosmic expansion fits the observational data, > beautifully! Dark energy, inflation, acceleration. I think the door is open for a more elegant fit. Especially since we're talking about scientific hypotheses here, not religious dogma. > No Center > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html > > Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html > http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html > > WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html > > WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology > http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html > > >> 24 Apr 2008 - Blondin et al. (2008) studied distant supernovae using > >> spectra to judge the age of the object during each observation.. They > >> found an aging rate that varied with redshift z like > > >> 1/(1+z)(0.97 +/- 0.10), > > >> compatible with the expected 1/(1+z) for expanding Universes, but 9.7 > >> standard deviations away from the constant aging rate expected in the > >> tired light model.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jul 2010 16:03 On 7/13/10 12:07 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 13, 9:58 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/13/10 11:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >> >>> On Jul 13, 5:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/12/10 10:06 PM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >>>>> abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed >>>>> Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the >>>>> widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration >>>>> purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light >>>>> interpretation. >> >>>> Tired light hasn't make it in the empirical tests, Michael. >> >>>> Tired Light is Still Dead >>>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News >> >>> Sure. >> >>> That's why I'm suggesting something else. >> >> No need, the cosmic expansion fits the observational data, >> beautifully! > > > Dark energy, inflation, acceleration. > > I think the door is open for a more elegant fit. Especially since > we're talking about scientific hypotheses here, not religious dogma. > Can you articulate how any of those words conflicts with general relativity and the big bang theory? Choose a slight positive cosmological constant--for the current accelerated expansion and give it a different value during the inflationary epoch.
From: Michael Helland on 13 Jul 2010 16:13 On Jul 13, 1:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/13/10 12:07 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 13, 9:58 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/13/10 11:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote: > > >>> On Jul 13, 5:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/12/10 10:06 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > > >>>>> abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed > >>>>> Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the > >>>>> widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration > >>>>> purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light > >>>>> interpretation. > > >>>> Tired light hasn't make it in the empirical tests, Michael. > > >>>> Tired Light is Still Dead > >>>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News > > >>> Sure. > > >>> That's why I'm suggesting something else. > > >> No need, the cosmic expansion fits the observational data, > >> beautifully! > > > Dark energy, inflation, acceleration. > > > I think the door is open for a more elegant fit. Especially since > > we're talking about scientific hypotheses here, not religious dogma. > > Can you articulate how any of those words conflicts with general > relativity and the big bang theory? You said expansion fits the evidence beautifully. But not until all those fixes are put into place. > Choose a slight positive cosmological constant--for the current > accelerated expansion and give it a different value during the > inflationary epoch.
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Jul 2010 16:28
On 7/13/10 3:13 PM, Michael Helland wrote: > On Jul 13, 1:03 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/13/10 12:07 PM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 13, 9:58 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/13/10 11:46 AM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >>>>> On Jul 13, 5:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/12/10 10:06 PM, Michael Helland wrote: >> >>>>>>> abstract: A model based on a novel interpretation of the observed >>>>>>> Hubble redshift is compared and contrasted to a model based on the >>>>>>> widely accepted expansion interpretation and also, for demonstration >>>>>>> purposes, to a model based on the long refuted tired light >>>>>>> interpretation. >> >>>>>> Tired light hasn't make it in the empirical tests, Michael. >> >>>>>> Tired Light is Still Dead >>>>>> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm#News >> >>>>> Sure. >> >>>>> That's why I'm suggesting something else. >> >>>> No need, the cosmic expansion fits the observational data, >>>> beautifully! >> >>> Dark energy, inflation, acceleration. >> >>> I think the door is open for a more elegant fit. Especially since >>> we're talking about scientific hypotheses here, not religious dogma. >> >> Can you articulate how any of those words conflicts with general >> relativity and the big bang theory? > > > You said expansion fits the evidence beautifully. > > But not until all those fixes are put into place. Are you confusing "fixes" and observations? Can you articulate how any of those words conflicts with general relativity and the big bang theory? Actually, it's not the words that are important, but the data.... have you any observational data that conflicts with the big bang theory? |