Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

WHR's Achievements


Meson (3/13)



  1. Acceleration is change in velocity The only way to measure that is to observe one supernova and collect data points over time for it. Or observe many and collect data for all in the same time intervals and compare. But comparing one to the other because of convenient skewing of redshift that fools our eyes is erroneous. We can only compare the data of RATE OF CHANGE for the redshifting of the individual superclusters as individuals and see if they are accelerating. The only proper way to really observe two superclusters in this way is from a known fixed location. That's the paradox. I will certainly do that when I get home, maybe this weekend. I have a 3 year old son and weekdays are usually pretty busy for me. But I have a better alternative to demonstrate what I am saying. I found that a regular size rubber band without much tension is about ten cm long. An English 12 inch ruler with a metric gradient is about 30 cm long. I stretched the rubber band with two dots on it (I could have drawn more but it wasn't needed) to about 25 cm. I held the rubber band firm at zero and stretched it against the ruler. But instead of focusing on the acceleration by stretching it out, I did it in reverse and observed the deceleration of the red dots that I drew.i stretched the band, then watched the red dot as the tension on the rubber band was relaxed at a steady rate. The dot on the rubber band appeared as a car slowing down by applying the brakes. The initial tension release caused an instantaneous deceleration. Or so things appear. However, the rubber band tension was released at a controlled rate.
  2. I am going to watch the videos. I promise you. But as I described earlier, I do understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. In the rubber band example, I instantaneously stretch it. I am at rest, then I stretch it. My velocity is 0 at rest. As I pace off with the band and steady to a pace of one step per second I am no longer accelerating. I am moving at a velocity of 1 step per second. One step per second is a velocity. Wavelength is related to velocity when you are comparing two distant objects moving away from you. If you heard two trains moving away from you at different velocities you would hear their whistle at a different pitch (Hz) a school child can grasp this. If the two trains varied their acceleration/deceleration you would hear a wobble in the pitch. Maintaining a steady velocity would not have this effect. Two distant galaxiy clusters moving away from you and showing different redshifts (long waves vs white light) would Indicate that they have a different velocity. If a pattern emerges that this shift in velocity is getting longer as you expand outward radially from a central location, the obvious (but erroneous) conclusion would be that the entire universe is not only expanding but also accelerating. After all, why would any cluster further out consistently shine longer wavelengths in our direction than clusters further in?? It must be expansion at an accelerated rate right!! No wrong. Have you done the rubber band experiment? I just did a little while ago. Don't just watch one on YouTube. Do it yourself. Fix the end of the rubber band against a point that isn't moving then stretch the band and observe the dots without looking at the rubber band as a whole. The furthest dot appears to be accelerating (not moving at a constant velocity but rather changing velocity or accelerating) it appears to be doing so, and perhaps the dot itself IS. But the dot is not the rubber band. The rubber band when measured as a whole only doubles in length, then gets twice as long, then gets three times as long (as the original) as long as you stretch it at the same rate. It is not 1 2 4 8 16 32....it is 1 2 3 4 5 6. The first row of numbers if marched by you would be exponential. The second row is serial. Same concept applies. The rubber band would be expanding like the serial set, therefore it would not be accelerating. We are dealing with two types of acceleration here. One is accelerated growth (expansion) The other is accelerated velocity (relative motion) The galaxy superclusters have the appearance of accelerated velocity. It is a matter of perspective on wether or not this is actually the case, but I'm not going to debate that this would be the appearance. The observable universe however is not growing exponentially or at a rate that is >steady...Therefore it is not expanding at an accelerated rate. It will not double then quadruple in the same time intervals. It will grow at a consistent rate. It will double, then triple, then quadruple. The volume in three time intervals will only be four times as big as the original. This is a steady rate of growth and not consistent with expansion. Yet because we are looking at this from a point of view that needs to see the pattern in the elasticity of the spacetime inside the volume, we equate a visual parlor trick with accelerated expansion (growth at a higher rate than steady) its like trying to see a 3D world on a 2D screen. My waistline has accelerated the past few years. When I was a child it was steady. A little levity goes a long way I don't think you are quite getting that you are confirming what I am saying. You are measuring the dots on the rubber band and not TRULY seeing a change in velocity (acceleration). But if you are using the sensors that detect photons (your eyes) and fixing your reference point (one end of the rubberband) and pearing across the rubber band as you do this experiment, the ILLUSION is to make the furthest dot from your eyes APPEAR to be accelerating with respect to the nearer ones and all the intermediate steps inbetween. It would look like a drag strip car accelerating to a higher velocity from the starting location. It's an optical illusion. Telescopes, radiotelescopes, spectrum alalyzers are TRANSDUCERS. Well optical scopes not so much but the other two are. They tell us what our eyes can't see. They function as our eyes at different waelengths. But our brains analyze the data the same way our eyes would. We are seeing the same optical illusion with redshift data. Same thing!!!!
  3. Actually without being combative about this because I certainly do not claim to have an authority answer or an alternate research database to cite...I disagree that the load does not model a perceived acceleration. I don't know any better way of showing this because I do not have CGI animation software, but it is pretty clear that if I were sitting aboard a raisin suspended in the loaf, and I made observations of distant raisins from my FIXED PERSPECTIVE, I would have the perception of the distant raisins accelerating away. This is because of the net effect when looking across an expanse in a straight line. If we just so happened to have a straight line of raisins (a little offset so that we could see all of them) the most distant one would offer a stunning show, it would appear to be zipping away at an accelerated rate. Each raisin as we move inward and closer and observed would appear to be a little slower than the last. This is due to space simultaneously filling the gaps. Observing one raisin nearby would only have the true steady velocity and not appear to be zipping away. But since the next raisin over FILLED UP THE INTERMEDIATE SPACE SIMULTANEOUSLY there would seem to be twice as much velocity. This would be a real phenomenon if the point of origin raisin were fixed and the rest of the universe were WORKING AGAINST IT like a brick wall. If I fix a runner band to a wall and stretch it out by walking at a pace of one step per second, this perfectly elastic band would stretch at the same rate (velocity) as my linear motion. However, a point drawn at the center of the rubber band would have the illusionary phenomenon of appearing to accelerate. Try it!!!!! It just takes a cheap rubber band. But you have to maintain the rate at which you stretch it. The overall expansion of the rubber band is constant. The dot appears to accelerate. We are judging the expansion of the universe (the rubber band) based on the perceived appearance of the dot (distant cluster). False logic. The Type 1a supernovae data is consistent with this parlor trick. If I had a radar gun inside the loaf of bread I wouldn't even need my eyes to be fooled by the photons.
  4. I am at work using my iPhone. I will be happy to watch the videos at home. I can text but not watch videos. I trust they will explain what you are explaining and that I fully comprehend. I do not wish to ruffle feathers or upset anyone. I do understand that we can't go to the edge of the universe (observable) and take a picture. For one thing, if we could do that, there would no longer be an edge to the observable universe because it would be a fluid border. However we can use our minds to see that the concept of acceleration is flawed. You do not like the loaf model, I do not like the dark matter and energy Alice in Wonderland fudge factor model. Neither did Albert Einstein and he called it (cosmological constant) his greatest blunder. Perhaps his final word on the matter will be the one that is vindicated. Thank you all for an interesting conversation. I've failed to pry out the dog barking at his reflection problem but that's OK. I didn't have a night of insomnia for no good reason. I reconciled the issue in my own mind and that is the only one that really counts thanks again!!! Oh and to edit I will add thanks specifically for the links to videos, graphs, journals, etc. I do realize that it takes effort to discuss these things and bring data to the discussion.
  5. He cannot do that. I did not say I don't like the bread loaf analogy. As a matter of fact it was crucial in me seeing the paradox. An accelerating expanding volume would by definition grow exponentially (or in some sort of compounding fashion) in volume. Picking two arbitrary points within the loaf that are all moving in relation to all the other points does not paint the picture completely, and in fact skews the picture. The only true way to analyze this problem is by baking the loaf and recording the expansion in real time, carefully measuring the gap between two reference raisins, checking the elapsed time, and then measuring the volume of the loaf in relation to its original size. This would be done with several data points. Clearly for every given d/t of seperation between two raisins, the loaf would double in volume. It is the relationship between two neighboring raisins that is key. There is no mechanism in the expanding loaf that would cause the velocity of two adjacent raisins to change. Go back to the two train model. They aren't accelerating away from one another, they are moving at the same velocity and their distance apart does not double, quadruple, etc per unit of time. It just steadily grows by the same amount. That is pure and simple math and logic. Both are moving but their movement is not a compounding or exponential. So what mechanism has been observed that would cause our local cluster to exponentially move in relation to our nearest neighbor? Has that been carefully documented and recorded? You see the raisin bread model does not require that the two adjoining raisins exponentially move apart or in a compounding fashion. They can move apart at a steady velocity. It is the net effect that the observer sees when studying distant raisins. It is an optical illusion that is dependent on freezing the raisin that is the observation point and taking geocentric measurements. That is TOTALLY FLAWED because no raisin is static just as our galaxy cluster is not static. Back your mind away and ignore your human tendency to focus on one point. Observe the Hubble volume as an alien would from a distance if he wasn't relying on photons with their unfortunate limiting characteristic of fooling the human mind. I have yet to bake a loaf of bread in my oven a few extra minutes and have the loaf fill up my oven or my house. The blind man would take physical measurements of the rate of growth of the volume as a whole rather than a perspective measurement. That is with a loaf of bread or any other suitable Expanding volume. He would use a timing system not dependent upon site (ticking clock) and take measurements in real time of adjacent raisin gap and total volume. This reminds me of the old math puzzle where the farm hand comes upon a farmer seeking help and offers his assistance. He tells the farmer he will work for him at a salary of a penny for the first day of work, 2 pennies the second day, 4 pennies the third, 8 pennies the fourth day, doubling the rate every day for a month. The farmer happily agrees failing to do the math. At the end of the month the farmer owes the farm hand a million dollars. With a loaf of raisin bread rising, the gap difference is a steady velocity and this is clearly visible. Raisin A will be one inch from raisin B in one minute, two inches in two minutes, 3 inches in three minutes. There is no mechanism for acceleration between two adjacent raisins. And as far as I know, there has been no observation of acceleration between two adjacent clusters. This would be more like working for the farmer at a rate of one penny the first day, two pennies the second day, 3 pennies the third day, 4 pennies the 5th day. The farmhand would be the fool in this case and not the farmer. He'd barely clear a couple of dollars (without working the exact math out) in a month. Does this puzzle more clearly illustrate the issue????
  6. I will watch tonight. However here are some issues I am having: Nobel Prize....it's a prize. It's a prize for a significant achievement in science. If this achievement is based on a false assumption based on a skewed perception that is not in keeping with reality, then it is not "holy scripture". Citing their Nobel prize is an appeal to authority not only to the winners, but to the entire scientific community that bestowed it. I can't directly point to this, but if I get time I will research it, but I think it's safe to assume that some Nobel prize winning work in the annals of history has been reevaluated based on new data and observations and the original thesis of the work has at least been revised to fit the new observations (making it flawed in its original form by definition). I would think Hubble won a Nobel prize but I'm not sure. His original observations did not push the idea of acceleration, only expansion. Did the guy who discovered Pluto and named it a planet win a Nobel in Astronomy? I bet he did. 2) The guys who won the Nobel for this OBVIOUSLY overlooked the paradox or else they would not have won the Nobel nor would they have asserted a skewed conclusion. 3) I'm not really speculating about the paradox. I'm challenging a skewed perception. I'm not proposing a new paradigm. I'm just pointing out the skewed perception. I don't think I can explain it in any greater depth. 4) if you can resolve the issue of RATE OF CHANGE of REDSHIFT, which is the core piece of the puzzle, and then get back with me, we can have a fruitful dialogue. It is beginning to look like people are afraid of tackling this problem and deferring to authorities rather than giving it serious reflection. My Internet research has proven that this very real issue with the concept has not been properly addressed. I was challenged on my understanding of acceleration by this AGC52 fellow and I think I handily dismissed his strawman with facts. I have pointed out how 1) redshift is an indication of velocity 2) two bodies that are redshifting at different wavelengths from some undefined perspective can give a false impression of acceleration when the issue of the perspective is not accounted for and by its nature causes a skewed reality 3) I am going to add further detail, but the misunderstanding that is obvious to me is the failure to recognize what accelerated EXPANSION means, and given a false perspective as demonstrated by the paradox, it is obvious that expansion is not being analyzed by the following matrix: Expansion in space is an increase in volume. To accelerate expansion would be to increase the rate at which the expansion is occurring over time. This means a volume of one cubic feet would be two cubic feet within one second, four cubic feet in two seconds etc if steady expansion is observed. It would be some value of volume increase MORE than this rate by ever increasing degrees if acceleration were the case. By analyzing redshift data geocentrically and failing to account for our own clusters dynamics of movement, we are falsely seeing an illusion that gives the impression of an increased rate of expansion. This is addressed by the paradox. We have to slam on the brakes of our own cluster to see accelerated expansion. If we view the "raisin bread loaf" from an unfocused perspective and simply measure the volume that such a beast grows to in time intervals to confirm that for every doubling of distance between individual clusters we get a doubling of volume (as would be the case with the loaf) then we'd see that the rate of expansion is in fact NOT accelerating but rather a steady velocity. Thanks for commenting. I hope you read my words carefully and attempt to understand the complexity of the paradox rather than dismiss it. Edit:: Let's solve this riddle with a blindfold on, in this case it would not be a bad thing to be blind. That way the pesky photon would not be leading us astray. A blind man can measure something quite efficiently without the aid of electromagnetic waves.
  7. Acceleration is simple. If I have to explain this again I will. Acceleration is change in velocity. Velocity is the rate that an object is moving. If I am walking to my car at a rate of 3 feet per second, that is my velocity. If I choose to double my velocity, I am accelerating. At some point I can allow my velocity to settle back to a steady rate. I'm driving my car at 30 mph. I decide to *accelerate*, and then I steady my speed at 60 mph. If the universe was proven to be expanding at a steady rate, we would not be concerned with acceleration. We would just figure the velocity and be happy. If the universe proved to be accelerating, we'd find by inference a velocity at some point in the past, compare it to the velocity of the present , and determine the rate of change. That is acceleration. However, with a skewed perception based on the loaf of bread gobbledygook concept that lets gullible people with a skewed perception of reality to think that the furthest raisin is REALLY accelerating away when it is only an optical illusion, we can't have a logical conversation. I stated at the beginning of the thread that if you are not willing to present evidence that the rate of change of redshift, (ah another way of saying acceleration!!!!!!) was adequately accommodated in the data, then don't even bother. It seems to me that it is actually you who have the concepts of velocity and acceleration confused. You are taking redshift data which is only reliable as a measurement of velocity and calling it acceleration based on the skewed perception. The skewed perception that neglects to account for the fact that the observer is moving. It is extremely easy to demonstrate with simple ideas that a universe expanding at a steady rate can give the illusion of acceleration. Redshift is just an indicator of velocity if you can understand that the galaxy two rows over is not changing its velocity, that no galaxy is actually changing its velocity, that the galaxy 1000 rows over isn't changing it's velocity. But a neat parlor trick illusion occurs when you tell one galaxy to put on the brakes and stop. You freeze one galaxy (US) and the rest all of a sudden start acting goofy. But we aren't frozen. We are traveling at the same velocity as the rest toward an indeterminate location. So it's gobbledygook. Btw I said "galaxy" in haste...I meant cluster. And evidently you aren't smart enough for your cookie so I'll eat it. You disappointed me. Denial of modern cosmology=challenge of a modern cosmological model flaw Ignorance of modern cosmology=thinking for myself and not allowing a detail to slip past me without careful consideration. Alright I ate the cookie so it is too late for Mr Wizard to get a shot at the mirror paradox. If I had no knowledge of the function of mirrors, having never seen one, I would not be familiar with my own reflection. I would not know what my twin would look like. But I am a primate. Primates are curious. Even if I was in a straight jacket, The reflection would catch my eye from a distance and I would work out what I was seeing (eventually) if I was reasonably intelligent. Or possibly, I would imagine a mocking person in the mirror, eternally standing and pantomiming my every move. Actually I might be inclined to think that a human, whose nature is to find a bias to cling to, would eventually go mad with rage at the insolent jerk mocking him instead of stepping away from his perceptions and work the problem completely through. Or he may be like us with this cosmology issue. The equivalent to this is a dog seeing his reflection in the mirror. He doesn't even think that he is being mocked. He just sees another dog and barks until frustration and exhaustion take over. Even a dog with the ability to paw at his reflection will often bark and growl. Until he eventually gets frustrated and simply used to the reflection. Eventually he will learn to ignore it. I think we're acting more like the dog because we are ignoring something instead of analyzing it to its logical conclusion.
  8. Which telescope measured the Hubble constant 6.7 billion years ago and 7 billion years ago? Was it on Pangea somewhere? Also, when did constants stop being constant? Are we rewriting definitions of the word constant too? I know you are going to answer my telescope question with gobbledygook about observations at far points in the known universe that indicate such and such and XYZ. But as I have demonstrated the methodology by definition has a flaw of skewed perception. We are imagining the universe's expansion rate from an impossible fixed perspective. That perspective by definition is a skewed reality. If you were presented with a mirror and had never seen one before and were not allowed to touch it or get close enough to inspect it, or we're not able to move in relation to it in any direction to have any perspective, but saw your reflection, you would conclude by the photons hitting the light sensors in your eyes that you were seeing your twin (another paradox is in my own mirror metaphor... if you are smart enough to point it out to me I'll give you a cookie). You are still ignoring the problem of rate of change of redshift and are not pointing to data that takes it into consideration.
  9. I am unaware of you being in the room with me to ascertain such an assumption. About me not looking. I highlighted in bold your confirmation of my paradox. I will explain the paradox once more. After the explanation is made, AGC52 I welcome your specific rebuttal in context of the paradox and the issue of rate of change of redshift. In full awareness that the current mainstream concept of the expanding universe says that all galactic clusters are moving away from one another, including our own neighboring cluster. That space is increasing between each cluster with respect to every other cluster.. It is understood that the net effect of this, when any cluster is chosen as a candidate from which to observe (in the case of our cluster literally, and from another cluster using mathematical models)...the observational effect is that the further out from a specific cluster of choice from which to observe you gaze with your instrumentation, the more the mass of other clusters redshift. A longer wavelength redshift associated proportional with Distance. Simple concept. The raisin bread model is in my opinion the most clever model of this concept, but requires a little more effort of thought than the balloon or elastic band models. This is because it is 3D and more accurately portrays space. Space is not after all flat, or on the surface of a bubble. If someone is claiming otherwise I would ask for the phone number of their dope peddler. (joke) As I stated earlier, if the raisin bread rising in the oven is analyzed from the proper perspective, the gap between each adjacent raisin in 360x360 degrees of 3D observation will be hypothetically equal in rate of expansion. Redshift from raisin X which sits below raisin Y would be the same as raisin A which sits right above raisin B on the other side of the loaf. But if an observer at raisin Y peers across the entiret loaf at raisin A, raisin A would appear to be accelerating away much faster than raisin X. This is a net effect of all the added space between each and every raisin as the yeast rises. Since the raisins are all moving, ALL moving emphasized, from the perspective of our host raisin it would APPEAR as AGC 52 aptly points out that the furtherest raisin (A) is continually accelerating due to redshift. This is explained by models with the concept of two trains speeding away from one another. The combined speed of the two trains would double their distance per unit of time with respect to the distance a single train would traverse. We imagine the trains approaching NET light speed and then the doppler shift would become so great as to electromagnetically cause the trains to APPEAR to disappear. That is a good example of how appearance is not a good observational foundation because we all know that neither train really vanished. Their mass is still there. Someone moving beside one of the trains would not see that train vanish. Its an optical illusion sort of like a mirror. We do not walk by a mirror and gaze in astonishment at our long lost twin standing before us. So if an observation can skew our perception of reality because of the inconvenient little limitation of the photon, as the train model does, then we can explore other ways that our reality perception can be skewed. As I described earlier, the only satisfactory model of the train paradigm would be a magical way of making 3 (or more!!!) trains all move away from one another in space equidistant with respect to the other trains. Unfortunately there is no way to set up any kind of experiment like this without forcing one train to be stationary. The math won't work. But a stationary train defies the model. All trains must move. MUST. Revisiting the raisin loaf. The outside observer clearly sees that the loaf expands at a consistent rate. In time intervals, the distance between raisin x and raisin Y doubles every minute. (hypothetically) It does not grow exponentially. This is inconsistent with an acceleration. There is no mechanism for causing the space between two adjacent raisins to add space between them at a rate that is not consistent. However, when I peer across the first raisin to the one next to it, from my vantage point on my raisin, WITH THE CONDITION that I consider MY RAISIN from a stationary point (because I have no reliable reference point) that next raisin over would APPEAR to be moving twice as fast as the adjacent. The net effect. No rocket science. But just like the problem of the stationary train in the 3 train model, we have a skewed perception. In reality, the breadth of the distance traveled by the "two end" raisins in the 3 raisins has doubled in the given time interval at the same rate that the Distance between two adjacent raisins has doubled. We must analyze RATE OF CHANGE of REDSHIFT to ascertain a true model of the expansion paradigm. Nothing else is intellectually honest or objective. I would edit to add that the only true "cosmological constant" is the speed of the photon. Unfortunately the photon is only useful for sensation, in this case, not true, honest, critical analytical reasoning. I have a simple way to analyze this experimentally and I will do so this weekend. Though I'm not sure it is 100% adequate because it's a 2D experiment rather than 3D. I will take a balloon and inflate it partially. I will draw a number of dots around the balloon equatorially. I will make them equidistant and measure the distance between each one. I will inflate the balloon so that the space between dots doubles in distance. I will take two measurements of the circumference of the balloon at the equator, before and after. My prediction is that the balloon will have doubled in circumference. The growth will not be exponential and I won't see dots fly off at the speed of light ;-) I'm really and truly dumbfounded at how few critical thinkers there must be left in this world. We all line up at the local cell phone store to get the latest gadget that the miracles of science have brought us, but we do not take the time to FULLY comprehend the technology, most of us not even at a cursory level. I googled the terms balloon circumference redshift, I added experiment to see if it added a significant hit. All I could find was children's science fair "Mr Wizard" style Instructions for demonstrations of the accelerating universe concept. I see no mention of anyone actually measuring the circumference of the balloon in a controlled experiment with defined perimeters (I.e. the distance between dots on the balloon measured at intervals and checked against the total circumference. I will still perform this experiment this weekend after I purchase a few balloons. I will document it with photographs. But I did a satisfactory experiment just now with simple measuring tape. I pulled out ten inches of tape. For every inch marker, to simulate a doubling between each inch marker, I pulled out another inch of tape. Since there were ten inch markers to start out, I pulled out ten more inches of tape to accommodate each inch marker "doubling" to two inches. A ten year old child could have predicted that I would have twenty inches of tape. I doubled the space between "inch clusters", all the known inch clusters in my ten inch universe, and I got a universe that was twice as big. Then I thought about what it must have been like for the zero inch tick mark to see almost instantaneously the ten inch universe become 20 inches long, yet the cluster designated as "cluster one inch" only moved an inch further. How fast "cluster 20 inch" must have seemed to be flying away from the perspective of zero. But still the fact remains, the universe as a whole only expanded at the same rate that the individual inches expanded. There was no acceleration.
  10. Alpha2cen, I will leave your question to someone who has more knowledge about the issue of HOW the data is collected and analyzed in the context of rate of change, or how rate of change might be accounted for by various methods. I will concede that I do not have access to the equipment not the resources to conduct my own study...but perhaps when someone comes along who clearly recognizes the paradox and has the unbiased ability to address it, perhaps they can explain an answer to your question.
  11. Your explanation of type 1a supernovae is something that I've read about and seen documentaries touching upon. I do understand that they are good reliable bodies with theoretically predictable behavior from which observational data can be ascertained with a degree of confidence. I certainly do not disbelieve that we have observed this and I will further research available information. Thanks for the graph!!!! Also thank you for applying critical thought to the conundrum rather than appealing to authority. My apologies I was replying to AGC52 not you.
  12. As a matter of fact, the CORE problem that my paradox addresses is the reality that all space is expanding in all directions. This is why I've pointed out that a 3 train model of this expansion can't adequately address it. This is the conflict with the 2 train model of bodies accelerating away from each other and the 3 (or more) cluster model of raisin bread, elastic etc. I hope you do not embarrass yourself by not having a grasp of this paradox.
  13. Appeal to authority. Does not address my paradox. The problem is rate of change of acceleration. This is entirely in keeping with space being created between non gravitationally bound bodies. You are not addressing the issue and are apparently overestimating your own understanding of the issue. Please specifically address the issue of rate of change of redshift with observational data that squares or accounts for it.
  14. AGC52, I am afraid you have not even expended any energy in careful consideration of the issue that I have summarized. I may not be a genius, nor am I a cosmologist, but I am a man of high intellect. I may play around with speculation on imaginative ideas just for the pleasure, but in this case I am not presenting imagination. I am presenting a paradox in the way the data has been modeled. It is seriously flawed because it uses skewed perception imbedded in the evidence. This skewed perception must be filtered and the evidence analyzed in the face of it. I am not in any doubt whatsoever that the concept had overlooked this. In fact, already after only a day of discussion, a Google search on "rate of change of redshift" brings this forum topic to within a page or two of the top Google hits. I challenge your very objectivity if you cannot see that rate of change of redshift would be an important dynamic to consider, and if this technicality has not been addressed, which is obvious by the results of a Google search, then it is conclusive that the need for such data has either been 1) neglected 2) not considered by oversight 3) considered but ignored due to laziness, embarrassment, or lack of technique but over investment in the current model. I hope the last one is not true because it would be a condemnable thing to neglect this important aspect intentionally or simply because we "can't yet". THE research paper does not address the issue of rate of change of redshift so it is irrelevant to this discussion. Oh BTW I specifically asked that anyone posting on this thread present evidence that contradicts the paradox with supporting evidence that rate of change of redshift has been filtered from the underlying data as to make the data faultless. You have failed to do so. Therefore, I really do not care if you are going to try to convince me. That is not your job anyway. If you wish to address the paradox however you are more than welcome to add to the discussion with such commentary.
  15. To specifically address AGC52's question "what evidence would be irrefutable"... Unfortunately, I do not think that we have the technogy to detect with any accuracy in a time frame that is palpable for impatient human beings evidence for rate of change of redshift with any resolution that is acceptable or conclusive, so further study of red shift that is geared toward that goal (resolving rate of change of redshift) would be appropriate. But such study would bear fruit regardless of your pet theory of choice. It would resolve the puzzle of steady expansion and even possibly the possibility of deceleration. In fact, the more I consider this, an overall tendency for steady state is not out of the question given the paradox. As I have demonstrated with my puzzle/paradox, the only redshift data that offers anything conclusive would be the redshift of nearby clusters. And by nearby I mean our next door neighbors, not the ones "3 blocks away". The skewing of our perception would become obvious very quickly. If we are not able to use redshift for anything of much value past a few neighbors, then I contend the movement of clusters in out little nook of the cosmos could be peculiar to our little area and not typical. Sort of like how the Earth has this very special, almost unconceivabley perfect and convenient relationship with the moon that keeps one side of the moon facing us, a perfect tilt to allow for seasons, and a perfect Goldielocks position in relation to the sun. So while our nearby clusters are very slightly drifting apart, clusters very distant may be slightly drifting together but the skewed redshift evidence hides it. Now I will admit that this goes into speculation, but it is just an example of why pursuit of "rate of change of redshift" is a worthwhile endeavor. It would uncover this puzzle. A research paper is usually published in a peer reviewed journal when it is given credence. Therefore I would not parse words. You have not addressed my paradox and instead pointed to data that clearly does not take into account rate of change of redshift. Unless you can refute this your reply will be dismissed.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.