"chas" wrote in message...
m...

Help me find my error in logic here please. The current theory is that
the rate of acceleration of the universe is growing with time. The
experimental data to support that is class 1a supernova at large distances
are dimmer than expected. The expected brightness is from the red shift
of the supernova. Since they are dimmer than expected that means they are
further away than expected. Now, to me, that would mean if they are
further away than you would expect from their speed, as measured by red
shift, than in the past they must have been traveling faster than they are
now in order to travel a greater distance. But the conclusion current
theorists reach is they were traveling slower in the past and are moving
faster now. So where is the flaw in my reasoning?
Thanks ,
Chas

'Lo Chas --

On a first look, it would seem that your logic and
reasoning are fairly flawless. Of course, what you
seem to be doing is applying the fact that "the
farther away we look, the longer ago in the past we
happen to be looking". And while scientists already
know about this fact, it seems many of them only
apply it when it suits them to do so. There is a
reason for this.

The scientific deduction that the Universe is in a state of
expansion has been around for a long time. It is tightly
tethered to Einstein's general theory of relativity.
Technically, the expansion of space is a feature of many
solutions to the field equations of general relativity. And
when most observations made over this long period of
time seem to support that theory very strongly, you can
see why the belief that the Universe is expanding is such
a widespread "tenet" of mainstream cosmology...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

And while science is fundamentally an open, learning
proposition, and while scientists usually try to do their
best to follow this lead, there are those who have their
own pet theories and who would "die" defending them.
You believe something for so long, that someone has to
roll a boulder over your head to change your mind.

Human nature.

Remember, too, that the reason we hear that the Cosmos
"IS expanding" instead of "was expanding" is because the
observations have led scientists to deduce that expansion
will continue until there is minimal density of matter and
zero heat, a sort of "cold death", aka, the "Big Freeze".
This is not quite the same as "heat death", though the
result is similar...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death

Let's go on to the much newer premise of cosmology...
that the expansion of the Universe is "accelerating". By
the way as you may know, in science the word
"acceleration" can denote both a "speeding up" or a
"slowing down". Acceleration can be either positive or
negative. And of course, a "negative acceleration" is
also a "deceleration". In the case of the "accelerated
expansion of the Universe", it has been accepted by the
mainstream that the metric expansion is positive, it is
"speeding up"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerated_expansion

As you can see, this still has lots of room for study and
explanation. But keep in mind that this "accelerated
expansion" has attached itself to the initial "expansion
of the Universe" premise. So it's rapidly beginning to
enjoy almost the same "embeddedness" in science.

In addition to your own logic and reasoning that the type
1a supernova's dimmer appearance might mean that the
expansion of the Universe is in negative acceleration, a
brief and interesting search will turn up other possible
explanations for the type 1a ranging from very near to
the mainstream explanation to very different and most
definitely "outside the box".

In this newsgroup people frequently discuss these many
and varied "cutting edge" ideas, so you are welcome to
join in anytime!

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Indelibly yours,
Paine

P.S. Thank YOU for reading!

P.P.S. Some secret sites (shh)...
http://painellsworth.net
http://savethechildren.org
http://eBook-eDen.secretsgolden.com