Cosmic acceleration refuted [formerly rediscovered] from SNIa data?

The Dynamic Universe theory is based on a holistic view of the
observable universe and it needs very few assumptions. We may say that
the DU-theory is a detailed analysis of the thoughts presented by
Richard Feynman in his lectures on gravitation in early 60's (see
http://www.sci.fi/~suntola/DU%20libr...%20reprint.pdf for
direct citations): "One intriguing suggestion is that the universe has
a structure analogous to that of a spherical surface" and one of the
great mysteries is that "the total rest energy of the universe is
equal to the total gravitational energy, i.e. the total energy in
space is zero".
If we accept a zero energy concept in spherically closed space, we do
not need cosmology constant or Hubble constant to determine the
development of the expansion of space. In such an expansion mode the
relationship between magnitude and redshift obtains the simple form
F=F(0)/[z^2(z+1)] which fully agrees with recent supernova
observations as shown in http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412701 .
Locally, the DU predictions are essentially the same as the
predictions given by the GR. It, however, converts the proper time and
proper distance concepts into frequencies dependent on motion and
gravitation in universal time and shows a fourth dimension with true
geometrical nature. The cosmology Section 6.2 of the book "Theoretical
Basis of the Dynamic Universe", giving the derivation of the above
magnitude expression is available through
http://www.sci.fi/~suntola/DU,%20Main/DU%20Main.htm .

"Tuomo Suntola" wrote in message
...

The Dynamic Universe theory is based on a holistic view of the
observable universe and it needs very few assumptions. We may say
that the DU-theory is a detailed analysis of the thoughts presented by
Richard Feynman in his lectures on gravitation in early 60's (see
http://www.sci.fi/~suntola/DU%20libr...%20reprint.pdf for
direct citations): "One intriguing suggestion is that the universe has
a structure analogous to that of a spherical surface" and one of the
great mysteries is that "the total rest energy of the universe is
equal to the total gravitational energy, i.e. the total energy in
space is zero".
If we accept a zero energy concept in spherically closed space, we do
not need cosmology constant or Hubble constant to determine the
development of the expansion of space. In such an expansion mode the
relationship between magnitude and redshift obtains the simple form
F=F(0)/[z^2(z+1)] which fully agrees with recent supernova
observations as shown in http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0412701 .

Yes we have taken notice.

Locally, the DU predictions are essentially the same as the
predictions given by the GR. It, however, converts the proper time and
proper distance concepts into frequencies dependent on motion and
gravitation in universal time and shows a fourth dimension with true
geometrical nature. The cosmology Section 6.2 of the book
"Theoretical Basis of the Dynamic Universe", giving the derivation of the
above magnitude expression is available through
http://www.sci.fi/~suntola/DU,%20Main/DU%20Main.htm .

Following the long discussion in the parent thread, Bob Day's "alma mater"
enters the stage! It is a brave move and I will look for any outcome
(= feed back from s.p.r.) with interest. I am afraid though, I already
commented on your model in the thread before noticing your clarifying
posting and after just a quick glance at your web page. So I looked briefly
at your two Apeiron papers - a way to publish, which shows the tough
conditions a loner and rebel has to face before getting any attention what
soever from the scientific community. An ambitious endeavor indeed and
I hope you will have some more qualified comments than my limited
ability allows for. I have two introductary remarks.

By a new model one would expect it to do not only what the old one
does, but to do certain things better and finally predict some additional
phenomenon that can be verified or refuted to the benefit or fall of the
new theory. You go to a lot of effort using metrics and line elements to
some extent showing that your DU model can do what GR does with
the perihelon shift. I take it you claim that DUM does it better than
does the Schwartzschild metrics to GR ? But what can you expect
when the Schwartzschild is a special case solution that does not
account for mass outside the one central body? (It is at stake also
when inferring "Black Hole " singularities formed from collapsed
Massive Dark Objects.)

A velocity of light that is no longer a constant property will have
vast implications to accepted physics. Wll it be possible to observe
this new feature?

/Kurt