![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Oct 8, 12:29*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 7, 2:25 pm, PD wrote: On 10/7/2011 3:53 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: The whole business of accelerating expansion of your universe is believe in the Chandrasekhar limit which itself is made up of several dubious assumptions. You're nuts, KW. There's nothing in Hubble's OBSERVATIONAL MEASUREMENTS that depends on the Chandrasekhar limit at all. It's just a plot of redshift (measured with diffraction gratings) against distance (measured with standard candles). The most two important hypotheses that claim an accelerated expansion of your universe a **** *Hubble expansion law ** *z = k r Where ** *z = red shift ** *k = constant ** *r = distance Note that this is an empirical law. That is, it is an *observational* relationship between measured quantities. Note also that this relationship, if it holds, indicates neither acceleration or deceleration. If there were a variation from this law, then it would indicate acceleration or deceleration *observationally*, just as the observed relationship between distance and time for a track runner would tell you whether the track runner is running at constant speed or speeding up or slowing down. This law was never tested especially at such high-z distances. *What if Hubble’s law is not linear as claimed but goes like the following? ** *z^2 = k^2 r Why, then, you would have an indication of acceleration of the universe. Do you see why? At the distance observable within Hubble’s technology, the law seems to behave in the first order. *However, at distances further out, it would diverge from the linear model of near field. *The law above fits the observation without supporting such a ridiculous claim of accelerated expansion of your universe. *shrug **** *Chandrasekhar limit Chandrasekhar fudged this up. *So, in a stroke of a pen, he was able to stop the mass gain of a companion star cannibalizing on its hapless neighbor. *Why don’t you worship Chandrasekhar as a god instead? shrug **** So, a college physics professor is ignorant of any of these, and Einstein Dingleberries are as just as stupid and getting dumber as usual. *What else is new? *sigh and shrug You got to be nuts to believe in all the assumptions that manifest the Chandrasekhar limit. You are out of your mind to dictate how your universe behaves by believing in the Chandrasekhar limit. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to Win the Nobel Peace Prize In 12 Days | Phil Bouchard | Astronomy Misc | 18 | October 12th 09 06:50 PM |
Nobel Prize life is dangerous | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 5 | February 25th 09 04:43 AM |
Nobel prize or academic fraud? | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 4 | June 7th 08 11:51 PM |
How to win a Nobel Prize | jacob navia | Research | 0 | May 29th 06 09:43 AM |
Nobel Prize for David Thomson?! | Twittering One | Misc | 0 | December 25th 04 10:23 PM |