A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

TERRIBLE Nobel Prize for Accelerating Universe



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #19  
Old October 8th 11, 01:46 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default TERRIBLE Nobel Prize for Accelerating Universe

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.