accelerating universe conundrum, help me find my logic flaw please

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

"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

On Jun 1, 4:53*am, "Painius" wrote:

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".

Over the years, i've asked the following question here on this NG and
others :

If the universe is undergoing "ever-accelerating expansion" NOW, in
present time, why is there no evidence of it `locally` between
galactic groups not gravitatonally bound? By 'locally', i mean out to
a distance of a billion LY or so.
Certainly there's no argument with accelerating
expansion in the deep past. But what is the argument FOR it to be
occuring now, locally, even though there is no evidence of it? Why is
excessive redshift not being observed locally?

A few milquetoast answers were forthcoming, to the effect that
(paraphrasing) : "the effect is too small to be observed in the local
cosmos because the local cosmos itself is what's accelerating away
from the deep-past cosmos." This makes no sense, and sounds like a
strawman argument for the newly-in-vogue "ever-accelerating expansion"
idea that had suddenly become dogma in the mid-1990s.

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
On Jun 1, 4:53 am, "Painius" wrote:

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".

Over the years, i've asked the following question here on this NG and
others :

If the universe is undergoing "ever-accelerating expansion" NOW, in
present time, why is there no evidence of it `locally` between
galactic groups not gravitatonally bound? By 'locally', i mean out to
a distance of a billion LY or so.
Certainly there's no argument with accelerating
expansion in the deep past. But what is the argument FOR it to be
occuring now, locally, even though there is no evidence of it? Why is
excessive redshift not being observed locally?

A few milquetoast answers were forthcoming, to the effect that
(paraphrasing) : "the effect is too small to be observed in the local
cosmos because the local cosmos itself is what's accelerating away
from the deep-past cosmos." This makes no sense, and sounds like a
strawman argument for the newly-in-vogue "ever-accelerating expansion"
idea that had suddenly become dogma in the mid-1990s.

Well, you're absolutely right about the answers i've
seen to this question, too. It's not an easy subject to
visualize. Science says the presently accepted model
for the expansion, a "key feature" of mainstream Big
Bang cosmology, breaks down on scales that are
smaller than galaxy superclusters. In my opinion this
math is invalid on scales of superclusters and above,
as well.

That last sentence will most certainly label me as
against the dogma of expansion and mainstream
science, too. Oh well.

Here's how i see it...

Let's say you're holding a 12-inch rule in your hands.
Over some period of time (a very *long* period of
time), let's say that the rule in your hands expands
to 13 inches long. This is how most people picture
the expansion of the Universe, even scientists. The
problem, of course, is that as the rule expands, so
do the marks and lines on the rule, so do the spaces
between the lines, and so does everything that is
around the rule, including you.

So no matter how long the period of time is that you
hold that rule in your hands, there is no way for you
to sense the expansion. No way.

And it doesn't matter if you're observing the car
outside your house, a supernova in a Magellanic
Cloud, or the supercluster three superclusters over
from our supercluster, there is still no possible way
for us to sense either an expansion or a contraction
of space-time. No way.

No effin' way.

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

On Jun 1, 10:48*pm, "Painius" wrote:

Let's say you're holding a 12-inch rule in your hands.
Over some period of time (a very *long* period of
time), let's say that the rule in your hands expands
to 13 inches long. *This is how most people picture
the expansion of the Universe, even scientists. *The
problem, of course, is that as the rule expands, so
do the marks and lines on the rule, so do the spaces
between the lines, and so does everything that is
around the rule, including you.

Yup.

So no matter how long the period of time is that you
hold that rule in your hands, there is no way for you
to sense the expansion. *No way.

And it doesn't matter if you're observing the car
outside your house, a supernova in a Magellanic
Cloud, or the supercluster three superclusters over
from our supercluster, there is still no possible way
for us to sense either an expansion or a contraction
of space-time. *No way...

..except by observing *artifacts* and _correctly interpreting_ those
artifacts. In the case of deep-past lookback that came with the advent
of the Hubble Deep Field images, the universal 'standard candles' of
luminosity, type 1a supernovae, appear dimmer than they 'should be' at
a given redshift. This was immediately interpreted as clear evidence
of "ever-accelerating expansion" which became dogma immediately. So
what might be wrong with this interpretation? It's based on the
assumption that space is a universally-isotropic 'void-nothing' all
the way back to the instant of emergence from the BB. It has no
concept of a precipitous drop of the pressure/density of space itself
and the *cosmological density gradient* (or PDT gradient) of expanding
space which would explain the anomalous SN1a dimming.

...there is still no possible way
for us to sense either an expansion or a contraction
of space-time. No way.

But it IS possible to mentally transpose to the 'outside' referance
frame and view the 'big picture' of what produced the artifacts.. and
thereby gain a more rational interpretation of the artifacts.

Painius writted :

...there is still no possible way
for us to sense either an expansion or a contraction
of space-time. *No way.

But it is possible to read telemetry from denser, *contracted* space,
transposing the readings onto local space which is not only expanded
but stretched Sun-ward. This has been done routinely with the Pioneer
spacecraft, with the discrepancy between the readings being
interpreted as an "anomaly". The PDT gradient of the Sun's gravity
well has never been recognized to exist, much less acknowledged as
causing the anomaly.

oc I have it as the space between galaxies is doing all the expansion.
Space between the stars? Space between molecules? I don;t thin the
space between atoms is getting any bigger. i don't think the space
between electron and nuclei is getting bigger. I don't think quarks are
moving apart. I think the universe's horizon is getting bigger and
that's all Bert

On Jun 1, 4:53*am, "Painius" wrote:

Let's go on to the much newer premise of cosmology...
that the expansion of the Universe is "accelerating"... "accelerated
expansion of the Universe".. has been accepted by the
mainstream that the.. expansion is positive, it is
"speeding up"...

Which of course called forth the invention of "dark energy" to explain
the perceived "speeding up". Here's some of the mainstream's most
recent convoluted mishmash in search of "dark energy" --

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/sc...syahoo&emc=rss

"oldcoot" wrote in message...
...
Painius writted :

...there is still no possible way
for us to sense either an expansion or a contraction
of space-time. No way.

But it is possible to read telemetry from denser, *contracted* space,
transposing the readings onto local space which is not only expanded
but stretched Sun-ward. This has been done routinely with the Pioneer
spacecraft, with the discrepancy between the readings being
interpreted as an "anomaly". The PDT gradient of the Sun's gravity
well has never been recognized to exist, much less acknowledged as
causing the anomaly.

"Artifacts"... "telemetry"... "denser, *contracted*
space"... Again i say, logic dictates that there's no
effin' way.

If your 12" rule is the artifact, and you look at it far
away in denser contracted space, it will still look the
same. Spatial expansion is undetectable by its very
nature... across the street or across the Universe.

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

Painius Its that redder and redder the further out we go that
indicates galaxies are all moving away from us and each other. Our eyes
give us this sense. Edward Hubble had no trouble convincing Einstein.
Bert