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.

On Oct 8, 7:46*am, PD wrote:
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?




Sam is right, KW. You are a *profoundly* stupid person.

You may have been talented and competent at one point in your life. To
that, I would ask, what the hell happened?







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.

PD wrote in
:

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 (measure
d
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.

It hasn't even been empirically true for 70 years, as the relationship
between distance and redshift is highly nonlinear once one gets into the
far reachers of time and space.

Not that the wublee has any clue about this, or willingness to learn.

[...]

On Oct 7, 1:53*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 5, 9:46 am, PD wrote:

On 10/5/2011 10:34 AM, wrote:
Hey PD before you try to teach anybody you need to read the papers. An
accelerating universe means that the more distance galaxies are the
MORE redshifted than the current theory expected.
At a specific z (redshift), they found that 50 supernovae were *dimmer*
than expected. Since these are standard candles, this means they were
further *out* than expected by the Hubble law.

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 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.

At best the expansion theory is only outdated by 13+ billion years.
So there is really no honest way of telling what's happening way the
hell out there.

BTW; eventually, if given 100 billion years, those galaxies should
burn out.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 10/8/11 5:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:


At best the expansion theory is only outdated by 13+ billion years.
So there is really no honest way of telling what's happening way the
hell out there.


When we look at the moon we see is as it was 1.3 seconds ago.
When we look at the Sun the delay is 8+ minutes.

Because of the finite speed of light we can observer what has
happened in the very distant past and the early universe. Quit
complaining.

"Sam Wormley" wrote:
-- Brad Guth wrote:

Brad wrote:
At best the expansion theory is only outdated by
13+ billion years. So there is really no honest way
of telling what's happening way the hell out there.

Sam wrote:
When we look at the moon we see is as it was 1.3
seconds ago. When we look at the Sun the delay is
8+ minutes.
Because of the finite speed of light we can observer
what has happened in the very distant past and the
early universe. Quit complaining.

hanson wrote:
Sam, Sam, Sam, listen. You were too quick on the
trigger with telling Brad what he already knows.

Brad meant to say: "there is really no honest way
of telling what's happening way the hell out there
RIGHT NOW, at this very moment. --- Get it, Sam!?

Reflect on it, Sam. Brad's statement touches on
some profound philoso-physical point: "It sucks
to never know what you can expect and much less
to find, at the time when you depart from here, onto
your cosmic trip into the "undiscovered land from
whose borne no traveler has yet returned".
Sam, all your SR/GR crud wont help you jack ****.

Thanks for the laughs though, guys... ahahahanson

On Oct 8, 4:02*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 10/8/11 5:30 PM, Brad Guth wrote:



At best the expansion theory is only outdated by 13+ billion years.
So there is really no honest way of telling what's happening way the
hell out there.

* *When we look at the moon we see is as it was 1.3 seconds ago.
* *When we look at the Sun the delay is 8+ minutes.

* *Because of the finite speed of light we can observer what has
* *happened in the very distant past and the early universe. Quit
* *complaining.

For all we know, the universe has been retracting for the past several
billion years, just like how we're being drawn into the GA.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Oct 8, 5:35 am, Sam Wormley wrote:

Here's some what you call "bull****" for you, Koobee--

Dark Energy Measurement Sheds New Light on Universe's Expansion
http://www.physorg.com/news198431059.html

Sam, lay off the occult **** for a change, would you?

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE --- Sam
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

On Oct 8, 5:46 am, PD wrote:
On Oct 8, 12:29 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

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...

Do you have anything else to say besides more bull****?

Why, then, you would have an indication of acceleration of the
universe. Do you see why?

You have totally missed the point as usual. shrug

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

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.

On Oct 9, 1:36*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:46 am, PD wrote:

On Oct 8, 12:29 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
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...

Do you have anything else to say besides more bull****?

Why, then, you would have an indication of acceleration of the
universe. Do you see why?

You have totally missed the point as usual. *shrug

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

I already answered this. Then you would have evidence for an
accelerating universe.


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.