The Accelerating Universe and Decreasing Cosmic Gravity

Dear John C. Polasek:

On Aug 15, 6:50 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:09:52 wrote:
Dear John C. Polasek:

On Aug 14, 6:00 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
I think the solution is a lot easier than jiggling with G.
Isn't redshift the only way to measure such distances?
They find that the observed intensity is less than
expected from red-shift distance.

No, redshift is not the only way. If there are type Ia
supernovae located in the "structure", there is the
duration of the decay from peak to some percentage
of peak. There is intensity of the source (1/r^2,
regardless of source... *assuming* something about
the source). All these methods agree to within the
margin of error in the paper I saw.

I didn't mean it's the only way; I meant it conflcts
with the intensity readings.

The only paper that I am aware of, *all* the disparate measurements
agree to within their margin of error.

The disparity between redshift and intensity

Do you have a citation? Is intensity higher or lower than redshift
would indicate?

is what's causing all the expansion talk.

Expansion is what redshift (and stretching of duration, and decrease
in intensity) is all about. The "disparity" serves to describe
something other than expansion. There are a pretty good number of
factors that can produce this disparity, although anomalously more
intensity with distance might be a bit of a challenge.

There's no agreement except as to disagreement.
And so I'm asking the modality of the red shift /
distance calculation, is it doppler, is it scale factor,
is it the relativistic doppler?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
... so you get from 1+z to distance via a linear transformation ("scale
factor").

Doppler really doesn't give you distance, just change in distance.
And you can't integrate over time, because we don't know the time
without *assuming* what we set out to measure.

The discrepancy might be corrected with proper
algebra, instead of dark energy.

Get rid of Dark Matter, and there is almost no need for Dark Energy.
MOND almost works, and TeVaS does work (as far as I know) at getting
rid of Dark Matter.

David A. Smith

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:44:41 -0700, dlzc wrote:

Dear John C. Polasek:

On Aug 15, 6:50 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:09:52 wrote:
Dear John C. Polasek:

On Aug 14, 6:00 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
...
I think the solution is a lot easier than jiggling with G.
Isn't redshift the only way to measure such distances?
They find that the observed intensity is less than
expected from red-shift distance.

No, redshift is not the only way. If there are type Ia
supernovae located in the "structure", there is the
duration of the decay from peak to some percentage
of peak. There is intensity of the source (1/r^2,
regardless of source... *assuming* something about
the source). All these methods agree to within the
margin of error in the paper I saw.

I didn't mean it's the only way; I meant it conflcts
with the intensity readings.

The only paper that I am aware of, *all* the disparate measurements
agree to within their margin of error.

The disparity between redshift and intensity

Do you have a citation? Is intensity higher or lower than redshift
would indicate?

is what's causing all the expansion talk.

Expansion is what redshift (and stretching of duration, and decrease
in intensity) is all about. The "disparity" serves to describe
something other than expansion. There are a pretty good number of
factors that can produce this disparity, although anomalously more
intensity with distance might be a bit of a challenge.

There's no agreement except as to disagreement.
And so I'm asking the modality of the red shift /
distance calculation, is it doppler, is it scale factor,
is it the relativistic doppler?

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
.. so you get from 1+z to distance via a linear transformation ("scale
factor").

Doppler really doesn't give you distance, just change in distance.
It should give recession velocity, from which a proper H0 would give
distance.
And you can't integrate over time, because we don't know the time
without *assuming* what we set out to measure.

The discrepancy might be corrected with proper
algebra, instead of dark energy.

Get rid of Dark Matter, and there is almost no need for Dark Energy.
MOND almost works, and TeVaS does work (as far as I know) at getting
rid of Dark Matter.

David A. Smith
Excuse my error: what I meant was acceleration, not expansion.
Acceleration of expansion rate is the current big phenomenon being
investigated, in which it is universally presented that the observed
intensity of SN1A's is lower than might be expected by square law
1/D^2.
No question, you can measure redshift. From it there are several ways
of deducing distance. But nowhere do I see it displayed, what equation
is being used.
From astro.ucla (above) you imply a/a0 = 1+z from which 1/D^2 would be
proportional to 1/(1+z)^2 but the observed intensity is markedly
lower.
Time dilation applied to the decay curve is some part of the analysis,
but that calculation implies recession velocity, not a/a0.
The papers I have read are quite abstruse, trying to get a handle on
the impact of "quintessence", I believe.
It seems there's plenty of places to scrutinize the transformation
from redshift to distance or time dilation to distance, enough room
for simple error to explain away acceleration.
John Polasek

DEar John C. Polasek:

On Aug 16, 9:20 am, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:44:41 wrote:
....
The disparity between redshift and intensity

Do you have a citation? Is intensity higher or
lower than redshift would indicate?
....
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
.. so you get from 1+z to distance via a linear
transformation ("scale factor").

Doppler really doesn't give you distance, just
change in distance.

It should give recession velocity, from which a
proper H0 would give distance.

As you are aware, the value of H0 is applied directly to (1+z).

....
The discrepancy might be corrected with proper
algebra, instead of dark energy.

Get rid of Dark Matter, and there is almost no
need for Dark Energy. MOND almost works, and
TeVaS does work (as far as I know) at getting
rid of Dark Matter.

Excuse my error: what I meant was acceleration,
not expansion. Acceleration of expansion rate is
the current big phenomenon being investigated, in
which it is universally presented that the observed
intensity of SN1A's is lower than might be
expected by square law 1/D^2.

Still, do you have a citation?

No question, you can measure redshift. From it
there are several ways of deducing distance. But
nowhere do I see it displayed, what equation
is being used.

I believe it is straightforward, comparing intensity at characteristic
times in the "decay curve", to more local "members of the SNIa
community". I will have to review the pdf I have at home tonight, and
I will reply to your message with a link on arxiv.org.

From astro.ucla (above) you imply a/a0 = 1+z
from which 1/D^2 would be proportional to
1/(1+z)^2 but the observed intensity is markedly
lower.

I don't find that in the paper, which is why I keep asking for a
citation.

Time dilation applied to the decay curve is some
part of the analysis, but that calculation implies
recession velocity, not a/a0. The papers I have
read are quite abstruse, trying to get a handle on
the impact of "quintessence", I believe. It seems
there's plenty of places to scrutinize the
transformation from redshift to distance or time
dilation to distance, enough room for simple
error to explain away acceleration.

Much easier for me to believe that the Universe had more "free dust"
in earlier ages, which would give lower intensities now. After all,
we discuss how all these stars are forming, and planets are forming,
and supernovae are more prevalent in earlier times...

And even easier for me to believe that expansion (even without
acceleration) is creating places that light could not possibly have
been directed towards at the time of emission. Granted, this is an
"infinitessimal, interstitial" creation... but we are not located
entirely at the "spherical D surface" that the light was originally
aimed at, but would have been apparently diced into little bits, and a
good percentage of us was left out when reassembled to form the
original target.

To me it makes *sense* that intensity would be lower.

David A. Smith

On Jul 30, 6:46?pm, wrote:
The Accelerating Universe and Decreasing Cosmic
Gravity.

By Louis Nielsen, Denmark http://www.rostra.dk/louis

The discovery of the accelerating Universe could be an indication of a
cosmic decreasing gravity.
Observations of supernovae, belonging to distant galaxies, show that
they are situated at distances that are greater than what would be
expected according to current cosmological models.
This must mean that the galaxies in question have moved faster than
expected. The analysis of the observations shows that the rate of
expansion of the Universe appears to vary with position. More distant
objects are receding from us faster than nearby ones. That is, the
expansion of the Universe was faster at earlier times than it is right
now.

To save the traditional cosmological models the scientists now try to
introduce different solutions, supported by new and old effects, such
as 'dark energy', 'dark-matter' and the re-introduction of the
'cosmological constant' in Einstein's general field equations, etc.

Decrease of the Cosmic Gravity.
But maybe the accelerated expansion of the Universe is an indication
of a cosmic decrease of Newton's gravitational 'constant'.
In my considerations about "Quantum Cosmology with Decreasing Gravity"
I assume that Newton's
gravitational 'constant' G is a decreasing quantity. (Read more in my
treatise).

The decrease of G with cosmic time is (in the continuous
approximation) given by the equation:

(1) (1/G)*(dG/dT) = - (1/3)*(1/T) (dG/dT is the time derivative)

In equation (1) T is the actual age of the Universe. We note that G
does not decrease linearly with the age of the Universe. The relative
decrease of G had been faster when the Universe was younger. When the
Universe came into being, during the first cosmic quantum time
intervals, G decreased extremely fast, corresponding to what in the
standard cosmological theory is called an 'inflation phase'. In our
epoch G decreases very slowly, so slow that it has not hitherto been
possible to measure directly.
If we could measure the relative decrease of G with very high
precision then the age of the Universe can be calculated from equation
(1).
Due to a decrease of the cosmic gravitational forces, the distance
between two gravitating mass systems - for example two galaxies will
increase as the Universe ages.

As the relative decrease of Newton's gravitational 'constant' is not a
linearly function of time, this is also not the case for the increase
in distance between two gravitational attracting systems.

We can assume that the variable Hubble parameter H has connection to
the decreasing gravitational 'constant' G according to the relation:

(2) H = - (1/G)*(dG/dT) = (1/3)* (1/T)

The radial velocity v of an object is then given by the modified
Hubble-relation:

(3) v = H*D = - (dG/dT)*(1/G)*D = (1/(3*T))*D

In equation (3) D is the distance to the object. According to equation
(3) v depends on both the distance D to the object and the actual age
T of the Universe when the light was emitted.From equation (3) we see that when T was smaller then v was higher.

Therefore objects in the younger Universe had moved a greater distance
If gravitylike everything else is quantized then what happens when
you get to a point where there may/maynot be a graviton



than calculated from the ordinary Hubble-relation.

As our knowledge of the physical objects in the Universe is mainly
obtained by analysis of the light emitted by the objects, it is also
necessary to take into account the gravitational conditions when the
light was emitted. For instance the gravitational shift of wavelength
depends on the strength of the gravitational field in the position
from which the light is emitted.
Also other physical effects depend on the actual value of G.

Best regards
Louis Nielsen
Denmark

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:40:41 -0700, dlzc wrote:

DEar John C. Polasek:

On Aug 16, 9:20 am, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:44:41 wrote:
...
The disparity between redshift and intensity

Do you have a citation? Is intensity higher or
lower than redshift would indicate?
...
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm
.. so you get from 1+z to distance via a linear
transformation ("scale factor").

Doppler really doesn't give you distance, just
change in distance.

It should give recession velocity, from which a
proper H0 would give distance.

As you are aware, the value of H0 is applied directly to (1+z).

...
The discrepancy might be corrected with proper
algebra, instead of dark energy.

Get rid of Dark Matter, and there is almost no
need for Dark Energy. MOND almost works, and
TeVaS does work (as far as I know) at getting
rid of Dark Matter.

Excuse my error: what I meant was acceleration,
not expansion. Acceleration of expansion rate is
the current big phenomenon being investigated, in
which it is universally presented that the observed
intensity of SN1A's is lower than might be
expected by square law 1/D^2.

Still, do you have a citation?

No question, you can measure redshift. From it
there are several ways of deducing distance. But
nowhere do I see it displayed, what equation
is being used.

I believe it is straightforward, comparing intensity at characteristic
times in the "decay curve", to more local "members of the SNIa
community". I will have to review the pdf I have at home tonight, and
I will reply to your message with a link on arxiv.org.

From astro.ucla (above) you imply a/a0 = 1+z
from which 1/D^2 would be proportional to
1/(1+z)^2 but the observed intensity is markedly
lower.

I don't find that in the paper, which is why I keep asking for a
citation.

One paper is http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/1/8.pdf which is easy
to read, whose title is Hubble's diagram and cosmic expansion. There
are others. Fig. 6 shows the magnitude deviation d(m - M) for z's to 1
for several percentages of dark energy.
Even better is http://www.astro.ucla.edu - Supernova Cosmology (which
has Ned Wright's imprimatur it turns out).
Time dilation applied to the decay curve is some
part of the analysis, but that calculation implies
recession velocity, not a/a0. The papers I have
read are quite abstruse, trying to get a handle on
the impact of "quintessence", I believe. It seems
there's plenty of places to scrutinize the
transformation from redshift to distance or time
dilation to distance, enough room for simple
error to explain away acceleration.

Much easier for me to believe that the Universe had more "free dust"
in earlier ages, which would give lower intensities now. After all,
we discuss how all these stars are forming, and planets are forming,
and supernovae are more prevalent in earlier times...

And even easier for me to believe that expansion (even without
acceleration) is creating places that light could not possibly have
been directed towards at the time of emission. Granted, this is an
"infinitessimal, interstitial" creation... but we are not located
entirely at the "spherical D surface" that the light was originally
aimed at, but would have been apparently diced into little bits, and a
good percentage of us was left out when reassembled to form the
original target.

To me it makes *sense* that intensity would be lower.
We could make better progress if relativity had viable model, but it
proposes a universe that is homogeneous, isotropic and without a
center, (leaving us essentially without a handle) so even the cause of
expansion is left to hypothesis, not excepting the unblushing use of
dark energy and quintessence and matter/radiation percentages.
Still can't find the z/distance transform. (It may come as a surprise
that I have my own theory on the structure of the universe).
David A. Smith
John Polasek

Dear John C. Polasek:

On Aug 16, 8:32 pm, John C. Polasek wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:40:41 wrote:
....
From astro.ucla (above) you imply a/a0 = 1+z
from which 1/D^2 would be proportional to
1/(1+z)^2 but the observed intensity is markedly
lower.

I don't find that in the paper, which is why I keep
asking for a citation.

One paper is
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/101/1/8.pdf
which is easy to read, whose title is Hubble's
diagram and cosmic expansion. There are others.
Fig. 6 shows the magnitude deviation d(m - M) for
z's to 1 for several percentages of dark energy.

Thanks.

Even better is
http://www.astro.ucla.edu- Supernova Cosmology
(which has Ned Wright's imprimatur it turns out).

OK.

I apologize, I forgot to look up that paper, which I believe has the
intensity formula in it. I will do this tonight. I don't think it is
more complex than:
I_1 / I_2 = (R_2 / R_1)^2 ... using a "standard candle" for I_1 and
R_1, measuring I_2, and solving for R_2.

Some "standard candles":
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...y/cosmicd.html
(which you proabably already know)

Time dilation applied to the decay curve is some
part of the analysis, but that calculation implies
recession velocity, not a/a0. The papers I have
read are quite abstruse, trying to get a handle on
the impact of "quintessence", I believe. It seems
there's plenty of places to scrutinize the
transformation from redshift to distance or time
dilation to distance, enough room for simple
error to explain away acceleration.

Much easier for me to believe that the Universe
had more "free dust" in earlier ages, which would
give lower intensities now. After all, we discuss
how all these stars are forming, and planets are
forming, and supernovae are more prevalent in
earlier times...

And even easier for me to believe that expansion
(even without acceleration) is creating places
that light could not possibly have been directed
towards at the time of emission. Granted, this is
an "infinitessimal, interstitial" creation... but we
are not located entirely at the "spherical D
surface" that the light was originally aimed at,
but would have been apparently diced into little
bits, and a good percentage of us was left out
when reassembled to form the original target.

To me it makes *sense* that intensity would be
lower.

We could make better progress if relativity had
viable model, but it proposes a universe that is
homogeneous, isotropic and without a center,

Which simply means we are not in a special place, that we can guess
what other places would see *now*... in general. Otherwise we'd have
to make up special rules for places we cannot see, and we have no
basis upon which to do that. "There be Langoliers..."

(leaving us essentially without a handle) so
even the cause of expansion is left to
hypothesis,

Actually theory... the second law of thermodynamics (SLT). Additional
space equates to additional states, something that SLT does not allow
reduction in.

not excepting the unblushing use of dark energy

I agree here. How is "energy" necessary if gravitation is not a
"force"? But like the "Big Bang" and "E=mc^2" for even motion
energies, things tend to stick.

and quintessence and matter/radiation percentages.
Still can't find the z/distance transform.

I promise I'll get the link tonight.

(It may come as a surprise that I have my own
theory on the structure of the universe).

Everyone does, which is why research exists. We can't believe it is
that "hard" or that "odd" or even that "marvelous".

David A. Smith

Dear John C. Polasek:

On Aug 16, 8:32 pm, John C. Polasek
wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:40:41 wrote:
....
and quintessence and matter/radiation percentages.
Still can't find the z/distance transform.

I promise I'll get the link tonight.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382

David A. Smith