[WWW] A possible solution to the dark energy, cosmic acceleration and horizon problems

On Apr 2, 1:33 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Apr 1, 12:04 am, Dave Rutherford wrote:

Bad start, because the universe likes to behave as if it were
Lorentzian. But I'll ignore that and focus on my point : you are not
using a FRW manifold. Regardless, Euclidean spacetime is *static*. No
expansion, time dilation, or anything.

Ignoring that, and pretending space has a logarithmic spiral structure

You continue to misrepresent my article. It might help if you read it
before commenting on it.

When the errors of your formula are well within the random errors of
observation, it undercuts the otherwise impressive looking picture's
significance.

What errors?

Your formula is indistinguishable from the concordance cosmology
result within the errors of the data.

That's an error?. By the way, as I showed, my model fits the data
_better_than_ the concordance model.

On Mar 21, 1:35 am, Dave Rutherford wrote:
I've just rewritten an article in which I present a model that
resolves the Horizon Problem and proposes a new explanation for the
origins of the CMBR. Also it shows, by way of its excellent fit to
resent Type 1a Supernovae data, that the universe is not accelerating,
thereby eliminating the need to postulate dark energy.

You can see it at

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/horizon.pdf

Dave Rutherford

I've just extended my redshift vs. distance modulus plot to include
Gamma Ray Burst (GRB) data out to z6. My theoretical curve now has an
even better fit to the data (reduced chi-square of 0.99). You can see
it at

http://www.softcom.net/users/der555/horizon.pdf

Dave