
Re: TERRIBLE Nobel Prize for Accelerating Universe
Posted:
Oct 8, 2011 5:31 PM


PD <thedraperfamily@gmail.com> wrote in news:db4afd783cb0405b91ef8ed192f19bbe@m5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 8, 12:29 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Oct 7, 2:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> 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 are: >> >> **** 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.
[...]

