🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:09:52 -0700, dlzc <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote:

>Dear John C. Polasek:
>
>On Aug 14, 6:00 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> 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 disparity between redshift and intensity is what's causing all the
expansion talk. 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? The
discrepancy might be corrected with proper algebra, instead of dark
energy.  
>You even have the cooling of CMBR light as it affects interstellar
>medium, which also agrees with "Universal expansion".
>
>G (in my opinion) is more-or-less directly tied to c.  It may not be
>fundamental, but it will always be the same value locally.  (Quantum
>effects nothwithstanding.)
>
>David A. Smith
John Polasek