🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear John C. Polasek:

On Aug 15, 6:50 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:09:52 -0700,dlzc<dl...@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 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