🚀 go-pugleaf

Dear John C. Polasek:

On Aug 16, 8:32 pm, John C. Polasek <jpola...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:40:41 -0700,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> 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/lect/cosmology/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