🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 15:46:49 -0700, Louis_N@edu.herlufsholm.dk wrote:

>The Accelerating Universe and Decreasing Cosmic
>Gravity.
>
> By Louis Nielsen, Denmark     http://www.rostra.dk/louis
>
>The discovery of the accelerating Universe could be an indication of a
>cosmic decreasing gravity.
>Observations of supernovae, belonging to distant galaxies, show that
>they are situated at distances that are greater than what would be
>expected according to current cosmological models.
>This must mean that the galaxies in question have moved faster than
>expected. The analysis of the observations shows that the rate of
>expansion of the Universe appears to vary with position. More distant
>objects are receding from us faster than nearby ones. That is, the
>expansion of the Universe was faster at earlier times than it is right
>now.
>
snip
>Best regards
>Louis Nielsen
>Denmark
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. 

But what is the equation used for redshift? Suppose that is faulty.

 For example, according to the Hubble principle, redshift should be a
Doppler calculation. But I see it repeatedly enjoined that Doppler
does not apply, and that cosmological redshift appears to depend on
a/a0, the relative size of the universe. 

I can only imagine that "space-time fabric" concept has such a grip
that  it is accepted that an early wavelength is effectively
embroidered onto the space-time Spandex and it arrives in stretched
form when we see it, as being redshifted.

That spandex work-up has to be wrong, so there's a very good chance
some good algebra would solve the whole acceleration problem. 

I asked this before, and I ask it again. What is the redshift
formulation for determining distance? Or how do they determine the
distance that turns out to be unsatisfactory?

John Polasek