| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Michael J. Strickland" |
| Date: |
01 Feb 2008 11:47:26 AM |
| Object: |
Dark Energy |
If the speed of light were higher in the past, using Lamda = c /f gives
a longer wavelength for light which is coming from far away (long ago).
Using today's lower value for c we would assume a lower original
wavelength and thus obtain a larger than actual red-shift measurement.
Thus our velocity measurements of distant galaxies would be higher than
actual with a greater excess at greater distances.
This might account for the perceived acceleration in the expansion
rate of the universe instead of the postulated dark energy?
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Strickland
Quality Services
703-560-7380
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Energy |
01 Feb 2008 02:28:38 PM |
|
|
"Michael J. Strickland" wrote:
If the speed of light were higher in the past, using Lamda = c /f gives
a longer wavelength for light which is coming from far away (long ago).
[snip]
E=mc^2. Where did all the extra energy in baryonic matter come
from/go to? Why do we not see anomalous fusion vs. star mass with
distance, including quasars and supernovae?
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Energy |
01 Feb 2008 03:27:25 PM |
|
|
Michael J. Strickland wrote:
If the speed of light were higher in the past, using Lamda = c /f gives
a longer wavelength for light which is coming from far away (long ago).
Using today's lower value for c we would assume a lower original
wavelength and thus obtain a larger than actual red-shift measurement.
c (speed of light) is a universal constant.
No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html
WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html
WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Energy |
02 Feb 2008 09:37:02 AM |
|
|
Dark energy is the photons from outside the visible universe.
The thing you dont understand is TIME.
Here you are talking about time and dont know it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Huang" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Energy |
02 Feb 2008 06:08:31 PM |
|
|
Dark matter is nothing more than large scale probabilistic enrichment
or rarefaction of spacetime. An extreley large scale gravity wave.
That's why it is dark. Because there _is_no_matter_ . All you have is
this vast gravity wave and you fools are running around looking for
"invisible atoms".
Clearly, this is a large scale gravity wave. Quit looking for
invisible atoms which dont exist.
It would make much more sense to look for subtle effects of
gravitational lensing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Cartwright" |
|
| Title: Re: Dark Energy |
02 Feb 2008 04:46:27 AM |
|
|
Michael J. Strickland wrote:
If the speed of light were higher in the past, using Lamda = c /f gives
a longer wavelength for light which is coming from far away (long ago).
Using today's lower value for c we would assume a lower original
wavelength and thus obtain a larger than actual red-shift measurement.
Red shift, schmed schmift. How would this explain the high-Z supernova
observations, which had to do with their light curves (changes in
luminosity over time) instead? I suppose as the light slowed down it
would have bunched up and you'd get shorter, brighter peaks from those
Type Ia supernovae. Problem is they got as-long-as-normal, brighter
peaks instead.
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and
death.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
