WHR

Acceleration is change in velocity The only way to measure that is to observe one supernova and collect data points over time for it. Or observe many and collect data for all in the same time intervals and compare. But comparing one to the other because of convenient skewing of redshift that fools our eyes is erroneous. We can only compare the data of RATE OF CHANGE for the redshifting of the individual superclusters as individuals and see if they are accelerating. The only proper way to really observe two superclusters in this way is from a known fixed location. That's the paradox. I will certainly do that when I get home, maybe this weekend. I have a 3 year old son and weekdays are usually pretty busy for me. But I have a better alternative to demonstrate what I am saying. I found that a regular size rubber band without much tension is about ten cm long. An English 12 inch ruler with a metric gradient is about 30 cm long. I stretched the rubber band with two dots on it (I could have drawn more but it wasn't needed) to about 25 cm. I held the rubber band firm at zero and stretched it against the ruler. But instead of focusing on the acceleration by stretching it out, I did it in reverse and observed the deceleration of the red dots that I drew.i stretched the band, then watched the red dot as the tension on the rubber band was relaxed at a steady rate. The dot on the rubber band appeared as a car slowing down by applying the brakes. The initial tension release caused an instantaneous deceleration. Or so things appear. However, the rubber band tension was released at a controlled rate.

I am going to watch the videos. I promise you. But as I described earlier, I do understand the difference between velocity and acceleration. In the rubber band example, I instantaneously stretch it. I am at rest, then I stretch it. My velocity is 0 at rest. As I pace off with the band and steady to a pace of one step per second I am no longer accelerating. I am moving at a velocity of 1 step per second. One step per second is a velocity. Wavelength is related to velocity when you are comparing two distant objects moving away from you. If you heard two trains moving away from you at different velocities you would hear their whistle at a different pitch (Hz) a school child can grasp this. If the two trains varied their acceleration/deceleration you would hear a wobble in the pitch. Maintaining a steady velocity would not have this effect. Two distant galaxiy clusters moving away from you and showing different redshifts (long waves vs white light) would Indicate that they have a different velocity. If a pattern emerges that this shift in velocity is getting longer as you expand outward radially from a central location, the obvious (but erroneous) conclusion would be that the entire universe is not only expanding but also accelerating. After all, why would any cluster further out consistently shine longer wavelengths in our direction than clusters further in?? It must be expansion at an accelerated rate right!! No wrong. Have you done the rubber band experiment? I just did a little while ago. Don't just watch one on YouTube. Do it yourself. Fix the end of the rubber band against a point that isn't moving then stretch the band and observe the dots without looking at the rubber band as a whole. The furthest dot appears to be accelerating (not moving at a constant velocity but rather changing velocity or accelerating) it appears to be doing so, and perhaps the dot itself IS. But the dot is not the rubber band. The rubber band when measured as a whole only doubles in length, then gets twice as long, then gets three times as long (as the original) as long as you stretch it at the same rate. It is not 1 2 4 8 16 32....it is 1 2 3 4 5 6. The first row of numbers if marched by you would be exponential. The second row is serial. Same concept applies. The rubber band would be expanding like the serial set, therefore it would not be accelerating. We are dealing with two types of acceleration here. One is accelerated growth (expansion) The other is accelerated velocity (relative motion) The galaxy superclusters have the appearance of accelerated velocity. It is a matter of perspective on wether or not this is actually the case, but I'm not going to debate that this would be the appearance. The observable universe however is not growing exponentially or at a rate that is >steady...Therefore it is not expanding at an accelerated rate. It will not double then quadruple in the same time intervals. It will grow at a consistent rate. It will double, then triple, then quadruple. The volume in three time intervals will only be four times as big as the original. This is a steady rate of growth and not consistent with expansion. Yet because we are looking at this from a point of view that needs to see the pattern in the elasticity of the spacetime inside the volume, we equate a visual parlor trick with accelerated expansion (growth at a higher rate than steady) its like trying to see a 3D world on a 2D screen. My waistline has accelerated the past few years. When I was a child it was steady. A little levity goes a long way I don't think you are quite getting that you are confirming what I am saying. You are measuring the dots on the rubber band and not TRULY seeing a change in velocity (acceleration). But if you are using the sensors that detect photons (your eyes) and fixing your reference point (one end of the rubberband) and pearing across the rubber band as you do this experiment, the ILLUSION is to make the furthest dot from your eyes APPEAR to be accelerating with respect to the nearer ones and all the intermediate steps inbetween. It would look like a drag strip car accelerating to a higher velocity from the starting location. It's an optical illusion. Telescopes, radiotelescopes, spectrum alalyzers are TRANSDUCERS. Well optical scopes not so much but the other two are. They tell us what our eyes can't see. They function as our eyes at different waelengths. But our brains analyze the data the same way our eyes would. We are seeing the same optical illusion with redshift data. Same thing!!!!

Actually without being combative about this because I certainly do not claim to have an authority answer or an alternate research database to cite...I disagree that the load does not model a perceived acceleration. I don't know any better way of showing this because I do not have CGI animation software, but it is pretty clear that if I were sitting aboard a raisin suspended in the loaf, and I made observations of distant raisins from my FIXED PERSPECTIVE, I would have the perception of the distant raisins accelerating away. This is because of the net effect when looking across an expanse in a straight line. If we just so happened to have a straight line of raisins (a little offset so that we could see all of them) the most distant one would offer a stunning show, it would appear to be zipping away at an accelerated rate. Each raisin as we move inward and closer and observed would appear to be a little slower than the last. This is due to space simultaneously filling the gaps. Observing one raisin nearby would only have the true steady velocity and not appear to be zipping away. But since the next raisin over FILLED UP THE INTERMEDIATE SPACE SIMULTANEOUSLY there would seem to be twice as much velocity. This would be a real phenomenon if the point of origin raisin were fixed and the rest of the universe were WORKING AGAINST IT like a brick wall. If I fix a runner band to a wall and stretch it out by walking at a pace of one step per second, this perfectly elastic band would stretch at the same rate (velocity) as my linear motion. However, a point drawn at the center of the rubber band would have the illusionary phenomenon of appearing to accelerate. Try it!!!!! It just takes a cheap rubber band. But you have to maintain the rate at which you stretch it. The overall expansion of the rubber band is constant. The dot appears to accelerate. We are judging the expansion of the universe (the rubber band) based on the perceived appearance of the dot (distant cluster). False logic. The Type 1a supernovae data is consistent with this parlor trick. If I had a radar gun inside the loaf of bread I wouldn't even need my eyes to be fooled by the photons.

I am at work using my iPhone. I will be happy to watch the videos at home. I can text but not watch videos. I trust they will explain what you are explaining and that I fully comprehend. I do not wish to ruffle feathers or upset anyone. I do understand that we can't go to the edge of the universe (observable) and take a picture. For one thing, if we could do that, there would no longer be an edge to the observable universe because it would be a fluid border. However we can use our minds to see that the concept of acceleration is flawed. You do not like the loaf model, I do not like the dark matter and energy Alice in Wonderland fudge factor model. Neither did Albert Einstein and he called it (cosmological constant) his greatest blunder. Perhaps his final word on the matter will be the one that is vindicated. Thank you all for an interesting conversation. I've failed to pry out the dog barking at his reflection problem but that's OK. I didn't have a night of insomnia for no good reason. I reconciled the issue in my own mind and that is the only one that really counts thanks again!!! Oh and to edit I will add thanks specifically for the links to videos, graphs, journals, etc. I do realize that it takes effort to discuss these things and bring data to the discussion.

He cannot do that. I did not say I don't like the bread loaf analogy. As a matter of fact it was crucial in me seeing the paradox. An accelerating expanding volume would by definition grow exponentially (or in some sort of compounding fashion) in volume. Picking two arbitrary points within the loaf that are all moving in relation to all the other points does not paint the picture completely, and in fact skews the picture. The only true way to analyze this problem is by baking the loaf and recording the expansion in real time, carefully measuring the gap between two reference raisins, checking the elapsed time, and then measuring the volume of the loaf in relation to its original size. This would be done with several data points. Clearly for every given d/t of seperation between two raisins, the loaf would double in volume. It is the relationship between two neighboring raisins that is key. There is no mechanism in the expanding loaf that would cause the velocity of two adjacent raisins to change. Go back to the two train model. They aren't accelerating away from one another, they are moving at the same velocity and their distance apart does not double, quadruple, etc per unit of time. It just steadily grows by the same amount. That is pure and simple math and logic. Both are moving but their movement is not a compounding or exponential. So what mechanism has been observed that would cause our local cluster to exponentially move in relation to our nearest neighbor? Has that been carefully documented and recorded? You see the raisin bread model does not require that the two adjoining raisins exponentially move apart or in a compounding fashion. They can move apart at a steady velocity. It is the net effect that the observer sees when studying distant raisins. It is an optical illusion that is dependent on freezing the raisin that is the observation point and taking geocentric measurements. That is TOTALLY FLAWED because no raisin is static just as our galaxy cluster is not static. Back your mind away and ignore your human tendency to focus on one point. Observe the Hubble volume as an alien would from a distance if he wasn't relying on photons with their unfortunate limiting characteristic of fooling the human mind. I have yet to bake a loaf of bread in my oven a few extra minutes and have the loaf fill up my oven or my house. The blind man would take physical measurements of the rate of growth of the volume as a whole rather than a perspective measurement. That is with a loaf of bread or any other suitable Expanding volume. He would use a timing system not dependent upon site (ticking clock) and take measurements in real time of adjacent raisin gap and total volume. This reminds me of the old math puzzle where the farm hand comes upon a farmer seeking help and offers his assistance. He tells the farmer he will work for him at a salary of a penny for the first day of work, 2 pennies the second day, 4 pennies the third, 8 pennies the fourth day, doubling the rate every day for a month. The farmer happily agrees failing to do the math. At the end of the month the farmer owes the farm hand a million dollars. With a loaf of raisin bread rising, the gap difference is a steady velocity and this is clearly visible. Raisin A will be one inch from raisin B in one minute, two inches in two minutes, 3 inches in three minutes. There is no mechanism for acceleration between two adjacent raisins. And as far as I know, there has been no observation of acceleration between two adjacent clusters. This would be more like working for the farmer at a rate of one penny the first day, two pennies the second day, 3 pennies the third day, 4 pennies the 5th day. The farmhand would be the fool in this case and not the farmer. He'd barely clear a couple of dollars (without working the exact math out) in a month. Does this puzzle more clearly illustrate the issue????

I will watch tonight. However here are some issues I am having: Nobel Prize....it's a prize. It's a prize for a significant achievement in science. If this achievement is based on a false assumption based on a skewed perception that is not in keeping with reality, then it is not "holy scripture". Citing their Nobel prize is an appeal to authority not only to the winners, but to the entire scientific community that bestowed it. I can't directly point to this, but if I get time I will research it, but I think it's safe to assume that some Nobel prize winning work in the annals of history has been reevaluated based on new data and observations and the original thesis of the work has at least been revised to fit the new observations (making it flawed in its original form by definition). I would think Hubble won a Nobel prize but I'm not sure. His original observations did not push the idea of acceleration, only expansion. Did the guy who discovered Pluto and named it a planet win a Nobel in Astronomy? I bet he did. 2) The guys who won the Nobel for this OBVIOUSLY overlooked the paradox or else they would not have won the Nobel nor would they have asserted a skewed conclusion. 3) I'm not really speculating about the paradox. I'm challenging a skewed perception. I'm not proposing a new paradigm. I'm just pointing out the skewed perception. I don't think I can explain it in any greater depth. 4) if you can resolve the issue of RATE OF CHANGE of REDSHIFT, which is the core piece of the puzzle, and then get back with me, we can have a fruitful dialogue. It is beginning to look like people are afraid of tackling this problem and deferring to authorities rather than giving it serious reflection. My Internet research has proven that this very real issue with the concept has not been properly addressed. I was challenged on my understanding of acceleration by this AGC52 fellow and I think I handily dismissed his strawman with facts. I have pointed out how 1) redshift is an indication of velocity 2) two bodies that are redshifting at different wavelengths from some undefined perspective can give a false impression of acceleration when the issue of the perspective is not accounted for and by its nature causes a skewed reality 3) I am going to add further detail, but the misunderstanding that is obvious to me is the failure to recognize what accelerated EXPANSION means, and given a false perspective as demonstrated by the paradox, it is obvious that expansion is not being analyzed by the following matrix: Expansion in space is an increase in volume. To accelerate expansion would be to increase the rate at which the expansion is occurring over time. This means a volume of one cubic feet would be two cubic feet within one second, four cubic feet in two seconds etc if steady expansion is observed. It would be some value of volume increase MORE than this rate by ever increasing degrees if acceleration were the case. By analyzing redshift data geocentrically and failing to account for our own clusters dynamics of movement, we are falsely seeing an illusion that gives the impression of an increased rate of expansion. This is addressed by the paradox. We have to slam on the brakes of our own cluster to see accelerated expansion. If we view the "raisin bread loaf" from an unfocused perspective and simply measure the volume that such a beast grows to in time intervals to confirm that for every doubling of distance between individual clusters we get a doubling of volume (as would be the case with the loaf) then we'd see that the rate of expansion is in fact NOT accelerating but rather a steady velocity. Thanks for commenting. I hope you read my words carefully and attempt to understand the complexity of the paradox rather than dismiss it. Edit:: Let's solve this riddle with a blindfold on, in this case it would not be a bad thing to be blind. That way the pesky photon would not be leading us astray. A blind man can measure something quite efficiently without the aid of electromagnetic waves.

Acceleration is simple. If I have to explain this again I will. Acceleration is change in velocity. Velocity is the rate that an object is moving. If I am walking to my car at a rate of 3 feet per second, that is my velocity. If I choose to double my velocity, I am accelerating. At some point I can allow my velocity to settle back to a steady rate. I'm driving my car at 30 mph. I decide to *accelerate*, and then I steady my speed at 60 mph. If the universe was proven to be expanding at a steady rate, we would not be concerned with acceleration. We would just figure the velocity and be happy. If the universe proved to be accelerating, we'd find by inference a velocity at some point in the past, compare it to the velocity of the present , and determine the rate of change. That is acceleration. However, with a skewed perception based on the loaf of bread gobbledygook concept that lets gullible people with a skewed perception of reality to think that the furthest raisin is REALLY accelerating away when it is only an optical illusion, we can't have a logical conversation. I stated at the beginning of the thread that if you are not willing to present evidence that the rate of change of redshift, (ah another way of saying acceleration!!!!!!) was adequately accommodated in the data, then don't even bother. It seems to me that it is actually you who have the concepts of velocity and acceleration confused. You are taking redshift data which is only reliable as a measurement of velocity and calling it acceleration based on the skewed perception. The skewed perception that neglects to account for the fact that the observer is moving. It is extremely easy to demonstrate with simple ideas that a universe expanding at a steady rate can give the illusion of acceleration. Redshift is just an indicator of velocity if you can understand that the galaxy two rows over is not changing its velocity, that no galaxy is actually changing its velocity, that the galaxy 1000 rows over isn't changing it's velocity. But a neat parlor trick illusion occurs when you tell one galaxy to put on the brakes and stop. You freeze one galaxy (US) and the rest all of a sudden start acting goofy. But we aren't frozen. We are traveling at the same velocity as the rest toward an indeterminate location. So it's gobbledygook. Btw I said "galaxy" in haste...I meant cluster. And evidently you aren't smart enough for your cookie so I'll eat it. You disappointed me. Denial of modern cosmology=challenge of a modern cosmological model flaw Ignorance of modern cosmology=thinking for myself and not allowing a detail to slip past me without careful consideration. Alright I ate the cookie so it is too late for Mr Wizard to get a shot at the mirror paradox. If I had no knowledge of the function of mirrors, having never seen one, I would not be familiar with my own reflection. I would not know what my twin would look like. But I am a primate. Primates are curious. Even if I was in a straight jacket, The reflection would catch my eye from a distance and I would work out what I was seeing (eventually) if I was reasonably intelligent. Or possibly, I would imagine a mocking person in the mirror, eternally standing and pantomiming my every move. Actually I might be inclined to think that a human, whose nature is to find a bias to cling to, would eventually go mad with rage at the insolent jerk mocking him instead of stepping away from his perceptions and work the problem completely through. Or he may be like us with this cosmology issue. The equivalent to this is a dog seeing his reflection in the mirror. He doesn't even think that he is being mocked. He just sees another dog and barks until frustration and exhaustion take over. Even a dog with the ability to paw at his reflection will often bark and growl. Until he eventually gets frustrated and simply used to the reflection. Eventually he will learn to ignore it. I think we're acting more like the dog because we are ignoring something instead of analyzing it to its logical conclusion.

Which telescope measured the Hubble constant 6.7 billion years ago and 7 billion years ago? Was it on Pangea somewhere? Also, when did constants stop being constant? Are we rewriting definitions of the word constant too? I know you are going to answer my telescope question with gobbledygook about observations at far points in the known universe that indicate such and such and XYZ. But as I have demonstrated the methodology by definition has a flaw of skewed perception. We are imagining the universe's expansion rate from an impossible fixed perspective. That perspective by definition is a skewed reality. If you were presented with a mirror and had never seen one before and were not allowed to touch it or get close enough to inspect it, or we're not able to move in relation to it in any direction to have any perspective, but saw your reflection, you would conclude by the photons hitting the light sensors in your eyes that you were seeing your twin (another paradox is in my own mirror metaphor... if you are smart enough to point it out to me I'll give you a cookie). You are still ignoring the problem of rate of change of redshift and are not pointing to data that takes it into consideration.

I am unaware of you being in the room with me to ascertain such an assumption. About me not looking. I highlighted in bold your confirmation of my paradox. I will explain the paradox once more. After the explanation is made, AGC52 I welcome your specific rebuttal in context of the paradox and the issue of rate of change of redshift. In full awareness that the current mainstream concept of the expanding universe says that all galactic clusters are moving away from one another, including our own neighboring cluster. That space is increasing between each cluster with respect to every other cluster.. It is understood that the net effect of this, when any cluster is chosen as a candidate from which to observe (in the case of our cluster literally, and from another cluster using mathematical models)...the observational effect is that the further out from a specific cluster of choice from which to observe you gaze with your instrumentation, the more the mass of other clusters redshift. A longer wavelength redshift associated proportional with Distance. Simple concept. The raisin bread model is in my opinion the most clever model of this concept, but requires a little more effort of thought than the balloon or elastic band models. This is because it is 3D and more accurately portrays space. Space is not after all flat, or on the surface of a bubble. If someone is claiming otherwise I would ask for the phone number of their dope peddler. (joke) As I stated earlier, if the raisin bread rising in the oven is analyzed from the proper perspective, the gap between each adjacent raisin in 360x360 degrees of 3D observation will be hypothetically equal in rate of expansion. Redshift from raisin X which sits below raisin Y would be the same as raisin A which sits right above raisin B on the other side of the loaf. But if an observer at raisin Y peers across the entiret loaf at raisin A, raisin A would appear to be accelerating away much faster than raisin X. This is a net effect of all the added space between each and every raisin as the yeast rises. Since the raisins are all moving, ALL moving emphasized, from the perspective of our host raisin it would APPEAR as AGC 52 aptly points out that the furtherest raisin (A) is continually accelerating due to redshift. This is explained by models with the concept of two trains speeding away from one another. The combined speed of the two trains would double their distance per unit of time with respect to the distance a single train would traverse. We imagine the trains approaching NET light speed and then the doppler shift would become so great as to electromagnetically cause the trains to APPEAR to disappear. That is a good example of how appearance is not a good observational foundation because we all know that neither train really vanished. Their mass is still there. Someone moving beside one of the trains would not see that train vanish. Its an optical illusion sort of like a mirror. We do not walk by a mirror and gaze in astonishment at our long lost twin standing before us. So if an observation can skew our perception of reality because of the inconvenient little limitation of the photon, as the train model does, then we can explore other ways that our reality perception can be skewed. As I described earlier, the only satisfactory model of the train paradigm would be a magical way of making 3 (or more!!!) trains all move away from one another in space equidistant with respect to the other trains. Unfortunately there is no way to set up any kind of experiment like this without forcing one train to be stationary. The math won't work. But a stationary train defies the model. All trains must move. MUST. Revisiting the raisin loaf. The outside observer clearly sees that the loaf expands at a consistent rate. In time intervals, the distance between raisin x and raisin Y doubles every minute. (hypothetically) It does not grow exponentially. This is inconsistent with an acceleration. There is no mechanism for causing the space between two adjacent raisins to add space between them at a rate that is not consistent. However, when I peer across the first raisin to the one next to it, from my vantage point on my raisin, WITH THE CONDITION that I consider MY RAISIN from a stationary point (because I have no reliable reference point) that next raisin over would APPEAR to be moving twice as fast as the adjacent. The net effect. No rocket science. But just like the problem of the stationary train in the 3 train model, we have a skewed perception. In reality, the breadth of the distance traveled by the "two end" raisins in the 3 raisins has doubled in the given time interval at the same rate that the Distance between two adjacent raisins has doubled. We must analyze RATE OF CHANGE of REDSHIFT to ascertain a true model of the expansion paradigm. Nothing else is intellectually honest or objective. I would edit to add that the only true "cosmological constant" is the speed of the photon. Unfortunately the photon is only useful for sensation, in this case, not true, honest, critical analytical reasoning. I have a simple way to analyze this experimentally and I will do so this weekend. Though I'm not sure it is 100% adequate because it's a 2D experiment rather than 3D. I will take a balloon and inflate it partially. I will draw a number of dots around the balloon equatorially. I will make them equidistant and measure the distance between each one. I will inflate the balloon so that the space between dots doubles in distance. I will take two measurements of the circumference of the balloon at the equator, before and after. My prediction is that the balloon will have doubled in circumference. The growth will not be exponential and I won't see dots fly off at the speed of light ;-) I'm really and truly dumbfounded at how few critical thinkers there must be left in this world. We all line up at the local cell phone store to get the latest gadget that the miracles of science have brought us, but we do not take the time to FULLY comprehend the technology, most of us not even at a cursory level. I googled the terms balloon circumference redshift, I added experiment to see if it added a significant hit. All I could find was children's science fair "Mr Wizard" style Instructions for demonstrations of the accelerating universe concept. I see no mention of anyone actually measuring the circumference of the balloon in a controlled experiment with defined perimeters (I.e. the distance between dots on the balloon measured at intervals and checked against the total circumference. I will still perform this experiment this weekend after I purchase a few balloons. I will document it with photographs. But I did a satisfactory experiment just now with simple measuring tape. I pulled out ten inches of tape. For every inch marker, to simulate a doubling between each inch marker, I pulled out another inch of tape. Since there were ten inch markers to start out, I pulled out ten more inches of tape to accommodate each inch marker "doubling" to two inches. A ten year old child could have predicted that I would have twenty inches of tape. I doubled the space between "inch clusters", all the known inch clusters in my ten inch universe, and I got a universe that was twice as big. Then I thought about what it must have been like for the zero inch tick mark to see almost instantaneously the ten inch universe become 20 inches long, yet the cluster designated as "cluster one inch" only moved an inch further. How fast "cluster 20 inch" must have seemed to be flying away from the perspective of zero. But still the fact remains, the universe as a whole only expanded at the same rate that the individual inches expanded. There was no acceleration.

Alpha2cen, I will leave your question to someone who has more knowledge about the issue of HOW the data is collected and analyzed in the context of rate of change, or how rate of change might be accounted for by various methods. I will concede that I do not have access to the equipment not the resources to conduct my own study...but perhaps when someone comes along who clearly recognizes the paradox and has the unbiased ability to address it, perhaps they can explain an answer to your question.

Your explanation of type 1a supernovae is something that I've read about and seen documentaries touching upon. I do understand that they are good reliable bodies with theoretically predictable behavior from which observational data can be ascertained with a degree of confidence. I certainly do not disbelieve that we have observed this and I will further research available information. Thanks for the graph!!!! Also thank you for applying critical thought to the conundrum rather than appealing to authority. My apologies I was replying to AGC52 not you.

As a matter of fact, the CORE problem that my paradox addresses is the reality that all space is expanding in all directions. This is why I've pointed out that a 3 train model of this expansion can't adequately address it. This is the conflict with the 2 train model of bodies accelerating away from each other and the 3 (or more) cluster model of raisin bread, elastic etc. I hope you do not embarrass yourself by not having a grasp of this paradox.

Appeal to authority. Does not address my paradox. The problem is rate of change of acceleration. This is entirely in keeping with space being created between non gravitationally bound bodies. You are not addressing the issue and are apparently overestimating your own understanding of the issue. Please specifically address the issue of rate of change of redshift with observational data that squares or accounts for it.

AGC52, I am afraid you have not even expended any energy in careful consideration of the issue that I have summarized. I may not be a genius, nor am I a cosmologist, but I am a man of high intellect. I may play around with speculation on imaginative ideas just for the pleasure, but in this case I am not presenting imagination. I am presenting a paradox in the way the data has been modeled. It is seriously flawed because it uses skewed perception imbedded in the evidence. This skewed perception must be filtered and the evidence analyzed in the face of it. I am not in any doubt whatsoever that the concept had overlooked this. In fact, already after only a day of discussion, a Google search on "rate of change of redshift" brings this forum topic to within a page or two of the top Google hits. I challenge your very objectivity if you cannot see that rate of change of redshift would be an important dynamic to consider, and if this technicality has not been addressed, which is obvious by the results of a Google search, then it is conclusive that the need for such data has either been 1) neglected 2) not considered by oversight 3) considered but ignored due to laziness, embarrassment, or lack of technique but over investment in the current model. I hope the last one is not true because it would be a condemnable thing to neglect this important aspect intentionally or simply because we "can't yet". THE research paper does not address the issue of rate of change of redshift so it is irrelevant to this discussion. Oh BTW I specifically asked that anyone posting on this thread present evidence that contradicts the paradox with supporting evidence that rate of change of redshift has been filtered from the underlying data as to make the data faultless. You have failed to do so. Therefore, I really do not care if you are going to try to convince me. That is not your job anyway. If you wish to address the paradox however you are more than welcome to add to the discussion with such commentary.

To specifically address AGC52's question "what evidence would be irrefutable"... Unfortunately, I do not think that we have the technogy to detect with any accuracy in a time frame that is palpable for impatient human beings evidence for rate of change of redshift with any resolution that is acceptable or conclusive, so further study of red shift that is geared toward that goal (resolving rate of change of redshift) would be appropriate. But such study would bear fruit regardless of your pet theory of choice. It would resolve the puzzle of steady expansion and even possibly the possibility of deceleration. In fact, the more I consider this, an overall tendency for steady state is not out of the question given the paradox. As I have demonstrated with my puzzle/paradox, the only redshift data that offers anything conclusive would be the redshift of nearby clusters. And by nearby I mean our next door neighbors, not the ones "3 blocks away". The skewing of our perception would become obvious very quickly. If we are not able to use redshift for anything of much value past a few neighbors, then I contend the movement of clusters in out little nook of the cosmos could be peculiar to our little area and not typical. Sort of like how the Earth has this very special, almost unconceivabley perfect and convenient relationship with the moon that keeps one side of the moon facing us, a perfect tilt to allow for seasons, and a perfect Goldielocks position in relation to the sun. So while our nearby clusters are very slightly drifting apart, clusters very distant may be slightly drifting together but the skewed redshift evidence hides it. Now I will admit that this goes into speculation, but it is just an example of why pursuit of "rate of change of redshift" is a worthwhile endeavor. It would uncover this puzzle. A research paper is usually published in a peer reviewed journal when it is given credence. Therefore I would not parse words. You have not addressed my paradox and instead pointed to data that clearly does not take into account rate of change of redshift. Unless you can refute this your reply will be dismissed.

With all due respect, this is not logical. If what you are saying is true, then I implore mainstream cosmology to explore all the speculation threads in this forum. Any idea proposed is to be explored. Ok that may be an extreme example, but what I am saying is that clearly I have shown the paradox of the idea. I dare say that I've worded the puzzle in such a way as to show that is almost NONSENSICAL to consider expansion. It seems like a idea that had a lot of hot support way too prematurely and nobody slowed it down, and to reverse now would be a bit of an embarrassment. I would suggest that if there is a fraction of merit in it, perhaps pursue it as a secondary model...if the logic of the paradox doesn't convince you otherwise. I have no problem with that. However I do have a problem with an illogical idea detracting from the more logical ones. As I said its like an extra fuel pump that is not connected to anything and wasting precious fuel. Oh btw, you have not refuted my puzzle, you just linked to a journal piece. I will look at it when I get time, but if you can't explain how it refutes my assertion in your own words I don't know if it is worthwhile.

I look forward to fruitful discussions later. I guess the aspect of this that I find particularly important is essentially that the acceleration concept seems to be an extra puzzle piece in the pile of pieces that makes a solution impossible. Like having two fuel pumps in your car, one leading to nowhere and wasting half your fuel. Without a really logical irrefutable piece of evidence, it's a completely futile waste of energy to pursue the concept. IMHO

Can I assume JMJones that you are one who also questions the assumptions of accelerated expansion? If the redshift is less for more distant 1a supernova than for closer ones, that would indicate deceleration in my mind but perhaps I'm not following. Thanks for the graph I will study it later. Oh and more importantly, thank you for appreciating the thought process of my post. As I came up with these problems, I assumed that others may have asked this question (though I may have highlighted the paradox of the trains in a way that is useful!!) But I find it troublesome that I haven't found any authoritative discussions oT blogs that have actually brought it to light. That's a little bothersome.

No less than 100 years isn't enough. but I disagree that we should accept guesswork when we are talking about one of the pinnacle of scientific questions. Well honestly I have to admit this. It may be one of the highest hanging fruits in science, but it is probably the least nutritious fruit (meaning that the answer is really only a quest of knowledge for knowledge's sake and doesn't further humanity) so as truly unimportant as the answer to our greater riddle is, it isn't truly important and imaginary guesswork is OK (I guess). Hell no I don't agree. Knowledge is knowledge and if we are going to be aggressive about questioning assumptions in science we need to be absolutely critical of every minutia. I realize that this post doesn't disprove dark matter/energy or acceleration. But if it does warrant further thought it could: 1) save millions perhaps billions of dollars in wasted research and redirect it toward a more realistic theory 2) teach young scientists the value of critical thinking and questioning even peer reviewed mainstream science. 3) get us potentially on a different track about the origins of the universe itself and it's age. Expansion would still be indicated, and the big bang might be reinforced. But the big crunch as our ultimate fate, which makes the most sense, would be back on the table. Or other mechanisms might be sought that even get us back to a more or less steady state eternal universe, though the present evidence would certainly not point to that. I don't accept the idea of all that guesswork. Not at all. There are too many things at stake, too much philosophy.

I posted this in Speculation because I know it will end up here anyway. But that's fine! I'm a speculator. But this thread will be an exercise in logic as much as speculation. I think I might even present a puzzle that some on here will enjoy resolving (if possible). This is a "wall of text" but for the entire picture to be painted, it required the entire canvas and spectrum of colors that I could muster. I am going to submit a question to the able minded and more thoroughly researched individuals of this forum. The question is, is there published observational data that shows THE RATE OF CHANGE of REDSHIfTING GALAXY CLUSTERS? If you are believers in science, you know that bias is bad. Therefore, when reading this question and my conceptualizations it is imperative that you not let the bias of your opinion of ME the questioner effect your answer or analysis. Let the question and the postulations stand on their own merit. I genuinely humbly submit this question and postulation. But I don't want links to websites as answers UNLESS the entire question and postulations that I am presenting are resolved by the website. Not bits and pieces of various data that doesn't specifically address this thread in its entirety. If the links to a website has data that is being cited in support of YOUR completely worked out answer that is OK, however, If you don't feel compelled to answer in your own words with your own thoughts, then please ignore this thread and move on. The acceleration of the expanding universe is being supported with redshift data. Galaxy clusters that are known to be far from us have a redshift. I'm a radio hobbyist so I do have a thorough understanding of wavelengths. So we observe that the wavelength of the galaxy clusters that are 2x the distance of the galaxy clusters that are (x) distance have a proportionally longer wavelength on the EM spectrum. This is cited as evidence of not only expansion but also acceleration. Our minds would need to have data showing roughly equivalent redshifts everywhere we look to conclude that the expansion was a steady phenomenon overall. One thing that can be determined with some certainty is that the known universe is expanding. It is the acceleration phenomenon that trips up some of us and causes pause for further careful thought. We are presented the balloon, elastic band, loaf of raisin bread, *insert your pet model here* model and the logic is hard to debate. I indeed can see myself at point A, a galaxy cluster at distance X and another galaxy cluster at distance 2X and visualize that 2X seems to be accelerating. This defies logic, but when we consider that our location at point A is not static then it makes perfect sense. This brings out the two train model with two trains speeding away from each other. HOWEVER the train model is flawed and can't be properly used. The 3 galaxy cluster model is a 3 point model. The train is a 2 point model. For the train model to be proper, we must have 3 trains somehow interacting. That would be hard to imagine. We could have ourselves aboard a train moving at speed X, a train moving in the opposite direction at speed 2X, and another moving in the same direction as the second train at 4X But that can't fit because the observation of the second train with respect to the third train is not under the same observational conditions as our train moving at speed X in the opposite direction. The flaw is that both observed trains are moving in the same direction and we are moving in the opposite aboard our train. So that nifty Einsteinian concept of the two trains moving in opposite directions at the speed of light etc etc can't be applied. So the solution to having a 3 point model would be to have our train stationary. Train 2 would be going speed X. We would need for train 3 to be traveling at speed 2X. Ok that fits. We have accelerated expansion. But wait, no we don't. Train 3 is accelerating with respect to train 2. Certainly train 3 will leave train 2 in the dust given enough time. And certainly from our perspective on stationary train one, we would see this. Yet, neither train is actually accelerating. Both trains are traveling at a constant speed. Let's say 50 mph and 100 mph. If both blew their whistle, the pitch for the 50 mph train would be higher than the 100 mph train. There would be a Doppler shift. Without question. But to claim acceleration, we would have to take measurements in intervals and see if train 2 is now moving at 100 mph and train 3 is now moving at 200 mph. 200 and 400, 400 and 800 infinitum. The problem with this model is that we are stationary. We are thinking geocentrically. We'd really prefer in our scientific minds a way to have all 3 trains moving simultaneously in a way that replicates the 2 train model. I had insomnia last night trying to come up with such a beast and came up empty. If you have one, here is your chance!!! After my night of insomnia, I came to a stark realization. The only way to analyze (with objectivity and honesty) the idea of an accelerating universe is to produce observational data that measures REDSSHIFT RATE OF CHANGE with respect to all observable clusters and each other. I concluded that the problem with geocentric analysis of redshift is that it skews perception. We can't be geocentric minded because logic would dictate that our local cluster is not fixed. It is moving away from all the observable clusters just as the observable clusters are moving away from us and each other. The raisin bread concept does in fact work. But you can't analyze the loaf from the center. You can't analyze the loaf from the outside by focusing on an individual raisin or from the perspective of the raisin. You have to analyze the loaf as a whole. Your eyes can't focus. I'm also an artist. I know that a key concept in art is to create a center of attention and work outward with the painting conceptualization. De Vinci was a master at this, the Last Supper is a good example. It is difficult to look at anything without focusing on something then working outward from the focal point. The absolute key of resolving this conundrum is to accept that the only way to analyze the universe with honesty is studying the behavior of any two given galaxy clusters with respect to **each other**, and to totally exclude our own galaxy cluster from the problem. Because we are moving too, in an impossible to determine direction (because we lack any kind of stable reference point), our perspective by definition is skewed. Our redshift data is only applicable to the **nearest** galaxy cluster (the two train model). All other data is essentially meaningless with **one exception.**. It does offer a good explanation for why there is an observable horizon to the edge of the universe as we know it. I will agree that the net effect is to have those galaxy clusters on the cusp approaching the equivalent of light speed, and those beyond are *at* or beyond "warp", causing the wavelength of their EM emissions to essentially be "negative", or put another way, their EM emission is too slow and following them outward. Science has used observational principles to explain something and that is good!!! But the reality of our limitations also creates problems that by definition hinders our ability to do certain things that we badly want to do. We cannot analyze the nature of the edge of the observable universe with honest objectivity and declare that we can approximate the age. We therefore cannot calculate how long ago the Big Bang happened. We also must accept that understanding what lies beyond the reaches of that edge is an excercise of the imagination. We might follow a principle that says that physical laws are the same everywhere and we may be right. But we also must accept that this is something that requires a certain degree of faith or assumption. The end conclusion is the same. It is required that we admit that we don't know and may never know. As far as I can see, my assertions do not violate any of Einsteins or Newtons postulates or laws or theories. They may violate the speculations of the mainstream, but this is simply a challenge not a declaration I am making. The concept of spacetime may still hold up, gravitational waves, all of it. I'm not challenging those ideas. I'm challenging the interpretation of Hubble's observations and the observations that were published in 1998 that led to all the dark matter and energy hubbalaloo. I'm challenging the concept of acceleration. I googled the terms "rate of change redshift" and I did not find any meaningful scientific query about this. I did find that some other people have considered this however. One assertion that I will make is that fundamental principles dictate that rate of change MUST be a consideration. But here is the problem with that. Humans are waaaaay too impatient for declarations of scientific knowledge to wait the hundreds of years that are required for such an exhaustive and comprehensive study. I did find this link where an author of science fiction had done some thinking (as any good science fiction writer would have to do!) and he has blogged about this same conundrum and reached the same conclusion: http://alien-log.blogspot.com/2011/07/evidence-that-universe-is-not-expanding.html?m=1 This fellow is obviously a fan of UFO related ideas. I don't believe this qualifies him as a quack. If he was a Bigfoot or Loch Ness fiend I might have some trouble. Many respected SETI scientists are UFO connoisseurs. Yes it's on the blurred edge between science and pseudoscience, but his perspective as a sci-fi author, I think, who undoubtedly has studied and keeps up with the mainstream for authenticity in his writing, would be well versed...and his narrative in this blog offers clever insight into the idea of skewed perception. He also cites data about redshift observation of clusters since the 50s that says that no rate of change has been resolved better than the 4th decimal place, and that more recent observations have data to the 6th decimal place but they are inconclusive and indicate a trend of deceleration. Last contention and point of understanding. I think the problem here that may never be resolvable is that for our theories to really hold water, we need redshift data FROM the *perspective* of other clusters, and we can only use the redshift of those clusters in relation to their nearest neighbor. In practice Impossible!! The alternative is to ditch redshift as anything other than affirmation of expansion in general, and seek a better method of measuring the speed that individual clusters at distances are traveling from each other that is independent of our own skewed perspective. An absolute must. This requires data points collected over time, to determine rate of change. This is going to require patience. We ought to muster that patience and go back to the drawing board. After all, no technology is going to get us to the edge of the observable universe to take pictures. I invite anyone and everyone to discuss this and refute me. But I will be reading your replies with a critical eye for dogma. If any mainstream principle logically topples my assertions, and it doesn't require leaps of faith coupled with unsubstantiated assumptions, then you will have solved a riddle for me.

I do appreciate when someone goes at length to try to convince me of something. But I have more faith in my own worldview. Took 40 years to get here. Conception was tongue in cheek. Of course I have to pay my taxes, utility bills, hold down a career to feed my family. All conformities. I didn't actually say I was a nonconformist. Those are all practical things that my survival depends on. I just reject ideaologies. They are all hidden methods to enslave you. Not in the literal sense. Maybe tame you is a better word. Fill that void that we all have.

If I were a pitchman for a product on a TV advertisement, I would appeal to your beliefs about what you need to have in your life. I might use terms like "the latest craze", "act now supplies are limited" etc to convince you to buy my product. For a scientist presenting a lecture or speaking before a camera, or writing a book it is imperative that he use convincing language. This has been particularly true historically in western culture that tends to be majority religious. The scientist must overcome the prejudice of religion. This means he must make claims that are authoritative. One of my favorite phrases is "It turns out that-----". One might hear a scientist say, "It turns out that the laws of physics are universal and apply everywhere". It turns out is a statement of confirmation. Not an unanswered question but a rigid Cause and effect. One documentary series that I enjoyed watching was "The Universe". It's on Netflix. If I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say, "It turns out" I'd at least have money for Expensive dinner and a movie

Honestly, the alternative is to say "we don't know with any level of confidence". Maybe even publish this in textbooks and teach it to children from an early age so that they aren't governed by absolute thinking. Actually, I have heard it said that it MUST be true many times. Many many times.

Assumptions are what drive modern Mainstream science. Not all assumptions need be false, but invariably some will be. We know that within the boundaries of the observable universe, everything pretty much acts according to laws that a certain species of primates on a little blue ball has marveled at figuring out. But what compels us to believe this MUST be true elsewhere? I grant that without being able to observe anything else, it's all we have. However, if I had been born in a prison cell and been fed beans and rice all my life by an unknown prison keeper,, I might believe that beans and rice were the only available foods, that I and my prisoner were the only people, and that if other people existed, they must also live in prison cells and have a prison keeper. This reminds me of the interesting story of Kasper Hauser http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser An ant living in confines of a geographical area and with his colony would have a limited worldview. He may be surprised to know that some places in the world have snow, and that building an anthill is impossible. He may be shocked to know that some places have an abundance of sand for anthill construction. He might be very shocked at how different everything is. Even grains of minerals in a geological strata, if they were animate, might be shocked at other species of minerals that exist in strata that it would not have the ability to interact. There are a lot of completely logical examples that say that what happens here need not be the rule there. This is particularly true if you assume an infinity big universe. Let the "you haven't got a clue" comments begin.

I have a better question. You are handed an electronic device that was designed and manufactured on a planet around Alpha Centauri. Assuming that most civilizations would arrive at the same fundamental principles...determine the operation of the circuit, the power required for its operation, and the normal operating impedance of all devices. I contend that accurate measurement techniques would be essential, one component at a time would have to be analyzed. If some components are assumed to be resistors, we can't know the resistance value based on a stamp or color code. We have to determine it with a meter of some sort. Once it is determined, you would have reasonable confidence that it's a stable, predictable value. I do not contend that a resistor laying on a table doesn't have predictable characteristics. If not, tolerances couldn't be claimed, power dissipation couldn't be trusted, operating temperature couldn't be predicted. This value would not be open circuit (infinity) or shorted (0)....But look, even that terminology tells you something. If you place a single resistor in a circuit as the load without other devices, and measure the voltage across it, you will read the applied voltage wether the resistor is faulty and open or operational and 100, 200, 2k, or 5meg. We can't determine the resistance without knowing the current. If we add another resistance in series we can measure the voltage drops, and assuming the value of our reference resistor is accurate as predicted, we can with confidence work out the other resistors value. The exception to the above rule would be a shorted resistor. Assuming such a device could withstand the power that it would be subject to, the voltage drop across it would be below supply voltage and in an ideal short would be a zero voltage drop. Essentially that means that there is no differential between the terminals of the supply when a short is between them. The differential instantaneously tries to correct itself. Maybe a little off the topic but so has the entire thread I actually do have a brain teaser. Lets drop the resistor stuff and have fun. I have a diesel powered generator with a full tank. The engine is set to idle At 3600 rpm, it has a rotor connected to a magnet of known strength and dimensions within a coil with single phase configuration. Just sitting there cold and collecting dust in my garage, does the generator have voltage? All the variables are known, the specifications are set, even frequency.