Did Hubble can it wrong?

[little_monkey]

[Anomalocaris]

The link is no good.

[popeyespappy]

[Aoi Magi]

The link is no good.

The link works, just delete the comma ',' at the end.

[Surgenator]

[Minimalist]

Joe is a poster over at AF.com.

[little_monkey]

[Surgenator]

This blog is ignoring all the supporting evidence for the hubble constant and the expansion of the universe that has nothing to do with shifts in wavelenth. Link

The Hubble is constant in regard to space, it is not in regard to time. In most books you will see the Hubble denoted as H(t), to signify its dependency on time.

Yes, the hubble constant does have a time dependence.

Secondly, the expansion of the universe has everything to do with redshifts.

You misunderstood me. I said there is evidence to support the the hubble constant that is independent of the wavelength shift, i.e. paralax, standard candles, etc... I was NOT saying that the universe is not expanding nor the redshifts are unrelated.

[vorlon13]

Keeping in mind the redshift/distance relationship correlates well with changes we see in the morphology of increasingly dimmer galaxies, and that supernovae seen further and further out also correlates along with a relationship between angular size and areal brightness, I'm calling BS on the OP.

The Hubble Space Telescope has dramatically increased the 'depth' we can probe the universe out to, and nothing seen in the original Hubble Deep Field and the subsequent 'ultra' Deep Field has contradicted anything Humason, Hubble etal worked out decades ago.

Astronomers can also gain 'depth' by utilizing intervening galaxies to enlarge detail and brightness of vastly more distant objects too, nothing in those observations suggests the OP is on to anything significant.

[little_monkey]

[quote='little_monkey' pid='787619' dateline='1414875075']

Secondly, the expansion of the universe has everything to do with redshifts.

You misunderstood me. I said there is evidence to support the the hubble constant that is independent of the wavelength shift, i.e. paralax, standard candles, etc... I was NOT saying that the universe is not expanding nor the redshifts are unrelated.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Yes, if we go through the route of parallax, standard candles, etc... we get that the universe is accelerating. If you read my blog carefully, the point I'm making is that this acceleration can be derived theoretically strictly from GR - that the observation through the route of parallax, standard candles, etc confirms that is obviously a good thing otherwise GR is in trouble. So you've got two pictures: one is that the universe is expanding, labelled that the Doppler Effect; the other is that the universe is not expanding, but the photon still exhibit a redshift due to the fact they are moving against gravity. On first appearance, these two pictures seem to contradict each other, but Einstein Equivalent Principle says they are equivalent -- you can trade one with the other, the equations describing them are the same.