Subject: $100 reward
From: "Minor Crank"
Date: 9/7/03 10:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id: sZG6b.284689$Oz4.74870@rwcrnsc54

"Dwhig265" wrote in message
...

DWH says: Ned Wright clearly showed on his website that z = 1.5 was 150%
light
speed.

You are compounding your extreme ignorance with extreme arrogance. I am
quite familiar with Ned Wright's FAQ site and you are being evasive by
refusing to provide a relevant reference or link in a futile attempt to back
up your misunderstandings.

Please read over the following pages by David Hogg concerning Distance
Measures in Cosmology.
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level..._contents.html

An interesting comment from these pages:
"(It is very important to note that galaxy redshift surveys, when presenting
redshifts as radial velocities, always use the non-relativistic
approximation v = c z, even when it is not appropriate physically; eg.,
Fairall 1992.)"
DWH says: "Not appropriate physically" but WHY. I have shown you that IaSne
observations prove conclusively that galaxies are moving apart in excess of
light speed and that the z corresponds to the percentage of the speed of light
at which said Sne are moving out to the distances it is possible to see them
EXACTLY. Therefore your statement that the z number is only correct as a % of
l/s up to about 1/10th light speed is incorrect. And so is Hogg if he says
this. And the next time you call me ignorant is going to cause me to give you
tit for tat.

Repeat:
At relativistic velocities, z = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) - 1
DWH: I didn't notice this in Hoggs' papers.
Please donate your $100 to the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation.

Minor Crank

"Dwhig265" wrote in message
...

DWH says: "Not appropriate physically" but WHY. I have shown you that
IaSne
observations prove conclusively that galaxies are moving apart in excess
of
light speed and that the z corresponds to the percentage of the speed of
light
at which said Sne are moving out to the distances it is possible to see
them
EXACTLY.

You have shown nothing. You have only made unsupported false assertions.

Therefore your statement that the z number is only correct as a % of
l/s up to about 1/10th light speed is incorrect. And so is Hogg if he says
this. And the next time you call me ignorant is going to cause me to give
you
tit for tat.

I doubt that you are capable of doing that. I notice, however, that YOU are
getting quite agitated.

Repeat:
At relativistic velocities, z = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) - 1
DWH: I didn't notice this in Hoggs' papers.

He expresses it slightly differently. Are you incapable of performing
trivial algebraic manipulations?

See equation (9) on page
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Hogg/Hogg3.html
Multiply top and bottom of the fraction within the radical symbol by c and
subtract 1 from both sides.

And please donate your $100 to the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation.

Minor Crank

Subject: $100 reward
From: "Minor Crank"
Date: 9/7/03 12:36 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

"Dwhig265" wrote in message
...

DWH says: "Not appropriate physically" but WHY. I have shown you that
IaSne
observations prove conclusively that galaxies are moving apart in excess
of
light speed and that the z corresponds to the percentage of the speed of
light
at which said Sne are moving out to the distances it is possible to see
them
EXACTLY.

You have shown nothing. You have only made unsupported false assertions.

DWH says: For you to make a statement like that means you haven't a clue about
Sne rise times. Ned Wright knows you know nothing about z. His email follows.
Subj: Debate on sci.physics.relativity
Date: 9/7/03 12:32:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:
To:
CC:
Sent from the Internet (Details)

Sorry,
DWH is partly correct. In any reasonable model of the Universe the
recession velocity gets larger than c for some finite redshift, although
this redshfit is not z=1 and the value depends on the
acceleration/deceleration history of the Universe. For an empty Universe,
v/c = ln(1+z) so for z 1.718 you have v/c 1. For a decelerating
Omega=1 matter-dominated Universe v/c = 2*(1-1/sqrt(1+z)) and v/c 1 for
z 3. For the currently popular vacuum-dominated flat accelerating
Universe with Omega_matter = 0.27, v/c 1 for z 1.4.

You are suffering from a common misconception that can be eliminated by
sitting down and defining what the recession velocity means. Try reading
my cosmology tutorial at http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm#MD

--Edward L. (Ned) Wright, Professor of Physics and Astronomy
310-825-5755, FAX: 310-206-2096, www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/intro.html
Mail: UCLA Astronomy, PO Box 951562, Los Angeles CA 90095-1562
FedEx: Math Sciences 8951, UCLA Astronomy, 405 Hilgard Ave, LA CA 90024

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003, Minor Crank wrote:

Simultaneously posted on sci.physics.relativity and cc'ed to Ned Wright:

Dear Dr. Wright:

I am currently engaged in debate on sci.physics.relativity with "Dwain W.
Higginbotham", a crackpot who has been citing your Cosmology Tutorial web
site as reference material for some ridiculous assertions.

I normally wouldn't bother you with this sort of stupid debate, but Dwain
has promised a $100 reward to anybody who can show him to be wrong about
"any part" of his theory. I don't need the money, but I -would- like to see
$100 go to the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation.

Anyway, as seen in the excerpt below, Dwain asserts that z above 1 implies
recessional rates above light speed, and cites YOU as reference.

Could you answer back to me at with permission to
post your response on sci.physics.relativity? My newsgroup reply address
has antispam characters in it, so hitting the "reply" button won't
necessarily result in your reply being addressed correctly.

Thanks,
Minor Crank

P.S. I am, of course, writing to you under my "handle" rather than my real
name, but you may remember me as the person who asked you about what effect
dark matter and dark energy may have on orbital dynamics of bodies in the
solar system.

---- posted on sci.physics.relativity ----

"Dwhig265" wrote in message
...

DWH says: Ned Wright clearly showed on his website that z = 1.5 was
150% light speed.
Below is a copy of a segment of an article on the Hubble web site
regarding the most distant type Ia supernova ever found. As you
obviously know, the high z research teams have found hundreds of Ia type
Sne and an astronomer on one of the teams that I know, gave me the
(z+1x3) formula for computing expected light curve rise times, and he
says ALL the Sne they have been able to measure have rise times
according to the formula, including a few above z = 1.
I see no reason not to conclude that the formula would hold true
regardless of z #.
Therefore your statement that the z number is only correct as a % of
l/s up to about 1/10th light speed is incorrect. And so is Hogg if he says
this. And the next time you call me ignorant is going to cause me to give
you
tit for tat.

I doubt that you are capable of doing that. I notice, however, that YOU are
getting quite agitated.

Repeat:
At relativistic velocities, z = sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)) - 1
DWH: I didn't notice this in Hoggs' papers.

He expresses it slightly differently. Are you incapable of performing
trivial algebraic manipulations?

See equation (9) on page
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Hogg/Hogg3.html
Multiply top and bottom of the fraction within the radical symbol by c and
subtract 1 from both sides.

And please donate your $100 to the Multiple Sclerosis Foundation.

Minor Crank

"Dwhig265" wrote in message
...

DWH says: For you to make a statement like that means you haven't a clue
about
Sne rise times. Ned Wright knows you know nothing about z. His email
follows.

Dr. Wright's letter stated that we were BOTH wrong.

For my part, I used the special relativistic formula for Doppler shift in a
cosmological situation. The cosmological situation requires general
relativity for its correct description.

For your part, your insistance that z = v/c is clearly wrong.

z 1 does NOT imply recessional velocity greater than c.
z = 1.5 does NOT imply a recessional velocity 1.5c.

Since we were BOTH wrong, I will match your $100 donation to the Multiple
Sclerosis Foundation.

Minor Crank