Regardless of large versus small margin of Hubble's observation error:

Case and point: Hubble determined from his observations that the
expansion rate was slowing down, in 1998 they determined the very
opposite.

For the above reason, there may ALSO BE ERRORS in the uniformity of
the expansion rate.....and coupled with the possibility of a non-
euclidean bent space would give a copernican REVERSE observation
error.

By "REVERSE COPERNICAN" meaning STRAIGHT light traveling the horizon
towards New York would not come from a star but instead would come
from a city at the opposite side of the Earth.(In this case though, we
are speaking about light crossing the Universe instead of Earth)

Thus for far distant light that which would be straight may actually
be bent light, the bending would affect our readings from what is a
uniform expansion.

On Jul 3, 9:28 am, " wrote:
Regardless of large versus small margin of Hubble's observation error:

Case and point: Hubble determined from his observations that the
expansion rate was slowing down,

Can you provide a citation for that? Or are you misinterpreting
"redshift" as "expansion rate" again?

Hubble determined that redshift increases with distance. He
didn't have data for enough distance to make the statement
you are making. You are probably reading "redshift increases
with distance" as "the expansion rate is slowing down".

in 1998 they determined the very
opposite.

In 1998 they determined that redshift increases with
distance.

- Randy

http://www.womanastronomer.com/hleavitt.htm

http://www.mada.org.il/website/html/eng/2_1_1-31.htm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank...es/baleav.html

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...a-Swan-Leavitt


--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!



wrote in message
ups.com...
Regardless of large versus small margin of Hubble's observation error:

Case and point: Hubble determined from his observations that the
expansion rate was slowing down, in 1998 they determined the very
opposite.

For the above reason, there may ALSO BE ERRORS in the uniformity of
the expansion rate.....and coupled with the possibility of a non-
euclidean bent space would give a copernican REVERSE observation
error.

By "REVERSE COPERNICAN" meaning STRAIGHT light traveling the horizon
towards New York would not come from a star but instead would come
from a city at the opposite side of the Earth.(In this case though, we
are speaking about light crossing the Universe instead of Earth)

Thus for far distant light that which would be straight may actually
be bent light, the bending would affect our readings from what is a
uniform expansion.

On Jul 3, 9:46 am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:28 am, " wrote:

Regardless of large versus small margin of Hubble's observation error:

Case and point: Hubble determined from his observations that the
expansion rate was slowing down,

Can you provide a citation for that? Or are you misinterpreting
"redshift" as "expansion rate" again?

Hubble determined that redshift increases with distance. He
didn't have data for enough distance to make the statement
you are making. You are probably reading "redshift increases
with distance" as "the expansion rate is slowing down".

in 1998 they determined the very
opposite.

In 1998 they determined that redshift increases with
distance.

- Randy

My mistake, Hubble's observation established a fixed expansion rate,
where as 1998's observation established an increasing expansion rate.

Likewise they may also have observation errors where the expansion
rate is not uniform when viewed in all directions in space, this could
lead to capability of determining where the big bang originated.

As well if space is non-euclidean and light doesn't travel straigth
(but to the contours of space), then a reverse copernican observation
error on the expansion rate may exist.

(Reverse copernican since past copernican observation error (sun
orbiting earth) was determined using STRAIGHT paths of
light...****EXAGERATED***** example: at night instead of seeing the
star from a distant horizon, in non-euclidean space you could
"perhaps" see the sun from the opposite side of the Earth)

On Jul 4, 4:52 am, " wrote:
On Jul 3, 9:46 am, Randy Poe wrote:





On Jul 3, 9:28 am, " wrote:

Regardless of large versus small margin of Hubble's observation error:

Case and point: Hubble determined from his observations that the
expansion rate was slowing down,

Can you provide a citation for that? Or are you misinterpreting
"redshift" as "expansion rate" again?

Hubble determined that redshift increases with distance. He
didn't have data for enough distance to make the statement
you are making. You are probably reading "redshift increases
with distance" as "the expansion rate is slowing down".

in 1998 they determined the very
opposite.

In 1998 they determined that redshift increases with
distance.

- Randy

My mistake, Hubble's observation established a fixed expansion rate,
where as 1998's observation established an increasing expansion rate.

Likewise they may also have observation errors where the expansion
rate is not uniform when viewed in all directions in space, this could
lead to capability of determining where the big bang originated.

As well if space is non-euclidean and light doesn't travel straigth
(but to the contours of space), then a reverse copernican observation
error on the expansion rate may exist.

(Reverse copernican since past copernican observation error (sun
orbiting earth) was determined using STRAIGHT paths of
light...****EXAGERATED***** example: at night instead of seeing the
star from a distant horizon, in non-euclidean space you could
"perhaps" see the sun from the opposite side of the Earth)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not exactly as what I wrote but as well, one can Google search: metric
expansion of space

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space

On Jul 4, 4:54 am, " wrote:
On Jul 4, 4:52 am, " wrote:





On Jul 3, 9:46 am, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jul 3, 9:28 am, " wrote:

Regardless of large versus small margin of Hubble's observation error:

Case and point: Hubble determined from his observations that the
expansion rate was slowing down,

Can you provide a citation for that? Or are you misinterpreting
"redshift" as "expansion rate" again?

Hubble determined that redshift increases with distance. He
didn't have data for enough distance to make the statement
you are making. You are probably reading "redshift increases
with distance" as "the expansion rate is slowing down".

in 1998 they determined the very
opposite.

In 1998 they determined that redshift increases with
distance.

- Randy

My mistake, Hubble's observation established a fixed expansion rate,
where as 1998's observation established an increasing expansion rate.

Likewise they may also have observation errors where the expansion
rate is not uniform when viewed in all directions in space, this could
lead to capability of determining where the big bang originated.

As well if space is non-euclidean and light doesn't travel straigth
(but to the contours of space), then a reverse copernican observation
error on the expansion rate may exist.

(Reverse copernican since past copernican observation error (sun
orbiting earth) was determined using STRAIGHT paths of
light...****EXAGERATED***** example: at night instead of seeing the
star from a distant horizon, in non-euclidean space you could
"perhaps" see the sun from the opposite side of the Earth)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not exactly as what I wrote but as well, one can Google search: metric
expansion of space

almost 2 million search results

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 4, 12:55 am, " wrote:
On Jul 4, 4:54 am, " wrote:

On Jul 4, 4:52 am, " wrote:

On Jul 3, 9:46 am, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jul 3, 9:28 am, " wrote:

Regardless of large versus small margin of Hubble's observation error:

Case and point: Hubble determined from his observations that the
expansion rate was slowing down,

Can you provide a citation for that? Or are you misinterpreting
"redshift" as "expansion rate" again?

Hubble determined that redshift increases with distance. He
didn't have data for enough distance to make the statement
you are making. You are probably reading "redshift increases
with distance" as "the expansion rate is slowing down".

in 1998 they determined the very
opposite.

In 1998 they determined that redshift increases with
distance.

- Randy

My mistake, Hubble's observation established a fixed expansion rate,
where as 1998's observation established an increasing expansion rate.

Likewise they may also have observation errors where the expansion
rate is not uniform when viewed in all directions in space, this could
lead to capability of determining where the big bang originated.

As well if space is non-euclidean and light doesn't travel straigth
(but to the contours of space), then a reverse copernican observation
error on the expansion rate may exist.

(Reverse copernican since past copernican observation error (sun
orbiting earth) was determined using STRAIGHT paths of
light...****EXAGERATED***** example: at night instead of seeing the
star from a distant horizon, in non-euclidean space you could
"perhaps" see the sun from the opposite side of the Earth)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not exactly as what I wrote but as well, one can Google search: metric
expansion of space

almost 2 million search results

....now find one that is understandable to someone with absolutely zero
understanding of classical or modern physics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_..._of_space-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 4, 5:27 am, Eric Gisse wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:55 am, " wrote:





On Jul 4, 4:54 am, " wrote:

On Jul 4, 4:52 am, " wrote:

On Jul 3, 9:46 am, Randy Poe wrote:

On Jul 3, 9:28 am, " wrote:

Regardless of large versus small margin of Hubble's observation error:

Case and point: Hubble determined from his observations that the
expansion rate was slowing down,

Can you provide a citation for that? Or are you misinterpreting
"redshift" as "expansion rate" again?

Hubble determined that redshift increases with distance. He
didn't have data for enough distance to make the statement
you are making. You are probably reading "redshift increases
with distance" as "the expansion rate is slowing down".

in 1998 they determined the very
opposite.

In 1998 they determined that redshift increases with
distance.

- Randy

My mistake, Hubble's observation established a fixed expansion rate,
where as 1998's observation established an increasing expansion rate.

Likewise they may also have observation errors where the expansion
rate is not uniform when viewed in all directions in space, this could
lead to capability of determining where the big bang originated.

As well if space is non-euclidean and light doesn't travel straigth
(but to the contours of space), then a reverse copernican observation
error on the expansion rate may exist.

(Reverse copernican since past copernican observation error (sun
orbiting earth) was determined using STRAIGHT paths of
light...****EXAGERATED***** example: at night instead of seeing the
star from a distant horizon, in non-euclidean space you could
"perhaps" see the sun from the opposite side of the Earth)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Not exactly as what I wrote but as well, one can Google search: metric
expansion of space

almost 2 million search results

...now find one that is understandable to someone with absolutely zero
understanding of classical or modern physics.



Notably does that cannot comment on what they disagree with, rather
than lament.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_...ace-Hidequoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -