View Full Version : Coincidence?

2010-Sep-10, 06:58 PM
Two preprints, separated by just one other (in astro-ph) on arXiv (though by nine in the numbering):

Cosmography: Supernovae Union2, Observational Hubble Data, Gamma Ray Bursts and Angular Diameter Distance (http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0963):

In this paper, a parameterization describing the kinematical state of the universe in cosmographic approach is considered, where the minimum input is the assumption of the cosmological principle, i.e. the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker metric. A distinguished feature is that the result does not depend on any gravity theory. As a result, a series of cosmographic parameters (deceleration parameter $q_0$, jerk parameter $j_0$ and snap parameter $s_0$) are constrained from the cosmic observations which include type Ia supernovae (SN) Union2, the high redshift Gamma ray bursts (GRBs), the observational Hubble data (OHD) and angular diameter distance (ADD). By using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method, we find the best fit values of cosmographic parameters in $1\sigma$ regions: $H_0=72.009^{+6.073}_{-5.834}$, $q_0=-0.641^{+0.415}_{-0.360}$, $j_0=-2.214^{+3.635}_{-3.924}$, $s_0=-13.875^{+6.668}_{-6.218}$ which are improved remarkably and consistent with the spatially flat $\Lambda$CDM model.

Observational evidence favours a static universe:

The common attribute of all Big Bang cosmologies is that they are based on the assumption that the universe is expanding. However examination of the evidence for this expansion clearly favours a static universe. The major topics considered are: Tolman surface brightness, angular size, type 1a supernovae, gamma ray bursts, galaxy distributions, quasar distributions, X-ray background radiation, cosmic microwave background radiation, radio source counts, quasar variability and the Butcher--Oemler effect. An analysis of the best raw data for these topics shows that they are consistent with expansion only if there is evolution that cancels the effects of expansion. An alternate cosmology, curvature cosmology, is in full agreement with the raw data. This tired-light cosmology predicts a well defined static and stable universe and is fully described. It not only predicts accurate values for the Hubble constant and the temperature of cosmic microwave background radiation but shows excellent agreement with most of the topics considered. Curvature cosmology also predicts the deficiency in solar neutrino production rate and can explain the anomalous acceleration of {\it Pioneer} 10.

No mention, by either set of authors, about journal submission, though my guess is that the second will not be published in any of the main astrophysics or physics journals.

2010-Sep-10, 11:25 PM
Did you forget to link the other paper? Which deficiency in solar neutrino production rate are they talking about? Wasn't that resolved already after discovering different types of neutrinos, or is this something else?

2010-Sep-10, 11:48 PM
Is snap a derivative of jerk?

The second abstract seems to be a resurrection of tired light. I thought it was put to rest some time ago.

2010-Sep-13, 05:07 PM
It is interesting that the supernova time dilation evidence is always cited as the 'best' evidence tired light is a dead end; but at the same time it is well understood that the 'accelerating expansion' is exactly what is predicted by a steady state condition when measured with an expanding ruler. The last nail will not be driven in the steady state models until (and if) expanded deeply red-shifted data sets demonstrate light curves which are inconsistent with non-time dilated supernova of any type...and they could demonstrate just the opposite.