GM=tc^3 and the Paper Trail
In reponse to Carl and others, here is a partial list of papers on GM=tc^3. An early published paper came from a meeting near Tucson, Arizona March 2004. The paper sits on the shelf in a volume published by Astronomical Society of the Pacific:
Observing Dark Energy.
For a more reasonable price, the paper is sold by the British Library.
GM = tc^3 Space/Time Explanation of Supernova Data
Thanks to NASA and the "Beyond Einstein" program, a similar paper from May 2004 is available at the SLAC website.
GM = tc^3 Space/Time Explanation of Supernova Data
The data chart from this paper is courtesy of the Supernova Cosmology Project and some hand-drawn marks. Theory's prediction matches the "accelerating" data precisely, reason to take notice.
Report to International Astronomical Union at their 2005 meeting in Bali.
Space/Time as Possible Solution to Supernova and Other Problems
The previous papers were published before this little blog started. A longer, but not complete list is available at the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, which is much more complete than other archives. Since Max Planck is no longer editor at Annalen der Physik, publishing papers requires quite a lot of patience!
Since this paper trail began, additional data has been found in the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment and the "Faint Young Sun." It is impossible to prove experimentally that c is constant, because a more accurate experiment can always prove that foolish. Accumulating evidence supports a most surprising prediction, that the speed of light is slowing according to GM=tc^3.
Observing Dark Energy.
For a more reasonable price, the paper is sold by the British Library.
GM = tc^3 Space/Time Explanation of Supernova Data
Thanks to NASA and the "Beyond Einstein" program, a similar paper from May 2004 is available at the SLAC website.
GM = tc^3 Space/Time Explanation of Supernova Data
The data chart from this paper is courtesy of the Supernova Cosmology Project and some hand-drawn marks. Theory's prediction matches the "accelerating" data precisely, reason to take notice.
Report to International Astronomical Union at their 2005 meeting in Bali.
Space/Time as Possible Solution to Supernova and Other Problems
The previous papers were published before this little blog started. A longer, but not complete list is available at the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System, which is much more complete than other archives. Since Max Planck is no longer editor at Annalen der Physik, publishing papers requires quite a lot of patience!
Since this paper trail began, additional data has been found in the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment and the "Faint Young Sun." It is impossible to prove experimentally that c is constant, because a more accurate experiment can always prove that foolish. Accumulating evidence supports a most surprising prediction, that the speed of light is slowing according to GM=tc^3.
Labels: physics, speed of light
posted by L. Riofrio at 7:34 AM
4 Comments:
Thanks for all these links, which are very useful!
Me again.
"For tim: The standard formula for redshift is too lengthy to write here; you will have to look it up. An object of redshift Z= 0.5 is receding at 38% of today's value of c. That is only 33% of c at time of photon emission, so apparent redshift is smaller."
Thanks for your reply. I wasn't asking for the standard redhsift formula, actually - just a recipe for applying your correction for varying c. But your hint helped a bit. I think I've found the expression - at least I can reproduce the corrected values of Z and the corrected magnitudes in your paper.
Now I have another question - have you looked more recent data at Z > 1? There are observations of high-Z supernovae and it seems to me that your model does not fit that data. It appears that the expression which corrects Z in your varying-c model attains a maximum value of z = 0.65 when Z is around 1.85, and then z declines for Z > 1.85. The fact that z can't exceed 0.64 in your model seems like a problem (assuming I haven't made a mistake of course!).
The behaviour of the function also causes the predicted magnitude-redshift curve to veer sharply upward rather than follow the supernova data above Z = 1.
Sorry, I probably was not very clear in that last paragraph....
For big-Z between 0 and 1, your procedure gives a corrected little-z that follows the data well, but for Z between 1 and 1.85, little-z only grows to about 0.65 and then declines, so the corrected redshift-magnitude curve veers sharply upwards from the data.
My pleasure, nige.
For Tim: I have just travelled some distance to get some answers to that. So far the observations of supernovae with Z > 1 don't seem precise, but more soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home