core in extra-galactic space, if it exists at all. I think everyone here knows that. Just how far it is, I don't know. But you answered the Q in that Doppler is the measured parameter. I say the motion is not due to any so-far unidentified GA, but is merely local turbulence in one of the arms of the universe.

If redshift is due to Expansion, you are quite correct, but I say it is due to Wave-Dispersion, and the universe is in stable orbit about its own center of mass, except for slight in-spiraling.

"The stars and clusters close enough to the earth to get such measurements indicate a linear dependence of redshift on distance which is proof, so astronomers think, of an expanding universe." Thank you very much for qualifying that. Now I like you.

"Certain quasars provide an independent measurement of distance and redshift. That dependence is linear out to 10 billon light years, which includes all of the supercluster. Beyond that the measurements indicate that the red shift is less than linear, indicating that the expansion rate is greater now than 10-15 billion years ago."

You're speaking of quasars rather than Ia Supernovas, I take it. Ok, no matter. The question is: How does light that started traveling 10+ billion years ago tell us what is going on "now". All we really "know" is that the redshifting of that very old light, WAS apparently non-linear with distance at the time it was emitted. If that is not so now in the comparative observation of closer sources, then the Expansion is slowing down!! Does this not follow what we would expect from the transition of Inflation to Expansion? (You heard it here first.) Is that a stampede I hear headed for the phones to win the Nobel Prize? I printed this off complete with opposition arguments.

But I say it is in general error anyway. Redshift is from e-m Wave-Dispersion in the aether, not Expansion of the "fabric of space" that fills "empty space".

Please do not quote me out of context.

• Corrections - cosmotiger - November 19, 2002 - 03:57 UTC
  • That's a correction? - rayredbourne - November 19, 2002 - 14:13 UTC
    • "Quintessence effect", if I may coin a term - yaniru - November 19, 2002 - 19:10 UTC
      • I just assumed... - cosmotiger - November 20, 2002 - 04:16 UTC
        • Don't let him... - rayredbourne - November 20, 2002 - 09:39 UTC
          • Are you talking about yourself? - yaniru - November 20, 2002 - 12:24 UTC
            • No I don't.. - rayredbourne - November 20, 2002 - 14:36 UTC
      • Not the "word"; - rayredbourne - November 20, 2002 - 09:32 UTC
        • Corrections - cosmotiger - November 20, 2002 - 17:44 UTC
          • Corrections for Harv - kantolfir2 - November 21, 2002 - 03:54 UTC
            • Yes, I support... - rayredbourne - November 21, 2002 - 23:31 UTC
              • Right on - cosmotiger - November 22, 2002 - 02:51 UTC
                • I predict you will super-c after death - yaniru - November 22, 2002 - 15:20 UTC
            • Dark Matter... - rayredbourne - November 21, 2002 - 23:35 UTC
              • There have been no confirmations... - cosmotiger - November 22, 2002 - 02:33 UTC
          • ...would have..., is a..., works? And Hawking. - rayredbourne - November 21, 2002 - 23:02 UTC
            • Blah - cosmotiger - November 22, 2002 - 02:35 UTC
              • More likely that man invented God - yaniru - November 22, 2002 - 15:25 UTC
                • I am glad you are only commenting where you are qualified - carefuluniverse - November 22, 2002 - 17:26 UTC
                  • Wrong guy - yaniru - November 22, 2002 - 19:49 UTC
                    • Right guy...I don't hold a grudge; I can prove it if necesssa - quiet - November 23, 2002 - 01:02 UTC
                      • I did not say this - yaniru - November 23, 2002 - 13:18 UTC
                        • Look at the original. It said it paraphrased you - carefuluniverse - November 23, 2002 - 21:46 UTC
                          • Gotcha with that last one...I attributed my statement to you - carefuluniverse - November 23, 2002 - 21:48 UTC
              • Pertinent comment - carefuluniverse - November 22, 2002 - 17:23 UTC
      • Ray makes more sense than Ru or Harv in regular conversation - quiet - November 20, 2002 - 19:28 UTC
        • A wonderful feeling... - rayredbourne - November 21, 2002 - 23:39 UTC
    • Corrections - cosmotiger - November 19, 2002 - 20:11 UTC
      • One sees great things from valleys; only small things from peaks - quiet - November 20, 2002 - 04:28 UTC
      • "low interaction cross section" - rayredbourne - November 20, 2002 - 09:55 UTC
        • Corrections - cosmotiger - November 20, 2002 - 17:40 UTC
          • I'm checking with you. - rayredbourne - November 21, 2002 - 23:45 UTC
            • Corrections - cosmotiger - November 22, 2002 - 02:40 UTC
              • To be polite - carefuluniverse - November 22, 2002 - 17:59 UTC