Quote:
|
Originally Posted by snowflakeuniverse
Hi Pi man
You are right in a way that acceleration is dependant on the frame of reference, my point is that what the astronomers use is misleading and therefore incorrect.
Note that in my example the conclusion about an object moving faster in the past than the present is universal, so in any frame of reference it is valid.
|
There is no such thing as "universal" when measuring velocity (and acceleration). If I was accelerating past you at more than the rate at which you were decelerating, you would appear to be accelerating. Also, you say "I would describe myself as decelerating." Actaully, you would describe yourself as at rest. You would see yourself as not accelerating or decelerating.
Quote:
The mistake that is allowed to persist is the frame of reference in relationship to time.
Astronomers use NOW as the point of reference and this is their mistake. Any description of reality must include some kind of temporal measure of WHEN events occur. If one demarcates time by starting the clock at the moment of creation, then there is no confusion or misleading description as to whether or not space is accelerating or decelerating.
This same problem compounds itself about the description of a universe that is accelerating. This discovery is based upon the intensity of Type 1a novas observed at the greatest red shifts. They are dimmer than a straight linear rate of expansion would have predicteded. But the observation of these distant novas are in the distant past. So in the very distant past the rate of expansion was even greater.
An object that is moving faster in the past than the present is decelerating.
snowflake
|
Hmmm... I would think that the scientists would be just a little bit too smart to miss that. I really doubt that the
whole scientific community would not notice something that big and obvious.