Authors: Charles B. Leffert
In 1998-1999 two teams of astronomers, measuring the radiation from exploding supernova Ia (SNIa) stars, found that their predicted curves fell short of the measured values of magnitude m, or distance modulus m-M, for redshift z ~0.5 - 1.0. Instead of announcing incomplete theoretical models, and searching for an increase in the luminosity distance dL, they used their free parameters and added more physical content to our universe of either Einstein's rejected lambda or dark energy, to better fit the data. Such added contents also added acceleration to the expansion rate of our universe. The unwise acceptance of this added acceleration by the scientific community, now known as the acceleration paradigm shift, will become one of the greatest, and more costly, blunders of science. It so happened in 1993, that this author had started the development of a new nonrelativistic model of the universe and by 1998 could check his new model for its prediction of the magnitude of the SNIA data near redshift z ~ 1. Using the new computer model, a check on the first reported data, indicated the new model could predict the data with no addition of either lambda or dark energy. As the development of the author's model continued, a long 20 year effort began to try to halt and reverse the acceleration paradigm. This paper describes the record of those efforts, and it adds another face of experience to most all of the major points of the "Why viXra?".
Comments: 8 pages 3 figures
[v1] 24 Jan 2011
Unique-IP document downloads: 191 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.