8 ms·
First thing to understand is the only evidence we have for the universe expanding is redshift. Do I believe refraction is at all related to Dark mass/energy? N
by ryanthedev 7y ago
First thing to understand is the only evidence we have for the universe expanding is redshift.
Do I believe refraction is at all related to Dark mass/energy? Not all all. Refraction has nothing to do with that. Refraction has to do with redshift being miscalculated.
Compression waves are the culprit and the field that propagates those waves for dark garbage. baryonic acoustic waves give direct evidence as the perp.
- ryanthedev 7y agoAlso I would like to add that galaxies have been observed to contain non dark whatever. So baryonic acoustic waves still fit that model.
- mehrdadn 7y agoI think you missed the actual point of my comment? Refraction was kind of irrelevant to it, I was trying to say something about the consistency of different observations and the strength of the evidence behind them. You could replace "refraction" with "squirrels" and it wouldn't really change what I was trying to explain.
- Supermancho 7y ago> Refraction was kind of irrelevant to it That is incorrect. It's directly relevant. Redshift is measured and there is a willful disregard for the refraction that is inherent and a statistically overwhelming effect, given the distances and known matter in space. Redshift exists after a megaparsec in any direction, so it's not surprising that it's the farthest thing we see given we're seeing some amount of mass in the far distance from any given angle.
- ryanthedev 7y agoWell you misunderstood that I was referring to refraction as being the reason for dark matter predictions. I was trying to imply that it can explain why the universe is expanding. Instead of the theory of dark matter. I already gave you my reasoning for dark matter calculation, baryonic waves. Which you so happened to ignore?