From: Robert A. Knop Jr. (robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu)
Date: Wed Apr 16 2003 - 09:24:38 PDT
On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 11:22:11AM -0500, Robert A. Knop Jr. wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 16, 2003 at 08:55:36AM -0700, Don Groom wrote:
> > While it is easy to construct examples (with pathological R(t)) in which
> > the redshift cannot be construed as an expansion velocity, we still behave
> > schizophrenically and talk about "the expanding Universe." Eric can object
> > when he reads this, but he argues that this is OK when combining proper
> > motion with cosmological expansion.
>
> You lost me on an antecedant somewhere. Which "this" is OK? My
> bastardized version? Or something else?
Or-- is "just using heliocentric redshifts" right?
I'm sure that just using CMB-based redshifts can't be right. I'm
realizing that my bastardized approach implicitly ignores length
contraction or something like that. Is the result of Eric's work that
*heliocentric* redshifts are the right thing to use?
I need to know very soon, because these fits take time! (The next draft
will probably just use my bastardized version, and for the final draft
after that I'll do the fits "right", but even then I need the info
soon.)
-Rob
-- --Prof. Robert Knop Department of Physics & Astronomy, Vanderbilt University robert.a.knop@vanderbilt.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Apr 16 2003 - 09:25:04 PDT