Expanding Universe

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The least error if we assume the universe is expanding.&nbsp; If we don't assume that, then these direct observations are all we know. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Yes, quite correct. But our direct observations show us supernovae with increasing durations, the further back in time we look. They show us redshifts that with no expansion would imply recession velocities faster than light, all from a central point - <strong>they are receding from us</strong>! These redshifts, if not due to some form of actual or apparent recession, if due instead to "tired light", still need to explain the time-dilation of supernovae and the increase in apparent angular size of the galaxies with the least luminosity (and correspondingly, the highest redshifts).</p><p>Without expansion, our observations actually become <strong>harder</strong> to explain without inventing new physics.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, quite correct. But our direct observations show us supernovae with increasing durations, the further back in time we look. </DIV></p><p>Sorry to jump in.&nbsp; This is really compelling stuff and it's probably the quickest way to get to the meat of the observations.&nbsp; Astronomy has done substantial work in cataloging, and that is to be applauded.&nbsp; But, "The further back in time," you mean dim, you mean redshifted.&nbsp; Time is part of the assumption, so direct can't be in the same sentence.&nbsp; I don't mean to be nit picky about wordings, really.&nbsp; Can you clarify the wording with aparent luminosity?&nbsp; Is that dependent on distance and expansion multipliers as well?&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These redshifts, if not due to some form of actual or apparent recession, if due instead to "tired light", still need to explain the time-dilation of supernovae and the increase in apparent angular size of the galaxies with the least luminosity (and correspondingly, the highest redshifts).Without expansion, our observations actually become harder to explain without inventing new physics.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Dually noted.&nbsp; i need to find a similar discussion group to get to the bottom of these points.&nbsp; And I never would have known to ask.&nbsp; But skewed these corellations would be if they all depended on a central mistake.&nbsp; Sorry, I really like star wars.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p>Thanks for the correction, SpeedFreek.&nbsp; I, somehow, made the correlation with type Ia supernova and their luminosity with angular distance.&nbsp; I was wrong.&nbsp; There's probably a realtion there, but it is rather insignificant.&nbsp; I don't even want to talk about reading Wright calculator completely wrong... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-tongue-out.gif" border="0" alt="Tongue out" title="Tongue out" /></p><p>A few months ago, you were absent from the forums for a spell&nbsp;and I gave a yeoman like effort to explain this stuff whenever the questions arose.&nbsp; I'm glad your back.&nbsp; I think I even made a comment several months ago addressing your absence.&nbsp; </p><p>Time to reread my own links I offered... <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-innocent.gif" border="0" alt="Innocent" title="Innocent" /></p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sorry to jump in.&nbsp; This is really compelling stuff and it's probably the quickest way to get to the meat of the observations.&nbsp; Astronomy has done substantial work in cataloging, and that is to be applauded.&nbsp; But, "The further back in time," you mean dim, you mean redshifted.&nbsp; Time is part of the assumption, so direct can't be in the same sentence.&nbsp; I don't mean to be nit picky about wordings, really.&nbsp; Can you clarify the wording with aparent luminosity?&nbsp; Is that dependent on distance and expansion multipliers as well?&nbsp; Dually noted.&nbsp; i need to find a similar discussion group to get to the bottom of these points.&nbsp; And I never would have known to ask.&nbsp; But skewed these corellations would be if they all depended on a central mistake.&nbsp; Sorry, I really like star wars. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Yes correctly nitpicked! The dimmer the apparent luminosity, the greater the distance, is what is <strong>implied</strong>. Redshift increases correspondingly. Even "tired light" models accept that the greater the redshift, the dimmer the object, the longer that light was travelling for - even in a static universe.</p><p>The term "apparent" essentially means "as we see it". An object has an absolute brightness (how bright it actually is) and an apparent brightness (how bright we see it as). From observations of close objects of a given type we can work out their absolute brightness and then we can use the apparent brightness of dimmer objects to help us calculate their distance. The same is true with absolute size as opposed to apparent size (or angular size).&nbsp; </p><p>Without that, all our direct observations show us, literally, is "lots of different sized galaxies around us, some very large and bright, some very small and less bright, some very dim but looking larger than some of the smaller bright ones". Supernova increase in duration with dimness. </p><p>We have to make some assumptions, don't we? Otherwise we simply end up saying "there's things out there".</p><p>If we assume expansion, all the observations (or should I say the overwhemling majority!) fall into place and make sense. The increase in apparent angular size of very dim galaxies makes perfect sense in this context. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanks for the correction, SpeedFreek. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>No worries, you had me checking myself, which is a good thing. It was a small mistake compared to some of the ones I've made that you had to pull me up on!&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes correctly nitpicked! The dimmer the apparent luminosity, the greater the distance, is what is implied. Redshift increases correspondingly. The term "apparent" essentially means "as we see it". An object has an absolute brightness (how bright it actually is) and an apparent brightness (how bright we see it as). From observations of close objects of a given type we can work out their absolute brightness and then we can use the apparent brightness of dimmer objects to help us calculate their distance. We have to make some assumptions, don't we? Otherwise we simply end up saying "there's things out there". <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br /><p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">No assumptions.</font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">From An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Carroll and Ostlie,&nbsp;parenthesis are mine, "The brightness of a star is actually measured in terms of the radiant flux F received from the star&hellip;the total amount of light in all wavelengths (ergs is an integral, a summation) that crosses a unit area 1cm&sup2; per second. "</font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">The assumption is that radiant flux goes like 1/r&sup2;, but if the flux drops off, why do particles accelerate away as they get further from the surface of the sun?<span>&nbsp; </span>This mistake propagates.</font></font></p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">&nbsp;</font> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="3">They move away faster because the electric field continues to push them away, accelerating them.<span>&nbsp; </span>If electric field is not in your equation for Flux, then what you are measuring doesn&rsquo;t trace back to the star with a tidy L=4(pi)r&sup2;F.&nbsp; </font></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No assumptions.&nbsp; From An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Carroll and Ostlie,&nbsp;parenthesis are mine, "The brightness of a star is actually measured in terms of the radiant flux F received from the star&hellip;the total amount of light in all wavelengths (ergs is an integral, a summation) that crosses a unit area 1cm&sup2; per second. "&nbsp; The assumption is that radiant flux goes like 1/r&sup2;, but if the flux drops off, why do particles accelerate away as they get further from the surface of the sun?&nbsp; This mistake propagates.&nbsp; They move away faster because the electric field continues to push them away, accelerating them.&nbsp; If electric field is not in your equation for Flux, then what you are measuring doesn&rsquo;t trace back to the star with a tidy L=4(pi)r&sup2;F.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>I'm sorry but that's not my area, I'm more cosmological concepts than astrophysics, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make in relation to our evidence for an expanding universe. Can you make it clearer for me?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm sorry but that's not my area, I'm more cosmological concepts than astrophysics, so I don't understand the point you are trying to make in relation to our evidence for an expanding universe. Can you make it clearer for me?&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />the point is how you got to decide what absolute luminosity is.&nbsp; If the basics are wrong, assumptions after them are also wrong.&nbsp; If you can defer me to the next person in line who is fluent in the mathematics, then I can continue my search.&nbsp; Let me reiterate how thankful I am for your insight.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>the point is how you got to decide what absolute luminosity is.&nbsp; If the basics are wrong, assumptions after them are also wrong.&nbsp; If you can defer me to the next person in line who is fluent in the mathematics, then I can continue my search.&nbsp; Let me reiterate how thankful I am for your insight.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>I don't know who knows what here, unfortunately, although I expect there are many members here who know the specifics you need.</p><p>But consider this - we know the luminosity of the Sun, from a distance of around 8 light-minutes on Earth. We have measured the Suns luminosity over various distances - we know how big it is, how bright it is and how far away it is. This allows us to find distances to other stars of the same type as the Sun. The Sun is a common type of star. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>we know the luminosity of the Sun, from a distance of around 8 light-minutes on Earth. We have measured the Suns luminosity over various distances - we know how big it is, how bright it is and how far away it is. This allows us to find distances to other stars of the same type as the Sun. The Sun is a common type of star. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />Do you know that it has layers of Iron, Nickel, Oxygen, Silicon, Sulfur, Magnesium, and Calcium of specific isotopes.&nbsp; The hydrogen rich photosphere is very unstable.&nbsp; </p><p>or do you still think it's a big ball of Hydrogen with a little helium?</p><p>Everything we know about the stars is about to change.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you know that it has layers of Iron, Nickel, Oxygen, Silicon, Sulfur, Magnesium, and Calcium of specific isotopes.&nbsp; The hydrogen rich photosphere is very unstable.&nbsp; or do you still think it's a big ball of Hydrogen with a little helium?Everything we know about the stars is about to change. <br />Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV><br /><br />Ahhh, a true drinker of the Kool-Aid. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you know that it has layers of Iron, Nickel, Oxygen, Silicon, Sulfur, Magnesium, and Calcium of specific isotopes.&nbsp; The hydrogen rich photosphere is very unstable.&nbsp; or do you still think it's a big ball of Hydrogen with a little helium?Everything we know about the stars is about to change. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>But what has that got to do with the difference between apparent and absolute luminosity?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No assumptions.&nbsp; From An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics, Carroll and Ostlie,&nbsp;parenthesis are mine, "The brightness of a star is actually measured in terms of the radiant flux F received from the star&hellip;the total amount of light in all wavelengths (ergs is an integral, a summation) that crosses a unit area 1cm&sup2; per second. "&nbsp; The assumption is that radiant flux goes like 1/r&sup2;, but if the flux drops off, why do particles accelerate away as they get further from the surface of the sun?&nbsp; This mistake propagates.&nbsp; They move away faster because the electric field continues to push them away, accelerating them.&nbsp; If electric field is not in your equation for Flux, then what you are measuring doesn&rsquo;t trace back to the star with a tidy L=4(pi)r&sup2;F.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>I don't believe stellar winds have much, if anything, to do with luminosity unless you are talking about massive Wolf-Rayet stars that blow off significant portions of their mass that interact with the surrounding medium.&nbsp; Like the quote from you text book, luminosity is the amount of energy <strong><em>recieved</em></strong>.&nbsp; The only energy we are recieving from distant stars is from the electromagnetic spectrum from which luminosity is measured.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you know that it has layers of Iron, Nickel, Oxygen, Silicon, Sulfur, Magnesium, and Calcium of specific isotopes.&nbsp; The hydrogen rich photosphere is very unstable.&nbsp; or do you still think it's a big ball of Hydrogen with a little helium?Everything we know about the stars is about to change. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>I don't think anyone will argue that the sun is not metal rich.&nbsp; It's quite well known that it is metal rich.&nbsp; Are you suggesting you believe the sun to be layered like an onion.&nbsp; Mass separated?</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you know that it has layers of Iron, Nickel, Oxygen, Silicon, Sulfur, Magnesium, and Calcium of specific isotopes.&nbsp; The hydrogen rich photosphere is very unstable.&nbsp; or do you still think it's a big ball of Hydrogen with a little helium?Everything we know about the stars is about to change. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>As you have started another thread on this subject, acknowledging that the composition of the Sun has little to do with why we think the universe is expanding, do you have any other objections to expansion then? Or can we put this thread to rest now?</p><p>We have shown how the time-dilation of supernovae and the angular diameter-redshift relationship imply expansion.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As you have started another thread on this subject, acknowledging that the composition of the Sun has little to do with why we think the universe is expanding, do you have any other objections to expansion then? Or can we put this thread to rest now?We have shown how the time-dilation of supernovae and the angular diameter-redshift relationship imply expansion.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />Yes, I still object.</p><p>The composition of the sun will explain the luminosity at various distances, which will correct the conversion of luminosity observed to absolute luminosity equations.&nbsp; Distance may be able to be calculated once this chain of events takes place.</p><p>You have explained to me&nbsp;a lot about the trends you see.&nbsp;You have shown that mathmatically linked variables have linked graphs.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, I still object.The composition of the sun will explain the luminosity at various distances, which will correct the conversion of luminosity observed to absolute luminosity equations.&nbsp; Distance may be able to be calculated once this chain of events takes place.<br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>I still don't understand you. We <strong>KNOW</strong> how bright the Sun is. The underlying reason behind its luminosity will <strong>NOT</strong> affect how bright we see it, or other stars, although it may explain why they have that luminosity. Whatever we discover about the structure of the Sun has no bearing on the relationship between the luminosity of stars, they will still have the same relationship. So how will any of this prove that the universe is not expanding? How will it suddenly change the overall picture to a non-expanding universe? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I still don't understand you. We KNOW how bright the Sun is. The underlying reason behind its luminosity will NOT affect how bright we see it, or other stars, although it may explain why they have that luminosity. Whatever we discover about the structure of the Sun has no bearing on the relationship between the luminosity of stars, they will still have the same relationship. So how will any of this prove that the universe is not expanding? How will it suddenly change the overall picture to a non-expanding universe? <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />It will show the electrical interactions of the charged shells of the structure, rotating.&nbsp; It will show the interaction&nbsp;between stars as well, and the interaction between size of galaxies and their luminosities.&nbsp; It all comes down to understanding such a close-by thing as the sun.&nbsp; I understand you probably don't like me, but as collegues in the quest to answer questions, is there any chance you&nbsp;could get&nbsp;me the raw data from the tolman test?&nbsp; It alone will probably answer the distance question.&nbsp; At the very least, the x and y axis&nbsp;data points&nbsp;to extrapolate the raw data.</p><p>Posted by you, "Without expansion, our observations actually become <strong>harder</strong> to explain without inventing new physics."</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It will show the electrical interactions of the charged shells of the structure, rotating.&nbsp; It will show the interaction&nbsp;between stars as well, and the interaction between size of galaxies and their luminosities.&nbsp; It all comes down to understanding such a close-by thing as the sun.Posted by you, "Without expansion, our observations actually become harder to explain without inventing new physics." <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Hmmm. I'm not sure you really know what you are talking about. So does plasma cosmology now deny that the dimmer and apparently smaller an object is, the further away it was when the light was emitted?!? </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Hmmm. I'm not sure you really know what you are talking about. So does plasma cosmology now deny that the dimmer and apparently smaller an object is, the further away it is?!? <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />I'm not plasma cosmology, and I don't know what they deny.&nbsp; I told you what was wrong about the tolman test. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'm not plasma cosmology, and I don't know what they deny.&nbsp; I told you what was wrong about the tolman test. <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Ok, so do you, or do you not, think that the further away an object was when it emitted its light, the dimmer and smaller it would look to us?&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Ok, so do you, or do you not, think that the further away an object was when it emitted its light, the dimmer and smaller it would look to us?&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />That's one of the reasons.&nbsp; Do you know how I can get my hands on the data from the tolman test? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>That's one of the reasons.&nbsp; Do you know how I can get my hands on the data from the tolman test? <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>No, sorry, you midsunderstood. I was asking you a direct question. Do <strong>you</strong> think that the further away an object was when it emitted its light, the dimmer and smaller it would look to us?&nbsp; Or not? (Note: the luminosity-distance relationship would of course hold in a static universe too)</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[KickLaBuka]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Do you think that the further away an object was when it emitted its light, the dimmer and smaller it would look to us?&nbsp; Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />Yes.&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;Tolman test data please, so I can extrapolate the raw data.&nbsp; I'd rather you try and get me the raw data from that experiment, because I don't want to mess up the math.&nbsp; There's a lot of work to be done, but those pages will help us to determine an actual relationship of the distance to these galaxies.&nbsp; Tolman et al should be commended for his organizing and data collection&nbsp;skills, and you et al should be commended for putting up with me to get to that point.</p><p>Or you can think I'm a loon</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-KickLaBuka</p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes.&nbsp; &nbsp;Tolman test data please, so I can extrapolate the raw data.&nbsp; There's a lot of work to be done, but those pages will help us to determine an actual relationship of the distance to these galaxies.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by KickLaBuka</DIV></p><p>Whose data do you want? Since the test was first proposed by Richard Tolman in 1930, many astrophysicists have done Tolman tests.</p><p>In the meantime, how about a recent set of papers on the subject, using data from the Keck and Hubble Space Telescopes?</p><p> The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. I. Calibration of the Necessary Local Parameters </p><p>The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. II. The Effect of the Point-Spread Function and Galaxy Ellipticity on the Derived Photometric Parameters </p><p>The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. III. HST Profile and Surface Brightness Data for Early-Type Galaxies in Three High-Redshift Clusters </p><p>The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>