1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: %\usepackage{epsf}
3: \usepackage{psfig}
4: %\usepackage{amsmath}
5: %\usepackage{natbib}
6:
7: \newcommand{\ltaraw}{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
8: \newcommand{\lta}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltaraw}}
9: \newcommand{\gtaraw}{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
10: \newcommand{\gta}{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtaraw}}
11:
12: %internal short cuts
13:
14: \loadboldmathitalic \title[Cosmological Radar Ranging]{Cosmological
15: Radar Ranging in an Expanding Universe\footnotemark[1]}
16: \author[Lewis et al.]{Geraint F.
17: Lewis$^{1}$, Matthew J. Francis$^1$, Luke A. Barnes$^{2,1}$, Juliana Kwan$^1$
18: \newauthor \& J. Berian James$^{3,1}$\\
19: $^{1}$Institute of Astronomy, School of Physics, A28,
20: University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia\\
21: $^2$Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Rd, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, UK\\
22: $^3$Institute for Astronomy, Royal Observatory, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, UK\\
23: }
24: \date{\today}
25: \begin{document}
26: \maketitle
27: \label{firstpage}
28: \begin{abstract}
29: While modern cosmology, founded in the language
30: of general relativity, is almost a century old, the meaning of the
31: {\it expansion of space} is still being debated. In this paper, the
32: question of radar ranging in an expanding universe is examined,
33: focusing upon light travel times during the ranging; it has recently
34: been claimed that this proves that space physically expands. We generalize the
35: problem into considering the return journey of an accelerating rocketeer, showing
36: that while this agrees with expectations of special relativity for an empty
37: universe, distinct differences occur when the universe contains
38: matter. We conclude that this does not require the expansion of space
39: to be a physical phenomenon, rather that we cannot neglect the
40: influence of matter, seen through the laws of general relativity, when
41: considering motions on cosmic scales.
42: \end{abstract}
43: \begin{keywords}
44: cosmology: theory
45: \end{keywords}
46:
47: \long\def\symbolfootnote[#1]#2{\begingroup%
48: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}\footnotetext[#1]{#2}\endgroup}
49:
50: \def\newblock{\hskip .11em plus .33em minus .07em}
51: %Section heading
52: \section{Introduction} \label{intro} \symbolfootnote[1]{Research
53: undertaken as part of the Commonwealth Cosmology Initiative (CCI:
54: www.thecci.org), an international collaboration supported by the
55: Australian Research Council}
56:
57: The question ``Is space {\it really} expanding?'' has recently
58: (re)surfaced in the literature, with varying views on whether the
59: expansion of space is a phenomenon which can be directly observed.
60: \citet{2004Obs...124..174W} entered the fray with a Newtonian analysis
61: of particles detached from the Hubble flow, showing their motion does
62: not agree to the simple viewpoint of expanding space-time as a form of
63: force. \citet{2006astro.ph.10590C} also considered the physical
64: implications of the expansion of space, suggesting that the
65: superluminal expansion of distant objects, often touted as the proof
66: of expansion, can be removed with a transformation to conformal
67: coordinates, and hence cannot be physical, although it has been shown
68: that superluminal expansion does in fact
69: remain~\citep{2007MNRAS.381L..50L}. \citet{2007PASA...24...95F}
70: assessed the situation in detail, showing that the view of expanding
71: cosmologies as expanding space is a valid interpretation as
72: long as the equations of relativity are used to guide common-sense.
73:
74: Recently, \citet{abram} considered radar ranging of a distant galaxy
75: in expanding cosmologies and concluded that the fact that the radar and
76: Hubble distance, from $d=H_o v$, differ in all but an empty universe,
77: that space must really expand\footnote{The title of
78: their paper `Eppur si espande' is a slight rewording of the
79: mutterings of Galileo after his trail for heresy by the Vatican in
80: 1633. It seems to demonstrate that these authors believe that space
81: `really' expands.}. In a counter argument,
82: \citet{2006astro.ph..1171C} again considers radar ranging in open
83: cosmological models. Instead of examining distances, he focuses upon
84: the transit time of light in usual cosmological coordinates and its
85: conformal representation. With this he reveals that in the former
86: coordinates the paths are asymmetrical in transit time, taking longer
87: on the return journey, whereas in conformal coordinates, the light
88: travel times to and from the distant galaxy are equal. Hence, he
89: concludes that the expansion of space is a coordinate dependent effect
90: which can be made to disappear with the correct coordinate transform,
91: and therefore the expansion of space is not a physical phenomenon.
92:
93: \begin{figure*}
94: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=fig1.ps,angle=270,width=5in}}
95: \caption[]{Radar ranging in a fully conformal representation of an open
96: universe. In both, a light ray emitted from the origin is represented by
97: a dotted path, while a comoving observer is represented
98: by the solid sloping line and another observer sits at the origin
99: ($r=0$). The green line shows the null geodesic representing the laser
100: ranging beam originating at $r=0$, which is reflected back by the
101: distant comoving observer. In the left hand panel, the dashed lines
102: represent curves of constant time in the FLRW metric, while on the
103: right the dashed lines represent intervals of constant conformal time.
104: The red and the blue paths represent the times measured by the
105: observers for the outward and returning rays respectively.
106: \label{fig1}}
107: \end{figure*}
108:
109: In this contribution we examine the recent debate on cosmological
110: radar ranging of objects, clarifying some of the issues discussed by
111: other authors and demonstrate that while expanding space remains a
112: useful concept, such experiments in no way require expanding space
113: as a physical effect.
114: The issue of radar ranging in Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker
115: (FLRW) universes is addressed in Section~\ref{range}, conformal
116: coordinates and generalized to include the motion of an accelerating
117: observer in Section~\ref{clock}. A comparison of our results in
118: light of previous studies is presented in Section~\ref{syn}, where
119: we also offer our conclusions on the issue of expanding space.
120:
121: \section{Background}\label{range}
122:
123: \subsection{FLRW \& Conformal Cosmology}\label{conform}
124: Modern cosmological models are described by the relativistic equations
125: for a homogeneous and isotropic distribution of matter and
126: energy. Many elementary textbooks show how, under these assumptions,
127: the spacetime of the universe is described by the FLRW metric, whose
128: invariant interval is given by
129: \begin{equation}
130: ds^2 = dt'^2 - a^2(t')\left[ dx^2 +R_o^2 S^2_k(x/R_o) (d\theta^2
131: + sin^2\theta\ d\phi^2) \right],
132: \label{flrw}
133: \end{equation}
134: where $S_k(x) = \sin x, x, \sinh x$ for spatial curvatures of $k=+1$
135: (closed), $k=0$ (flat) and $k=-1$ (open) respectively, with the
136: curvature given by $R_o^{-2}$; note, $c=1$. The scale factor,
137: $a(t')$, governs the dynamics of the expansion and is dependent upon
138: the relative mix of matter and energy in the universe.
139:
140: Conformal transformations preserve angles at a point and are important
141: in geometry. For the purposes of this study, the space-times of interest
142: are those which are `conformally flat', such that the metric of a curved
143: space time is related to that of the flat space-time of special
144: relativity via \begin{equation} g = \Omega({\bf x}) g_{flat}.
145: \end{equation}
146: where $\Omega({\bf x})$ is an arbitrary function.
147: If we take a particular two-dimensional slice of the FLRW metric
148: above (Equation~\ref{flrw}) then it is easy to construct a conformally
149: flat transformation such that~\footnote{In fact, any two dimensional
150: subspace is conformally flat; see Appendix 11C of
151: \citet{2005gere.book.....H}} \begin{equation} ds^2 = a^2(\eta)( d\eta^2
152: - dx^2 ), \label{conf} \end{equation} defining the conformal time to be
153: related to the universal time through $dt' = a(\eta) d\eta$. Throughout
154: this paper, such a transformation will be referred to as a partial
155: conformal transformation; clearly, in the $(x,\eta)$ coordinates light
156: rays ($ds=0$) will trace out the undistorted light cones of special relativity.
157:
158:
159: Typically, conformal representations of FLRW cosmologies employ
160: only the partial transform, although
161: this flattens the radial part of
162: the metric, and hence will not in general produce flat SR-like light
163: cones in fully 4D space-time. For a general cosmology with spatial curvature, a full
164: conformal transformation is required to make the metric conformally
165: flat in all four dimensions, as explored in detail by \citet{is}, in
166: which the comoving radial coordinate must be transformed as well. For
167: instance, in an open universe the fully conformal coordinates [see
168: \citet{2006astro.ph..1171C} and \citet{2007MNRAS.381L..50L} for the
169: derivation and more details] are:
170: \begin{eqnarray}
171: r =Ae^\eta\sinh \chi \nonumber \\
172: t = Ae^\eta\cosh \chi
173: \label{fullconformal}
174: \end{eqnarray}
175: where $A$ is a constant with $\chi = x/R_0$. We have referred to the
176: fully conformal coordinates as $(r,t)$, matching those employed in
177: previous studies. It is now expected that light rays follow the
178: classic special relativistic light cones in these coordinates. Clearly, since
179: the spatial part of a flat $(k=0)$ FLRW metric is already flat, the partial
180: and fully conformal transformations are equivalent. In this study, both the
181: partial and fully conformal transformations will be
182: considered, to provide a comparison to previous studies and allow a correspondence
183: with the flat space-time of special relativity as $\Omega_o\rightarrow 0$.
184:
185:
186: \section{Radar Ranging}
187: The principle of radar ranging is simple; to calculate the distance to
188: a distant object, fire a radar pulse at it and time the
189: interval $\Delta\tau$ until the beam returns; here $\tau$ is the
190: proper time as measured by an observer sending out and receiving the
191: radar beam. From this, it is straightforward to define a radar distance
192: \begin{equation}
193: D_{rad} = \frac{\Delta\tau}{2}
194: \end{equation}
195: assuming $c=1$. For cosmological cases, it is usual to measure
196: the comoving distance to a galaxy whereas the time is measured by
197: an observer at the origin.
198: Clearly this is a well defined experiment as we are asking about the
199: time ticked off along a world line, an observable quantity.
200: Remember, however, that \citet{2006astro.ph..1171C}
201: asked a somewhat different question, namely how much time
202: passes on the individual outward and return journeys.
203:
204: \begin{figure*}
205: \centerline{ \psfig{figure=fig2.ps,angle=270,width=5in}}
206: \caption[]{ Cosmological radar trips for rocketeers in partially
207: conformal (left panels) and fully conformal (right panels)
208: representations of three open universes with varying matter
209: content. For each universe, we have considered the paths of two
210: rocketeers, one leaving from the origin and another that starts out
211: from an arbitary comoving location. The colour sections of the path
212: describe the state of the rocket engine of the rocketeer. The first
213: green region shows the initial outwards acceleration, followed by the
214: red period corresponding to a coasting phase with no acceleration. The
215: rocket is then swung around to accelerate towards the origin and this
216: is reprented by the blue and then green region. The change from blue
217: to green indicates the midway point in this acceleration phase as
218: measured in the rocketeers time. Following this there is another
219: coasting period, shown in red and finally the rocket is swung around
220: again to accelerate away from the origin and this corresponds to the
221: final blue region. The black dashed lines are the paths taken by a
222: comoving observers starting from the origin, while the pink dashed
223: lines are for comoving observers starting from the same comoving
224: location as the second rocketeer. For the fully conformal cases, we
225: have used $A = 5.3\times10^{-5}, 8.3\times10^{-2}$ and
226: 28.3 for $\Omega_o = 0.001, 0.500$ and 0.999 respectively.
227: \label{fig2}}
228: \end{figure*}
229:
230: Figure~\ref{fig1} presents the radar ranging experiment for an open
231: universe in fully conformal coordinates; here a radar pulse (green line)
232: leaves the origin, and is reflected back from a distant, comoving
233: (constant spatial FLRW coordinates) object, later being received back
234: at the origin. Note that in this conformal picture, comoving observers
235: move along paths which originate at the origin and move along a line of
236: constant slope given by
237: \begin{equation}
238: \frac{dr}{dt} = \tanh( \chi ),
239: \end{equation}
240: where $\chi$ is the comoving coordinate of the fundamental
241: observer, with light rays traveling at $45^o$. Given this
242: picture, it is simple to see that the differing travel times noted by
243: \citet{abram} are simply an issue of synchronicity.
244:
245: While the two panels in Figure~\ref{fig1} both represent a fully conformal
246: representation of an $\Omega<1$ universe, each display differing lines
247: of simultaneity; in the left-hand panel the dashed line represents
248: constant $\tau$, or proper time as measured by fundamental
249: observers. In standard FLRW universes, these hyperbolae represent times
250: (slices) of equal matter/energy density as seen by comoving observers.
251: In the right-hand panel, the lines of
252: simultaneity are represented by lines of constant comoving coordinate
253: $t$. An examination of the left-hand panel, whose lines of
254: synchronicity represent constant cosmological time in the FLRW metric,
255: reveals that both observers agree that the duration of the outward
256: light ray (red paths of the observers) is shorter than the return
257: journey (shown in blue). Both observers agree on the length of time
258: each leg of the journey took. However, an examination of the
259: right-hand panel, where lines of synchronicity are defined by slices of
260: constant conformal coordinate time $t$, reveal a different
261: picture. Now, both observers agree that the duration of the outward
262: and return journey are equal, but they disagree on how much time the
263: journey took in total.
264:
265: How are we to interpret this picture? Clearly the issue lies with the
266: fact that measuring the journey time for any individual leg
267: depends upon the comparison of clocks in differing inertial frames,
268: a message stated by \citet{2006astro.ph..1171C} who considered a
269: Milne (special relativistic universe) and inertial observers. This paper
270: shows that this is generally true in the relativistic interpretation of
271: any FLRW universe and the ``{\it different} spacetime structure(s)"
272: (Figures 3-4 of \citet{abram}) are purely due to the way they have chosen define
273: synchronicity and slice up spacetime.
274:
275: \section{Carrying a Clock}\label{clock}
276: Of course, a major problem with considering the path of a photon is that it
277: is null and the affine parameter that describes its path has no physical
278: significance. But what if the photon is replaced with an observer who can
279: tick off their own proper time on the journey? To this end, we consider an
280: observer who accelerates away from the origin in a rocket with a constant
281: proper acceleration. The acceleration is continued for a fixed amount of
282: proper time $\Delta \tau_r$ (for the rocketeer), followed by a coasting
283: period where the rocket is turned off. The rocket is then swung round as
284: the rocketeer accelerates back towards the origin, with the rocket is
285: fired for a time $2\Delta\tau_r$ before again entering a coasting period.
286: The rocket is turned round again so that the acceleration is away the
287: origin and fired for a time $\Delta\tau_r$. Within the flat space-time
288: of special relativity, such a symmetric path will bring the rocketeer to
289: rest at the origin at the conclusion of their journey.
290:
291:
292: A general discussion of the influence of expanding space on the motion of
293: an accelerating observer will be presented in a future contribution (Kwan
294: \& Lewis {\it in preparation}), but here we consider three specific cases.
295: The top row of Figure~\ref{fig2} presents the journey of two rocketeers in
296: an expanding, open universe; in this case, $\Omega_o=0.001$ and the
297: resultant space-time structure should be akin to the Milne (empty)
298: universe. The first rocketeer leaves from the origin, and carries out the
299: symmetric accelerations outlined above. The second undertakes the same
300: journey, starting at the same cosmic time, $t'$, but at a different
301: comoving spatial location. To emphasise the issue of synchronicity when
302: making comparisons between different coordinate systems, both journeys
303: have been represented twice, in partially conformal coordinates on the left
304: and in fully conformal coordinates on the right. As expected, in either
305: representation the rocketeers return to rest at the the origin of their
306: journey. However, an examination of the rocketeer's path in the partial
307: conformal coordinates reveals that it is not symmetric, with more time $\eta$
308: spent reaching the most distant point from the origin, than the return journey.
309: Furthermore, the mid-point of
310: the journey as seen by the rocketeer (where the path colour switches from red to blue)
311: also does not correspond to the most distant point reached in the journey.
312:
313: Moving to the fully conformal picture (right hand panel) we would expect
314: this path to be virtually the same as that seen in special relativity
315: \citep[see][for a discussion of the behaviour of the conformal
316: transformation for an open universe as
317: $\Omega_o\rightarrow0$]{2006astro.ph..1171C}; this is precisely what is
318: seen, with the path of the rocketeer starting at the origin being
319: symmetric in the conformal time $t$. Remember that in this representation,
320: observers at fixed comoving distances are now seen on sloping lines and
321: the rocket still reaches its greatest comoving distance during its
322: deceleration (dark blue), although the rocketeer reaches the maximum coordinate distance $r$
323: at the mid-point of the journey. The path of the rocketeer who starts at the
324: non-zero comoving coordinate is a little more complex, and quite different to that
325: seen in the partial conformal coordinates, but it also returns to
326: its origin after a symmetric flight.
327:
328: The second row of Figure~\ref{fig2} presents identical journeys in an
329: open, matter dominated universe with $\Omega_o=0.500$, again with the left
330: hand panel presenting the partial conformal coordinates and the right hand
331: panel presenting the fully conformal representation. While several aspects of the
332: paths of the rocketeer are similar to those seen in Figure~\ref{fig2},
333: there is a very important difference, namely that even though the paths
334: are symmetric in terms of acceleration and coasting time for the
335: rocketeer, they do not come to rest at the origin of their journey. In
336: fact, in this open case, the rocketeer over shoots and even when their
337: rocket is turned off, they are still moving away from their origin.
338: Exactly the same behaviour is seen in the fully conformal picture.
339: Although, it may seem that this asymmetry, absent in the case of a static
340: universe (see Figure~\ref{fig1}), is an indication that space is really
341: expanding, this effect only occurs with the introduction of matter content
342: to act on the motion of the rocketeer. In any case, we might naively
343: expect that if space is expanding, then the journey is longer on the way
344: back than it was on the way forwards [c.f. figure 4 of \cite{abram}] and
345: hence we might predict under-shooting, rather than over-shooting, the
346: origin. It must be emphasised that this over shoot is no different in the
347: Newtonian limit of the FLRW metric without expansion; using Gauss's law
348: we can see that at a given radius $R$ from the origin, the rocketeer
349: experiences a gravitational acceleration towards the origin due to the
350: mass contained by a sphere of radius $R$. This imaginary sphere changes
351: size throughout the journey but the acceleration from gravity remains
352: pointed towards the origin during the entire trip. Thus in addition to
353: the thrust provided by the rocket, the rocketeer recieves at all times an
354: additional push towards the origin. We should not, therefore, be surprised to
355: find the rocketeer overshoots. Thinking very simply about the effects of
356: gravity, rather than the more nebulous expansion of space, gives a much
357: simpler intuitive view.
358:
359: This asymmetry is even more apparent in the bottom row of
360: Figure~\ref{fig2} which again presents the rocketeers' paths in partial
361: and fully conformal coordinates, except now the matter density is
362: $\Omega_o=0.999$; in this case, the universe is approaching the spatially
363: flat $\Omega_o=1$ universe and hence the slope of the comoving observer in
364: the fully conformal picture is approaching that of the partially conformal
365: case (as noted previously, for spatially flat models the partial and fully conformal
366: transforms are equal). The key difference between the three cases
367: represented in Figure~\ref{fig2} is that the matter content of each
368: universe increases, which we are free to interpret as the cause of the
369: increasing asymmetry in the paths, rather than the asymmetry being
370: caused by the expansion of space.
371: Again this overshoot can be understood in the Newtonian limit of the FLRW
372: metric without expansion; we would expect approximately the same behaviour
373: to occur for a rocketeer travelling at non-relativistic speeds in a
374: Newtonian potential to a destination close by. The implications of this
375: journey on the question of whether space really expands are presented in
376: Section~\ref{syn}.
377:
378: \subsection{Synchronizing Clocks}\label{sync}
379: It is clear that the timing issues related to the radar experiment are
380: related to the synchronization of clocks (as are many of the
381: problems and apparent paradoxes in relativity). However, the universe itself
382: provides a clock that can be employed to provide at least a working
383: definition of synchronicity using the density of matter/energy; as the
384: universe expands, the density of matter falls and dashed lines in the
385: right hand panel of Figure~\ref{fig1} correspond to slices of cosmic
386: time in the FLRW metric along which the density is equal.
387: Clearly, such synchronization is not possible in the Milne universe,
388: as, being empty, there is no density yardstick with which to tick off
389: cosmic time. However, the situation is the same in a universe
390: containing only a cosmological constant term (with equation of state
391: $w=-1$) as the energy density remains a constant.
392:
393: With either of these cases, or any other universe model, we can
394: imagine a `test CMB', a homogeneous and isotropic bath of photons of
395: negligible energy fraction defining the Hubble rest frame and
396: comoving coordinates. By measuring the temperature of the CMB all
397: observers can calibrate their clocks to each other. Interestingly,
398: even in the Milne universe which contains no gravitating energy, this
399: test CMB provides a universal clock giving an excellent demonstration
400: of how we can observe an apparent expansion of space in a universe
401: known to be completely empty and equivalent to special
402: relativity. Clearly the interpretation of expanding space `stretching'
403: photons causing them to redshift, while being a useful teaching aid,
404: does not describe a casual physical phenomenon if we can observe this
405: effect in Minkowski space.
406:
407:
408: \section{Conclusions: So, is Space Really Expanding?}\label{syn} This
409: work has grown out of a recent exchange in the literature on the
410: question on whether space `really' expands. In a previous contribution
411: \citep{2007PASA...24...95F}, we argued that while space is `completely
412: and utterly empty' (to quote Steve Weinberg), it is perfectly valid to
413: interpret the equations of relativity in terms of an expanding space.
414: The mistake is to push analogies too far and imbue space with physical
415: properties that are not consistent with the equations of relativity.
416:
417:
418: In their recent work, \citet{abram} showed that, in all but an empty
419: universe, distances derived from the Hubble law and radar ranging
420: differ and hence ``one must conclude that space is expanding". But how
421: is this difference occurring? Is the expansion of space acting on a
422: light ray (or even a rocketeer) as they travel through the universe?
423: We can think of space as a rubber sheet that stretches to wash
424: out peculiar motions and drives everything back into the Hubble flow
425: [see \citet{barnes2006}].
426: However, it is the presence of matter that necessitates the inclusion of
427: gravitational forces upon the motion of the rocketeers and it is
428: this - the changing gravitational influence of matter in the universe
429: on the rocketeers - that causes the increasing asymmetry moving down the
430: panels in Figure~\ref{fig2}, not that space physically expands.
431:
432:
433: In closing, we state that it is a fools errand to search for the
434: truth of the existance of expanding space; not only because it is
435: dependant upon a choice of coordinates, but also because general
436: relativity is represented by Newtonian physics in the weak field limit
437: and the global behaviour of the FLRW metric always reduces to
438: Newtonian gravity in the limit of the local universe with no need
439: for expanding space. While the expansion of space is a valid (but
440: dangerous picture when working with the equations of relativity, any
441: attempts) to obtain observations to address the question of whether
442: galaxies are moving through static space or are carried away by the
443: expansion of space are doomed to failure.
444:
445: \section*{Acknowledgments}
446: GFL acknowledges support from ARC Discovery Project DP0665574. MJF is
447: supported by a scholarship partially funded by the Science Faculty at The
448: University of Sydney. JK is supported by an Australian Postgraduate Award.
449:
450: \begin{thebibliography}{DEM}
451: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Abramowicz et
452: al.}{2007}]{abram} Abramowicz M.~A., Bajtlik S., Lasota
453: J.-P., Moudens A., 2007, AcA, 57, 139
454:
455: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Barnes et al.}{2006}]{barnes2006}
456: Barnes L.~A., Francis M.~J., James, J.~B., Lewis G.~F. 2006, MNRAS, 373, 382
457:
458: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chodorowski}{2005}]{2005PASA...22..287C}
459: Chodorowski M.~J., 2005, PASA, 22, 287
460:
461: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chodorowski}{2006}]{2006astro.ph.10590C}
462: Chodorowski M.~J., 2006, astro, arXiv:astro-ph/0610590
463:
464: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Chodorowski}{2007}]{2006astro.ph..1171C}
465: Chodorowski M.~J., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 239
466:
467: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Davis \& Lineweaver}{2001}]{2001AIPC..555..348D}
468: Davis T.~M., Lineweaver C.~H., 2001, AIPC, 555, 348
469:
470: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Davis \& Lineweaver}{2004}]{2004PASA...21...97D}
471: Davis T.~M., Lineweaver C.~H., 2004, PASA, 21, 97
472:
473: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Davis, Lineweaver, \& Webb}{2001}]{2001astro.ph..4349D}
474: Davis T.~M., Lineweaver C.~H., Webb J.~K., 2003, Am. J. Phys., 71, 358
475:
476: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Francis et
477: al.}{2007}]{2007PASA...24...95F} Francis M.~J., Barnes L.~A., James J.~B.,
478: Lewis G.~F., 2007, PASA, 24, 95
479:
480: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Heyl}{2005}]{Heyl} Heyl
481: J.~S., 2005, PhRvD, 72, 107302
482:
483: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hobson, Efstathiou, \&
484: Lasenby}{2005}]{2005gere.book.....H} Hobson M.~P., Efstathiou G.~P.,
485: Lasenby A.~N., 2005, General Relativity: An Introduction for Physicists,
486: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
487:
488: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Infeld \& Schild}{1945}]{is}
489: Infeld L. \& Schild A., 1945, Phys. Rev., 68, 250
490:
491: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lewis et al.}{2007}]{2007MNRAS.381L..50L}
492: Lewis G.~F., Francis M.~J., Barnes L.~A., James J.~B., 2007, MNRAS, 381,
493: L50
494:
495: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peacock}{2006}]{Peacockweb}
496: Peacock, J., 2006, www.roe.ac.uk/$\sim$jap/book/additions.html
497:
498: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Whiting}{2004}]{2004Obs...124..174W}
499: Whiting A.~B., 2004, Obs, 124, 174
500:
501: \end{thebibliography}
502: \end{document}
503:
504:
505:
506:
507: