DARK ENERGY OR TIRED LIGHT (DECREASED SPEED OF PHOTONS)?

Einsteinians make career and money by devising new idiocies while
going around the truth:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...g_dark_energy/
"AGAINST ALL REASON, the universe is accelerating its expansion. (...)
To Temple and Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California–
Davis and the University of Michigan, respectively, dark energy seemed
an ad hoc addition to cosmology. (...) But as an explanation to
replace dark energy, there are at least two serious problems with
Temple and Smoller’s wave of expansion, cosmologists say. (...) But
perhaps the largest objection voiced is that this model would require
Earth to be at the center of the universe. In other words, it would
violate the Copernican principle, which states that the Earth does not
have a special, favored place and that the universe is essentially
homogeneous."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 3 Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteinians make career and money by devising new idiocies while
going around the truth:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...g_dark_energy/
"AGAINST ALL REASON, the universe is accelerating its expansion. (...)
To Temple and Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California–
Davis and the University of Michigan, respectively, dark energy seemed
an ad hoc addition to cosmology. (...) But as an explanation to
replace dark energy, there are at least two serious problems with
Temple and Smoller’s wave of expansion, cosmologists say. (...) But
perhaps the largest objection voiced is that this model would require
Earth to be at the center of the universe. In other words, it would
violate the Copernican principle, which states that the Earth does not
have a special, favored place and that the universe is essentially
homogeneous."

The above idiocy looks insurmountable but there is always a greater
idiocy in Einsteiniana:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n31116578/
"Even if we set the value of the cosmological constant to account for
the accelerating expansion of the universe, the implications of a
nonzero constant boggle the mind. The constant's mathematical value
corresponds to the amount of dark energy that lurks in every cubic
centimeter of space. It follows that, as the cosmos expands and new
space comes into existence, every cubic centimeter of new space will
contain just as much dark energy as every old cubic centimeter does.
Accordingly, the universe not only expands at an accelerating rate,
but also produces a correspondingly growing amount of dark energy.
Here we find the ultimate free lunch--energy produced without any
investment beyond the original creation of the universe. But doesn't
this violate the law of conservation of energy, which states that the
total amount of energy remains constant, though it may change its form
(matter being a form of energy, with a value expressed by Einstein's
famous equation, E = [mc.sup.2])? No, because this law applies to any
isolated, closed system--and the universe, which continuously creates
new space, does not satisfy that condition."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians should take more notice of what the Biggest Brother, Lord
Martin Rees, says:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Lord Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy – the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart – might not even exist."

A few years ago Lord Martin Rees said: "Divine Albert's Divine Theory
can no longer be a money-spinner!" - and Einsteiniana did obey:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...ums-right.html
"Did Einstein get all his sums right?.....Last week, an American probe
began an 18-month mission to put Einstein's prediction to the test, 90
years after he unveiled his ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was
blasted into space from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on
a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and will orbit the Earth for more than a year.
The $700 million joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University,
conceived in 1958, uses four of the most perfect spheres ever created
inside the world's largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions
in the fabric of the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer
Royal, said: "The project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the
persistence and lobbying power of Stanford University. But its
gestation has been grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have
been equally gross. I recall hearing a talk about the project from
Francis Everitt (principal investigator) when I was still a student
and it was already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for
Einstein's theory was meagre just two tests, with 10 per cent
precision. But relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with
precision of one part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to
have new and different tests. But the level of confidence in
Einstein's theory is now so high that an announcement of the expected
result will 'fork no lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected
result, I suspect most people will suspect an error in this very
challenging experiment rather than immediately abandon Einstein:
There's now so much evidence corroborating Einstein, that a high
burden of proof is required before he'll be usurped by any rival
theory. "So the most exciting if un-alluring outcome of Gravity Probe
B would be a request by Stanford University for another huge sum of
money to repeat it."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einsteinians make career and money by devising new idiocies while
going around the truth:

http://seedmagazine.com/content/arti...g_dark_energy/
"AGAINST ALL REASON, the universe is accelerating its expansion. (...)
To Temple and Smoller, mathematicians at the University of
CaliforniaDavis and the University of Michigan, respectively, dark
energy seemed an ad hoc addition to cosmology. (...) But as an
explanation to replace dark energy, there are at least two serious
problems with Temple and Smollers wave of expansion, cosmologists say.
(...) But perhaps the largest objection voiced is that this model
would require Earth to be at the center of the universe. In other
words, it would violate the Copernican principle, which states that
the Earth does not have a special, favored place and that the universe
is essentially homogeneous."

The above idiocy looks insurmountable but there is always a greater
idiocy in Einsteiniana:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n31116578/
"Even if we set the value of the cosmological constant to account for
the accelerating expansion of the universe, the implications of a
nonzero constant boggle the mind. The constant's mathematical value
corresponds to the amount of dark energy that lurks in every cubic
centimeter of space. It follows that, as the cosmos expands and new
space comes into existence, every cubic centimeter of new space will
contain just as much dark energy as every old cubic centimeter does.
Accordingly, the universe not only expands at an accelerating rate,
but also produces a correspondingly growing amount of dark energy.
Here we find the ultimate free lunch--energy produced without any
investment beyond the original creation of the universe. But doesn't
this violate the law of conservation of energy, which states that the
total amount of energy remains constant, though it may change its form
(matter being a form of energy, with a value expressed by Einstein's
famous equation, E = [mc.sup.2])? No, because this law applies to any
isolated, closed system--and the universe, which continuously creates
new space, does not satisfy that condition."

Pentcho Valev