REDSHIFT LAW, SPEED OF LIGHT, PIONEER ANOMALY

On Sep 19, 11:32 am, Pentcho Valev wrote in
sci.physics.relativity:
According to the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

either the speed of light or the wavelength varies with the frequency.
The latter alternative is absurd, as demonstrated by John Kennaugh on
the forum sci.physics.relativity:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...c0706da2fb96b0
"Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away.
According to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c.....If you now
change your speed so that you are travelling away from the source at v
the frequency of the light you observe will be lower due to Doppler
shift but according to SR the light still travels at c w.r.t you. If c
hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength must have
changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what the maths
says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)- the
wavelength has changed.....The problem with this is that your change
of speed has apparently caused a change in what is happening at the
source 1 light year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is
even more absurd is that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to
avoid a 1 year delay in the frequency changing."

The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
changes with frequency leads to a universal principle called the
Redshift Law:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

The variability of the speed of light and the constancy of the
wavelength also imply that one should look for some reason why the
more distant galaxies are, the more redshifted light coming from them
is. If, as it travels, the photon bumps into some much smaller
particles (this assumption has a lot to do with the tired light
hypothesis), its speed will decrease proportionally to the distance
(this reconciles Hubble's law with the idea of a static universe).
However one can also assume that the effect is virtually zero at small
distances so, in the Pound-Rebka experiment for instance, the result
is consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and,
equivalently, with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission
theory of light.

The assumption that the decrease in the speed of photons is
proportional to the distance can be expressed as:

c* - c' = kD

where c* is the speed of photons initially modified at the source by
the movement of the source (relative to the observer) and/or its
gravitational field, c' is the observed (final) speed, D is the
distance between the source and the observer and k is a
proportionality factor. This, combined with the redshift law f'/f = c'/
c, gives:

f'/f = (c*-kD)/c

If the initial modification of the speed of photons is negligible,
then c*=c and we obtain:

f'/f = 1 - kD/c

which is a formula for calculating the distance D or the factor k.

Conclusions: Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, there was no
Big Bang, the universe is static.

The hypothesis that photons (as well as any other flying objects) bump
into some much smaller particles and so their speed decreases with
distance gets some support from the following texts:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly
"The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from
expectations of the trajectories of various unmanned spacecraft
visiting the outer solar system, notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11.
Both spacecraft are escaping from the solar system, and are slowing
down under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close
examination, however, they are slowing down slightly more than
expected."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
[snip 97 lines of crap]

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0205059
Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0307042
Rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9810085
Believable rationalized Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/gr-qc/0310088
Believable Pioneer anomaly updated
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411020
Pioneer anomaly
http://arXiv.org/abs/physics/0502123
Commentary on Pioneer anomaly minutia
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506139
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/open.questions.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.2656
1/3 modeled away

Pentcho Valev


Too stooopid to read and retain. Wear a diaper around your head.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Einsteiniana: first devising idiocies, then gloriously refuting
idiocies, Einstein's 1905 false light postulate saved, dark energy
forever:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40362/113/
"Alternate cosmological theory debunked, Earth may not be at center of
universe.....A radical alternative theory to the standard cosmological
model has been of growing interest in recent years. While physicists
have been able to integrate nearly all key components with resounding
accuracy, a new study shows that this alternate theory may not be "in
the black" after all. A recent scientific article entitled, "Can we
avoid Dark Energy?" addresses the alternate theory head-on. In the
end, the paper reveals that the Earth is not near the center of the
universe, and that theories relating to dark energy are far more
likely.....The work was carried out by J.P. Zibin, Adam Moss and
Douglas Scott of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the
University of British Columbia (BC) in Vancouver."

A slightly modified version of Einsteiniana's hymn:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

could be:

"Yes we all believe in dark energy, dark energy, dark dark dark very
dark energy".

Pentcho Valev

On Nov 27, 10:20*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Einsteiniana: first devising idiocies, then gloriously refuting
idiocies, Einstein's 1905 false light postulate saved, dark energy
forever:

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40362/113/
"Alternate cosmological theory debunked, Earth may not be at center of
universe.....A radical alternative theory to the standard cosmological
model has been of growing interest in recent years. While physicists
have been able to integrate nearly all key components with resounding
accuracy, a new study shows that this alternate theory may not be "in
the black" after all. A recent scientific article entitled, "Can we
avoid Dark Energy?" addresses the alternate theory head-on. In the
end, the paper reveals that the Earth is not near the center of the
universe, and that theories relating to dark energy are far more
likely.....The work was carried out by J.P. Zibin, Adam Moss and
Douglas Scott of the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the
University of British Columbia (BC) in Vancouver."

A slightly modified version of Einsteiniana's hymn:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

could be:

"Yes we all believe in dark energy, dark energy, dark dark dark very
dark energy".

Needless to say, the greatest idiocies can only be devised at the
Perimeter Institute, Einsteiniana's Headquarters:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...807.1854v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo: "The cosmological redshift acts to convert a frequency
dependent speed of light into a time-dependent speed of light."

Still Lee Smolin, Joao Magueijo's Master, can devise an even greater
idiocy:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...c-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev

Some day, when the era of Postscientism will be over, the most
incredible fact will be the coexistence, in the absence of any serious
discussion, of texts worshipping Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the
principle of constancy of the speed of light, and texts of this kind:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote:"In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the gravitational
redshift factor."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had
suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one,
the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding
train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the
speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object
emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume
that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to
Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null
result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to
contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as
we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null
result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian
ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more
or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" a écrit dans le message de news:
Some day, when the era of Postscientism will be over, the most
incredible fact will be the coexistence, in the absence of any serious
discussion, of texts worshipping Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the
principle of constancy of the speed of light, and texts of this kind:

Le début est clair, c'est la fin qui est confuse
Pourriez vous finir par le début ???

--
CDH

If there are gravitational waves, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is
gloriously confirmed; if there are no gravitational waves, Divine
Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...08/02/qa_turok
Neil Turok: "If the universe sprung into existence and then expanded
exponentially, you get gravitational waves traveling through space-
time. These would fill the universe, a pattern of echoes of the
inflation itself. In our model, the collision of these two branes
doesn't make waves at all. So if we could measure the waves, we could
see which theory is right."

Similarly, if the speed of light "varies with position" in a
gravitational field, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously
confirmed; if the speed of light does not vary with position in a
gravitational field, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even more
gloriously confirmed:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph..._of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . .
according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
"Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the
wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant.
Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the
wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A
on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f
to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave
person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval
of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a
frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the
frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z)
times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z)
L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is
called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a gravitational
redshift."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 1, 2:25*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If there are gravitational waves, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is
gloriously confirmed; if there are no gravitational waves, Divine
Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.wired.com/science/discove...08/02/qa_turok
Neil Turok: "If the universe sprung into existence and then expanded
exponentially, you get gravitational waves traveling through space-
time. These would fill the universe, a pattern of echoes of the
inflation itself. In our model, the collision of these two branes
doesn't make waves at all. So if we could measure the waves, we could
see which theory is right."

Similarly, if the speed of light "varies with position" in a
gravitational field, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously
confirmed; if the speed of light does not vary with position in a
gravitational field, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even more
gloriously confirmed:

http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/ph..._of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . .
according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
"Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the
wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant.
Stronger surface gravity produces a greater increase in the
wavelength. This is a consequence of time dilation. Suppose person A
on the massive object decides to send light of a specific frequency f
to person B all of the time. So every second, f wave crests leave
person A. The same wave crests are received by person B in an interval
of time interval of (1+z) seconds. He receives the waves at a
frequency of f/(1+z). Remember that the speed of light c = (the
frequency f) (the wavelength L). If the frequency is reduced by (1+z)
times, the wavelength must INcrease by (1+z) times: L_atB = (1+z)
L_atA. In the doppler effect, this lengthening of the wavelength is
called a redshift. For gravity, the effect is called a gravitational
redshift."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian

More glorious confirmations: If the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2), Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed;
if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
accordance with Einstein's "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), Divine
Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 13, 1:22*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
More glorious confirmations: If the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2), Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed;
if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
accordance with Einstein's "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), Divine
Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Absolutely glorious confirmations: When Divine Albert abandoned his
cosmological constant as nonsensical, Divine Albert's Divine Theory
was gloriously confirmed. Now that Einsteinians reintroduce Divine
Albert's cosmological constant, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even
more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/sc...n_wa s_right_
"Einstein later abandoned the cosmological constant, which he had
added to the theory to account for a stable universe, as nonsensical.
But as scientists discovered the universe was actually expanding at an
accelerating rate, the idea has attracted renewed interest.....David
Spergel, an astrophysicist at Princeton University, said that the
results from the Chandra observatory agree with earlier findings and
'suggest that Einstein is right.'..... 'Putting all this data together
gives us the strongest evidence yet that dark energy is the
cosmological constant, or in other words, that 'nothing weighs
something.' A lot more testing is needed, but so far Einstein's theory
is looking as good as ever,' said Alexey Vikhlinin of the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory."

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 17, 9:24*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Dec 13, 1:22*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

More glorious confirmations: If the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential V in accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2), Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed;
if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential V in
accordance with Einstein's "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2), Divine
Albert's Divine Theory is even more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

Absolutely glorious confirmations: When Divine Albert abandoned his
cosmological constant as nonsensical, Divine Albert's Divine Theory
was gloriously confirmed. Now that Einsteinians reintroduce Divine
Albert's cosmological constant, Divine Albert's Divine Theory is even
more gloriously confirmed:

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/sc...n_wa s_right_
"Einstein later abandoned the cosmological constant, which he had
added to the theory to account for a stable universe, as nonsensical.
But as scientists discovered the universe was actually expanding at an
accelerating rate, the idea has attracted renewed interest.....David
Spergel, an astrophysicist at Princeton University, said that the
results from the Chandra observatory agree with earlier findings and
'suggest that Einstein is right.'..... 'Putting all this data together
gives us the strongest evidence yet that dark energy is the
cosmological constant, or in other words, that 'nothing weighs
something.' A lot more testing is needed, but so far Einstein's theory
is looking as good as ever,' said Alexey Vikhlinin of the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory."

Einsteinians know no limits:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...9KErKcc-eK1yFw
"Mysterious "dark energy" works simultaneously to expand the universe
and shrink objects inside it, astronomers in the United States said
Tuesday. By studying how gravity competes with the expansion of galaxy
clusters, scientists have found "a crucial independent test of dark
energy," said the research compiled by scientists using NASA's Chandra
X-ray Observatory. "This result could be described as 'arrested
development of the universe,'" said lead researcher Alexey Vikhlinin
of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in the northeastern state
of Massachusetts. "Whatever is forcing the expansion of the universe
to speed up is also forcing its development to slow down." Dark energy
makes up about 70 percent of the universe, said the research to be
published in the February 10 issue of Astrophysical Journal."

Pentcho Valev