DOPPLER REDSHIFT, COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT, LUNACY

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

What if the light source is stationary and the observer starts moving
towards it? How can the moving observer change the wavelength? Hawking
would never answer and of all the Einsteinians all over the world not
one could think of a reason why he should. The lunacy is classical -
ecstatic believers react to such classical teaching by singing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity":

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Postclassical lunacy in Einsteiniana:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=278
Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the
expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is
referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an
entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the
expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving
away from each other - rather, the space between these objects
stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched,
and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a
special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational
redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes
the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic
example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth;
if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it
is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that
the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the
gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its
surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be
"stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and
hence the wavelength of the light.)"

Believers sing again but soon the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - they
tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into
convulsions.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html
"The speed of light, c, in a vacuum is an important physical constant,
by definition it is precisely 299,792,458 meters per second. This
value c applies not only to the light we see - the colors of the
rainbow, but to all electromagnetic radiation, gravitational waves and
anything having zero rest mass. In Einstein's theory of relativity the
speed of light plays the crucial role of a conversion factor between
space and time and between mass and energy. But, here's a thing. The
speed of light is not constant. Only the speed of light in a vacuum is
as fast as you can go. Shine a light through a piece of glass, a
swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly,
it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be
bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical
objects and our earthly telescopes? 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? If so, wouldn't a stick
plunged into the pool appear bent as the light is refracted and won't
that affect all our observations about the universe. I asked
theoretical physicist Leonard Susskind, author of The Black Hole War,
recently reviewed in Science Books to explain this apparent
anomaly....."You are entirely right," he told me, "there are all sorts
of effects on the propagation of light that astronomers and
astrophysicists must account for. The point of course is that they
(not me) do take these effects into account and correct for them." "In
a way this work is very heroic but unheralded," adds Susskind, "An
immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has gone into the
detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these 'spurious'
effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels with the
speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about cosmic
swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but physicists have
taken the deviations into account so that other physicists, such as
Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong, can battle their way
to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev

I never reply to the bot, but will to you.

firstly, there are no newtonian corpuscles or "photons,"
although they are really just quanta of energy,
absorbed or emitted by atoms, no "particular shape
implied," other than what Einstein apparently visualized;
most of the paradoxes disappear by using wavefronts,
a la Young, Huyghens et. etc. classical experiments and
analogies.

actually, it's hard to see,
what in Hell you are saying, as well.

According to the mainstream status-quo of all things Einstein GR and SR or
bust, we're just supposed to take their profound word that photons actually
travel, and at the same time there's never any lead or point photon wave to
measure, as well as no objective proof that a detected photon is even the
exact same as the original source photon.

The fact that trying to detect an individual photon from being just 0.1
degree off path shows us absolutely nothing, as such isn't supposed to
bother their interpretation that whatever original photons are moving along
at c.

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from WHAT BEFALLS
LIGHT SIGNALS AS THEY TRAVERSE SPACE AND TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF
GRAVITATION."

Let us draw on Banesh Hoffmann's insight and advance the following
"photon-interaction" hypothesis:

The photon-interaction hypothesis: "The cosmological redshift does not
arise from changes in distances between celestial objects. It arises
from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time."

Needless to say, this hypothesis is by no means new:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
improbable than a non-expanding one."

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...-einstein.html
"Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the
smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to
calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays
travel through space."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1612
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les «
redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une
interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue
de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore
précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de
cette vision de l'univers."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1502
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se
démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-
Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge
est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de
lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies
s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur
distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une
vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers
observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des
galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de
quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus
petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en
vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son
collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui
implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge
non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas
d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un
dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en
expansion."

http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/bigbang.html
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky
il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis
Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent
l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la
lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de
l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi
de Hubble, prédite très simplement."

Curiously, mainstream cosmologists are almost in mourning, desperately
look for a way out of the predicament but don't even hint at the
photon-interaction hypothesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1pgz...eature=related
Is Everything We Know Wrong?

Pentcho Valev

A possible mechanism behind the photon-interaction hypothesis
explaining the cosmological redshift in a STATIC universe:

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...rg%3A0706.2885
An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift
David Schuster
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Denver
"Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass
density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this
equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter,
averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider
the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of
the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions
and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the
effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many
interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short
distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond
to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an
interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light
years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic
space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in
areas of particularly high density."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from WHAT BEFALLS
LIGHT SIGNALS AS THEY TRAVERSE SPACE AND TIME IN THE PRESENCE OF
GRAVITATION."

Let us draw on Banesh Hoffmann's insight and advance the following
"photon-interaction" hypothesis:

The photon-interaction hypothesis: "The cosmological redshift does not
arise from changes in distances between celestial objects. It arises
from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time."

Needless to say, this hypothesis is by no means new:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
improbable than a non-expanding one."

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...-einstein.html
"Yet quantum theory suggests that space should be grainy at the
smallest scales, like sand on a beach. (...) According to
calculations, the tiny grains would affect the way that gamma rays
travel through space."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1612
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les «
redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une
interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue
de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore
précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de
cette vision de l'univers."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1502
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se
démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-
Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge
est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de
lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies
s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur
distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une
vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers
observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des
galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de
quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus
petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en
vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son
collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui
implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge
non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas
d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un
dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en
expansion."

http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/bigbang.html
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky
il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis
Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent
l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la
lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de
l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi
de Hubble, prédite très simplement."

Curiously, mainstream cosmologists are almost in mourning, desperately
look for a way out of the predicament but don't even hint at the
photon-interaction hypothesis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1pgz...eature=related
Is Everything We Know Wrong?

Pentcho Valev

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fra/educat...011-09-14.html
Conseil national de recherches Canada: "Fait surprenant, bien qu'il
ait contribué à quantifier l'expansion de l'univers, Hubble n'a jamais
vraiment cru au phénomène."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
improbable than a non-expanding one."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

A possible mechanism behind the photon-interaction hypothesis
explaining the cosmological redshift in a STATIC universe:

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...rg%3A0706.2885
An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift
David Schuster
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Denver
"Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass
density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this
equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter,
averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider
the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of
the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions
and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the
effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many
interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short
distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond
to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an
interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light
years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic
space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in
areas of particularly high density."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4H3DoOIg6s
Etienne Klein: "Hubble s'est rendu compte à la fin des années 20 que
les galaxies s'éloignent les unes des autres d'autant plus rapidement
qu'elles sont plus éloignées les unes des autres."

Etienne Klein, ce mensonge initial est nécessaire pour les
élucubrations que vous enseignez ensuite mais il accule l'esprit de
l'écouteur à une impasse. Hubble a trouvé que le redshift de la
lumière venant d'une galaxie est d'autant plus grand que la galaxie
est plus éloignée, mais il s'est rendu compte que "the expanding
universe" est "more improbable than a non-expanding one". Ne mentez
pas, Etienne Klein!

Pentcho Valev a écrit:

http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/fra/educat...011-09-14.html
Conseil national de recherches Canada: "Fait surprenant, bien qu'il
ait contribué à quantifier l'expansion de l'univers, Hubble n'a jamais
vraiment cru au phénomène."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...757145,00.html
Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
improbable than a non-expanding one."

A possible mechanism behind the photon-interaction hypothesis
explaining the cosmological redshift in a STATIC universe:

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...rg%3A0706.2885
An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift
David Schuster
Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Denver
"Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass
density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this
equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter,
averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider
the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of
the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions
and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the
effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many
interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short
distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond
to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an
interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light
years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic
space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in
areas of particularly high density."

Pentcho Valev

http://royalmonacoriviera.over-blog....-84449189.html
Les Colloques de Menton 2011 « Penser notre temps »
Samedi 1er octobre 2011 : Rencontres sur les Origines
L'UNIVERS : D'OÙ VIENT-IL ? OÙ VA-T-IL ?
Jusqu'au XVIème siècle, la Terre était considérée comme le centre de
l'Univers. On sait désormais que l'Univers n'a ni bord ni centre, et
que nous n'y occupons aucune position privilégiée. Quelles sont les
lois qui régissent l'Univers ? S'il existe un consensus autour du
modèle du Big Bang, la question de la finitude ou de la non-finitude
de l'Univers n'est pas tranchée et préoccupe toujours les hommes.
Quelle est l'origine de l'Univers et quel est son devenir ? Quel est
la place de l'Homme en son sein ? Et surtout, comme le demandait le
philosophe et mathématicien Leibniz, « pourquoi y a-t-il quelque chose
plutôt que rien ? ». Telles sont quelques-unes des questions
auxquelles ce colloque tentera d'apporter des éléments de réponse.
Intervenants :
- André BRAHIC, Astrophysicien au Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique
(CEA), Professeur à l'Université Paris VII, Directeur du laboratoire
Gamma-gravitation rattaché à l'UFR de Physique.
- Etienne KLEIN, Physicien, Directeur du Laboratoire de Recherches sur
les Sciences de la Matière au CEA, Professeur à l'Ecole Centrale de
Paris

Etienne Klein,

Vous aurez l'opportunité d'être honnête pour la première fois dans
votre vie et discuter de l'autre interprétation du redshift de Hubble,
celle que Hubble préférait:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1612
Jean-Claude Pecker: "L'expansion ne serait qu'une apparence ; les «
redshifts » ne seraient pas dus à l'effet Doppler-Fizeau, mais à une
interaction des photons avec les milieux traversés (c'est la « fatigue
de la lumière »). Le mécanisme de cette interaction n'est pas encore
précisé ; plusieurs suggestions sont faites ; cest le point faible de
cette vision de l'univers."

http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/spip.php?article1502
Jean-Claude Pecker: "Or, le décalage d'un spectre vers le rouge se
démontre simplement en physique classique grâce à l'effet Doppler-
Fizeau, bien étudié au XIXe siècle. Un décalage spectral vers le rouge
est alors lié à une vitesse d'éloignement de la galaxie source de
lumière. Avec cette interprétation, on peut dire que les galaxies
s'éloignent toutes de nous avec une vitesse proportionnelle à leur
distance, et qu'elles s'écartent donc les unes des autres avec une
vitesse proportionnelle à la distance qui les sépare. L'univers
observé serait alors, actuellement, en expansion. Les vitesses des
galaxies les plus lointaines étudiées par Hubble étaient au plus de
quelques dizaines de milliers de kilomètres par seconde, dix fois plus
petites que la vitesse de la lumière ; cette vitesse était déjà en
vérité considérable, si considérable que Hubble lui-même, et son
collègue Tolman parlent toujours de « vitesse apparente » - ce qui
implique qu'ils envisagent la possibilité de décalages vers le rouge
non dus à un effet Doppler-Fizeau. Mais la collectivité, n'ayant pas
d'autre explication que l'effet Doppler, admet - et cela devient un
dogme non discuté, et bientôt non discutable - que l'Univers est en
expansion."

http://www.zetetique.ldh.org/bigbang.html
Jean-Claude Pecker: "...d'autres auteurs (après Zwicky et Belopolsky
il y a plus d'un demi siècle, Findlay-Freundlich, vers 1954, puis
Vigier et moi-même, vers 1972, et bien d'autres depuis) défendent
l'idée de la "fatigue de la lumière". En voyageant dans l'espace, la
lumière interagit avec le milieu traversé... la lumière perd de
l'énergie de façon proportionnelle à la durée du trajet : c'est la loi
de Hubble, prédite très simplement."

Pentcho Valev

What happened to panicky cosmologists? There was a nice documentary
recently of which only a small piece seems to have survived:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6u5...eature=related
"Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong"

I think the time is ripe for considering the following hypothesis:

Everything we know about the universe is wrong because, in applying
the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

we have wrongly assumed that the frequency and the wavelength vary
while the speed of light remains constant. The speed of light does
vary with the gravitational potential (this is a prediction of both
Newton's emission theory of light and general relativity) and, most
probably, it gradually decreases as photons travel through "empty"
space ("tired light" is the euphemism).

Pentcho Valev