DEDUCTIVE COSMOLOGY (2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1pgz...eature=related
"Is Everything We Know Wrong? (...) So for now the standard model
remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a
perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

Yes the standard model of cosmology is totally wrong. It is
(implicitly) based on the following premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength varies with their
frequency.

The second premise, which is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false
constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned. Cosmologists
will have to try to deduce their science from the following couple of
premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength remains constant.

When the observer is moving towards a stationary source of light the
constancy of the wavelength and the variability of the speed of light
are so obvious that scientists often break the crimestop wall:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

More breaking of the crimestop wall:

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html
"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?

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?for...rg%3A0706.2885
David Schuster: "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."

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..."

Joao Magueijo, the strangest cosmologist:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...t-popular.html
"A brilliant physicist Joao Magueijo asks the heretical question: What
if the speed of light - now accepted as one of the unchanging
foundations of modern physics - were not constant? "A number of
surprising observations made at the threshold of the 21st century have
left cosmologists confused and other physicists in doubt over the
reliability of cosmology," Magueijo says. "For instance it has been
found that the cosmological expansion appears to be accelerating. This
is contrary to common sense, as it implies that on large scales
gravity is repulsive."

Then try to explain the cosmological redshift in terms of variable
speed of light and static universe, Joao Magueijo. What prevents you
from trying? Crimestop?

Pentcho Valev

On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, Pentcho Valev wrote:

"Is Everything We Know Wrong?

No, if everything we know is wrong, then it's wrong that everything we
know is wrong. So it's wrong that everything we know is wrong. Thus
we know some thing that's not wrong. What is it?

"William Elliot" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 7 Aug 2011, Pentcho Valev wrote:
|
| "Is Everything We Know Wrong?
|
| No, if everything we know is wrong, then it's wrong that everything we
| know is wrong. So it's wrong that everything we know is wrong. Thus
| we know some thing that's not wrong. What is it?
|
Your question is wrong.
We know some things that're not wrong. What are they?
Begin exhaustive list he