VERY SILLY COSMOLOGISTS

http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/B...0.html?sym=EXC
Joao Magueijo: "VERY SILLY....A missile fired from a plane moves
faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds
to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving
train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that
object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should
happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster.
However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this
was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed.
This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving
with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray,
they will all agree on the same apparent speed!....Specifically, I
began to speculate about the possibility that light traveled faster in
the early universe than it does now. To my surprise, I found that this
hypothesis appeared to solve at least some of the cosmological
problems without inflation. In fact, their solution appeared
inevitable in the varying speed of light theory. It was as if the
riddles of the Big Bang universe were trying to tell us precisely that
light was much faster in the early universe, and that at some very
fundamental level physics had to be based on a structure richer than
the theory of relativity."

Very silly Joao Magueijo should have taken more notice of what very
clever John Norton says:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

If very silly Joao Magueijo had taken more notice of what very clever
John Norton says, his "varying speed of light theory" would have
coincided with Newton's emission theory of light and "the riddles of
the Big Bang universe" would have found a much better solution.

Pentcho Valev

Very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking are (or were)
very silly Joao Magueijo's followers:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."

The reason is that, just like very silly Joao Magueijo, very silly
Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking do not understand the
Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1372828/posts
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter
and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
validity of the underlying theory. (...) Giving support only to
projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental
element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory
against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and
research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund
work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding
for investigations into alternative theories and observational
contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review
committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers
and physicists from outside the field of cosmology."

Obviously very silly cosmologists and their LHC sycophants do not care
about "investigations into alternative theories and observational
contradictions of the big bang" but then they should immediately stop
celebrating and wasting so much money:

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-...sts-2008-10-03
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "The LHC isn't running, but scientists are
throwing a party anyway....After a much-ballyhooed first proton beam
run on September 11, the LHC won’t actually be operational until next
year, thanks to a few early mishaps. Not exactly the results LHC
operators were hoping for – but why let a little thing like failure
get in the way of celebrating?..... Good to know there will be a
return on the $8 billion the world has splurged on the LHC."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 3, 4:53 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking are (or were)
very silly Joao Magueijo's followers:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."

The reason is that, just like very silly Joao Magueijo, very silly
Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking do not understand the
Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev


Photons represent mass, though perhaps only as a zero mass dump truck
at rest.

~ BG

Nobody takes very silly cosmologists's idiocies seriously anymore and
the next Newton (not next Einstein) is expected to come:

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_pop...html?id=859062
"The big bounce vs. the big bang....."The universe seems to go through
cycles of some kind ... Our universe is what I call an aeon in an
endless sequence of aeons," Prof. Penrose said in an address enlivened
by his breezy Oxbridge banter (10 to the power of 64 years is, for
example, "a jolly long time"), and illustrated by overhead
transparencies so artful in their multi-coloured, hand-drawn
penmanship that they would not have been out of place alongside a
baking-soda volcano at a grade school science fair. But this was top
level, cutting-edge physics, hosted by the Perimeter Institute for
Theoretical Physics. He described data he received just this week that
appears to show traces of the previous aeon in the microwave
background radiation that fills the universe and is regarded as the
lingering "flash" of the Big Bang. If it actually does, a lot of
science will have to be reconsidered. But no one gasped in awe. There
were no hoots of surprise, no muttering about this seeming heresy,
this contradiction of everything the general public thinks they know
about the creation of the universe.....Of course, this is all just
theory. Dapper and decorated as Sir Roger may be, physics still awaits
the breakthrough of the next Newton...."

I think clever cosmologists should first reconsider very carefully the
breakthrough of the original Newton:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...-radiation.php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

Very silly cosmologists find anything quite exciting: If e.g.
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false, that is, if there is no dark
energy, then that is quite exciting, and if the dark energy is
fiercely pushing the galaxies then that is again quite exciting:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news...145245137.html
"Was Einstein wrong?.....Scientists believe that dark energy is
exerting a force of negative pressure, leading to an acceleration of
the expansion of the universe as time goes on, rather than slowing
down as time passes. "We've got a material (dark energy) that we
really don't know about and is hard to explain in the first place or
Einstein's theories of General Relativity are wrong and we need to
invent some new physics to take care of this acceleration," UQ School
of Physics Lecturer Dr Kevin Pimbblet said. "Whatever explanation is
the right one it is really quite exciting."

Pentcho Valev

Very silly cosmologists from Oxford reject the Copernican Principle:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.1443
Timothy Clifton, Pedro G. Ferreira, and Kate Land
Oxford Astrophysics, Physics, DWB, Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK
Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008) 131302
"An alternative to admitting the existence of dark energy is to review
the postulates that necessitate its introduction. In particular, it
has been proposed that the SNe observations could be accounted for
without dark energy if our local environment were emptier than the
surrounding Universe, i.e. if we were to live in a void [5, 6, 7].
This explanation for the apparent acceleration does not invoke any
exotic substances, extra dimensions, or modifications to gravity – but
it does require a rejection of the Copernican Principle."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 3, 2:53 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking are (or were)
very silly Joao Magueijo's followers:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."

The reason is that, just like very silly Joao Magueijo, very silly
Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking do not understand the
Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Now very silly Stephen Hawking does not give a **** about Einstein's
1905 false light postulate - no Nobel prize in that direction because
Einstein zombie world finds the topic too dull. So very silly Stephen
Hawking is forced to devise exceptional idiocies - idiocies that could
still stir Einstein zombie world - in order to get the Nobel prize in
the end:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90WTDnvYqpA

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote in message

On Oct 3, 2:53 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Very silly Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking are (or were)
very silly Joao Magueijo's followers:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."

The reason is that, just like very silly Joao Magueijo, very silly
Martin Rees and very silly Stephen Hawking do not understand the
Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Now very silly Stephen Hawking does not give a **** about Einstein's
1905 false light postulate -

Don't you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself and your species
by continuing to mirerably fail to understand the differences between
- local and global,
- special relativity and general relativity,
- inertial and non-inertial,
- a personal humorous musing and a common dogma,
- children's books and inspired essays,
- physicists and philosophers,
- coordinate time and proper time,
- invariance and constancy,
- teachers and hypnotists,
- laymen and zombies,
- a person being right and a theory being right,
- students and imbeciles,
- bad science and bad engineering,
- bad engineering and bad cost management,
- honing the foundations of a theory and fighting it,
- physics and linguistics,
- an article written in 1905 and a theory created in 1915,
- understanding a book and turning its pages,
- speed and relative (aka closing) speed,
- doing algebra and randomly writing down symbols,
- real life and a Usenet hobby group,
- receiving a detailed reply and being ignored,
- everyday concepts and scientific concepts in physics,
- the three things that smell like fish,
- speed and velocity,
- an article and a book,
- relativity and disguised ether addiction,
- algebra and analytic geometry,
- kneeling down and bending over,
- a sycophant in English and in French,
- a relation and an equation,
- massive and massless particles,
- a Mexican poncho and a Sears poncho,
- implication and equivalence,
- group velocity and phase velocity,
- science and religion
?

Dirk Vdm

Very silly cosmologist Sir Roger Penrose explains time dilation to
Einstein zombie world very clearly:

http://grokscience.wordpress.com/tra...roger-penrose/
Roger Penrose: "Einstein introduced special relativity and there is a
thing called the clock paradox or the twin paradox. It's not really a
paradox but if you have these two people, one who stays still on the
Earth and one goes in a rocket ship to a distant star and comes back
again. You find that the one who's gone off and comes back has
experienced less time back than the one back on Earth. But what you
don't find is that their clocks run at a different rate. You see, the
one who has gone off and come back again, he brings his clock and it
looks slow. Time has not moved as much, but it still ticks at the same
rate as your clock does. But in Wiles' theory, which he introduced as
a generalization of Einstein's theory, the idea was that you could
incorporate electromagnetism as well as gravity. And Wiles' idea was
to say why don't we generalize general relativity so instead of having
clocks, which with the paradox could be slow but is not running slow,
let's suppose it might run slow. In fact, if you go though different
routes in space to come back to the same point, you compare clocks and
you find that one of them is actually running at a different rate from
the other one. And if you introduce that idea, you get a formalism
that incorporates equations just like Maxwell's equations."

Pentcho Valev