VERIFICATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

The Hubble redshift consists in a (measurable) shift in the frequency
of light proportional to the distance between the light source and the
observer. This allows one to test the following sets of assumptions:

SET 1:
1. The universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion.
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. The ad hoc hypothesis according to which the expanding universe
somehow stretches the wavelength of light so as to imitate the Doppler
effect is absurd.

SET 2:
1. The universe is not undergoing an accelerating expansion. Rather,
the speed of light gradually decreases as the travelling light
interacts with (unknown) constituents of "empty" space.
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. The ad hoc hypothesis according to which the expanding universe
somehow stretches the wavelength of light so as to imitate the Doppler
effect is absurd.

The Hubble redshift refutes SET 1 and confirms SET 2.

See also:

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."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...009.0953v1.pdf
Observational evidence favours a static universe
David F. Crawford
Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, University of
Sydney
"The common attribute of all Big Bang cosmologies is that they are
based on the assumption that the universe is expanding. However
examination of the evidence for this expansion clearly favours a
static universe. (...) Curvature cosmology (CC) is a static tired-
light cosmology where the Hubble redshift (and many other redshifts)
is produced by an interaction of photons with curved spacetime called
curvature redshift."

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..."

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 wrote:

The Hubble redshift consists in a (measurable) shift in the frequency
of light proportional to the distance between the light source and the
observer. This allows one to test the following sets of assumptions:

SET 1:
1. The universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion.
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. The ad hoc hypothesis according to which the expanding universe
somehow stretches the wavelength of light so as to imitate the Doppler
effect is absurd.

SET 2:
1. The universe is not undergoing an accelerating expansion. Rather,
the speed of light gradually decreases as the travelling light
interacts with (unknown) constituents of "empty" space.
2. (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
3. The ad hoc hypothesis according to which the expanding universe
somehow stretches the wavelength of light so as to imitate the Doppler
effect is absurd.

The Hubble redshift refutes SET 1 and confirms SET 2.

See also:

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."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...009.0953v1.pdf
Observational evidence favours a static universe
David F. Crawford
Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, University of
Sydney
"The common attribute of all Big Bang cosmologies is that they are
based on the assumption that the universe is expanding. However
examination of the evidence for this expansion clearly favours a
static universe. (...) Curvature cosmology (CC) is a static tired-
light cosmology where the Hubble redshift (and many other redshifts)
is produced by an interaction of photons with curved spacetime called
curvature redshift."

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..."

Pentcho Valev