ELASTIC WAVELENGTH VERSUS VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT

An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
"the elastic wavelength explanation":

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
among astronomers - rather it was shocking."

The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
know it is a fantastic money-spinner:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
and this, combined with the formula:

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

gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
the elastic wavelength explanation:

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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? 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."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

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.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
"the elastic wavelength explanation":

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
among astronomers - rather it was shocking."

The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
know it is a fantastic money-spinner:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
and this, combined with the formula:

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

gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
the elastic wavelength explanation:

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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? 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."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

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.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

Pentcho Valev

According to the formula:

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

any shift in the speed of light produces a frequency shift (redshift
or blueshift). Since frequency shifts have been confirmed
experimentally, Einsteiniana's main concern has always been to
procrusteanize the wavelength so that the above formula could give
CONSTANT speed of light and believers could continue singing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity". The procrusteanization described below in which the
wavelength is stretched by the expanding universe is perhaps the least
idiotic one. The most idiotic procrusteaization is undoubtedly the one
in which the wavelength depends on the movements of the observer:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

The idea that the speed of light can be kept CONSTANT by
procrusteanizing the wavelength into conformity with the gravitational
redshift can be referred to as Einsteiniana's classical idiocy:

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

Believers' reaction to any procrusteanization of the wavelength:

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.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
"the elastic wavelength explanation":

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
among astronomers - rather it was shocking."

The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
know it is a fantastic money-spinner:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
and this, combined with the formula:

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

gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
the elastic wavelength explanation:

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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? 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."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

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.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

Pentcho Valev

Cosmologists on the right track in 1990:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990NASCP3098..491C
Title: A tentative explanation of cosmological red shift
Authors: Chang, T.; Torr, D. G.
Affiliation: AA(Alabama Univ., Huntsville.), AB(Alabama Univ.,
Huntsville.)
Publication: In NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center, Paired and
Interacting Galaxies: International Astronomical Union Colloquium No.
124 p 491-495
Publication Date: 11/1990
"The authors suggest a possible alternative explanation of
cosmological red shift. They consider that there exists a background
field in the universe, and that light (the photon) has an extremely
weak interaction with this background, and as result, experiences an
energy loss."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
"the elastic wavelength explanation":

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
among astronomers - rather it was shocking."

The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
know it is a fantastic money-spinner:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
and this, combined with the formula:

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

gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
the elastic wavelength explanation:

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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? 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."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

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.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
"the elastic wavelength explanation":

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
among astronomers - rather it was shocking."

The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
know it is a fantastic money-spinner:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
and this, combined with the formula:

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

gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
the elastic wavelength explanation:

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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? 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."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

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.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

Pentcho Valev

BUMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO FART!

This is a UNIVERSAL LAW and cannot be interfered with.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

Sooner or later gatekeepers, in dealing with the obvious fact that the
speed of any wave varies with the speed of the observer, "would be
faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed
earlier":

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V17N1GIF.pdf
"The Doppler Shift or frequency change for light or other
electromagnetic radiation detected by an observer moving at speed v
much lower than c directly towards a stationary source corresponds to
an increased light speed c_R = c+v relative to the moving observer. It
can similarly be shown that movement of the observer away from the
source results in a reduced light speed c_R = c-v. Analogous effects
occur for sound waves in a fluid medium."

Idiotic camouflage (the wavelength varies with the speed of the
observer so that the speed of the wave could gloriously remain
constant) would no longer be reliable:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."

Sooner or later gatekeepers, in dealing with the obvious fact that the
speed of any wave varies with the speed of the observer, "would be
faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed
earlier":

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles...F/V17N1GIF.pdf
"The Doppler Shift or frequency change for light or other
electromagnetic radiation detected by an observer moving at speed v
much lower than c directly towards a stationary source corresponds to
an increased light speed c_R = c+v relative to the moving observer. It
can similarly be shown that movement of the observer away from the
source results in a reduced light speed c_R = c-v. Analogous effects
occur for sound waves in a fluid medium."

Idiotic camouflage (the wavelength varies with the speed of the
observer so that the speed of the wave could gloriously remain
constant) would no longer be reliable:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."


Only part of the story. The arrival of the wavecrests happens sooner
as he goes to meet them, hence their frequency is greater, and since
wavelength * frequency = speed, the speed of water waves is the
same in any frame of reference, which is absurd.
Let the "shoreline" wavelength be w and the "shoreline" frequency
be f.
Then the "man walking out" wavelength is w/k and the frequency
he observes is fk.
c= wf = (w/k) * (fk) for all k.

The surfboard rider sees a very long wavelength (he remains at
the crest of the wave) and a very low frequency, there is no change
in his altitude.



http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
"the elastic wavelength explanation":

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
among astronomers - rather it was shocking."

The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
know it is a fantastic money-spinner:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
and this, combined with the formula:

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

gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
the elastic wavelength explanation:

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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? 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."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

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.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

Pentcho Valev

http://io9.com/5528758/ask-a-physici...in-dark-matter
"And don't even get me started about Dark Energy. It's the stuff that
accelerates the universe, and if you think you've got a problem with
Dark Matter, wait'll you see Dark Energy. It's no so much that we
don't understand where Dark Energy could come from; it's just that the
"natural" value (the one that comes out of reasonable assumptions
based on vacuum energy) is about 10^100 times the density that we
actually observe. For my money, this is the absolute biggest problem
in physics."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
"the elastic wavelength explanation":

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
among astronomers - rather it was shocking."

The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
know it is a fantastic money-spinner:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
and this, combined with the formula:

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

gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
the elastic wavelength explanation:

http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/...010-04-06.html
"This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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? 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."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/...0/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily
support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists
believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly
inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-
founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not
directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession
law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed
spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as
ordinary Doppler shifts. The observational techniques used by Hubble
led to the empirical discovery of a linear dependence of redshift on
distance. Based upon these historical considerations, the first
conclusion of the present study is that astronomical evidence in favor
of an expanding universe is circumstantial at best. The past eight
decades of astronomical observations do not necessarily support the
idea of an expanding universe. (...) Reber (1982) made the interesting
point that Edwin Hubble was not a promoter of the expanding universe
idea. Some personal communications from Hubble reveal that he thought
a model universe based upon the tired-light hypothesis is more simple
and less irrational than a model universe based upon an expanding
space-time geometry. The second conclusion of the present study is
that the model Hubble diagram for a static (tired-light) cosmology
gives a good fit to the Type Ia supernova data shown in Fig. 2. This
observational test of a static (tired-light) cosmology model also
proves that it is wholly possible to explain the supernovae data
without requiring any flat Friedmann model universe undergoing
acceleration."

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.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

Pentcho Valev