REDISCOVERING HUBBLE'S LAW?

Hubble had some problems with the establishment;
http://www.etheric.com/Cosmology/redshift.html


߃--¹¹

Blatant fudge and masterstroke in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.decodedscience.com/einste...n-physics/4070
Paul A. Heckert, professor of physics and astronomy at Western
Carolina University: "Einstein therefore forced his theory to conform
to his preconceived ideas about the universe. To keep general
relativity from predicting either an expanding or collapsing universe,
Einstein added a cosmological constant to the general relativity
equations. There was absolutely no experimental or observational
justification for the existence of this cosmological constant.
Einstein's cosmological constant was a blatant fudge to force his
theory to conform to his conception of a static universe. (...)
Einstein modified general relativity by removing the cosmological
constant and returning the equations to their original form. To
Einstein's credit he admitted his error and called the cosmological
constant his biggest blunder. (...) One possible solution is
Einstein's cosmological constant. If cosmologists put the cosmological
constant back into Einstein's general relativity equations, then
general relativity equations can predict that the expansion of the
universe is accelerating. The value of the cosmological constant would
have to be different than the value Einstein originally used to force
the theory to predict a static universe. The idea basic is however the
same. Was Einstein's biggest blunder actually a masterstroke?"

Pentcho Valev

On 17 oct, 16:35, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Blatant fudge and masterstroke in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.decodedscience.com/einste...-and-the-2011-...
Paul A. Heckert, professor of physics and astronomy at Western
Carolina University: "Einstein therefore forced his theory to conform
to his preconceived ideas about the universe. To keep general
relativity from predicting either an expanding or collapsing universe,
Einstein added a cosmological constant to the general relativity
equations. There was absolutely no experimental or observational
justification for the existence of this cosmological constant.
Einstein's cosmological constant was a blatant fudge to force his
theory to conform to his conception of a static universe. (...)
Einstein modified general relativity by removing the cosmological
constant and returning the equations to their original form. To
Einstein's credit he admitted his error and called the cosmological
constant his biggest blunder. (...) One possible solution is
Einstein's cosmological constant. If cosmologists put the cosmological
constant back into Einstein's general relativity equations, then
general relativity equations can predict that the expansion of the
universe is accelerating. The value of the cosmological constant would
have to be different than the value Einstein originally used to force
the theory to predict a static universe. The idea basic is however the
same. Was Einstein's biggest blunder actually a masterstroke?"

Pentcho Valev


In the ASOVAC's convention (Caracas 1982) I presented my thesis that
the
near universe have an accelerated expantion. And that acceleration is
mesured
by Newton's Gravitation Constant. (Nobody gives any attention)
It mesures the acceleration of expanding tridimensional space by unity
of mass. With the Hubble Constant one can determine the mean density
of our near universe and viceversa.
Ludovicus

Einsteiniana: Nobel money taken so it is time for some "heresy":

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-...tood-dark.html
"(PhysOrg.com) -- The 2011 Nobel Prize in physics, awarded just a few
weeks ago, went to research on the light from Type 1a supernovae,
which shows that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
The well-known problem resulting from these observations is that this
expansion seems to be occurring even faster than all known forms of
energy could allow. While there is no shortage of proposed
explanations - from dark energy to modified theories of gravity - it's
less common that someone questions the interpretation of the
supernovae data itself. In a new study, that's what Arto Annila,
Physics Professor at the University of Helsinki, is doing. The basis
of his argument, which is published in a recent issue of the Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, lies in the ever-changing
way that light travels through an ever-evolving universe. "The
standard model of big bang cosmology (the Lambda-CMD model) is a
mathematical model, but not a physical portrayal of the evolving
universe," Annila told PhysOrg.com. "Thus the Lambda-CMD model yields
the luminosity distance at a given redshift as a function of the model
parameters, such as the cosmological constant, but not as a function
of the physical process where quanta released from a supernova
explosion disperse into the expanding universe. "When the supernova
exploded, its energy as photons began to disperse in the universe,
which has, by the time we observe the flash, become larger and hence
also more dilute," he said. (...) As a result, Annila argues that the
supernovae data does not imply that the universe is undergoing an
accelerating expansion."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

If distant supernovae are farther away than one would expect based on
the LINEAR increase of red shift with distance, this can be explained
on the assumption that, as the photon travels through "empty" space
(in a STATIC universe), it loses speed in much the same way that a
golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air:

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

On this analogy the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the
velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases in accordance with the
equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a
very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller
than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming
from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the
increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR.

Pentcho Valev