NEW COSMOLOGY?

The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
varies with frequency suggests that a universal principle called the
Redshift Law might be valid:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

The variability of the speed of light and the constancy of the
wavelength also imply that one should look for another reason
(different from Big Bang ones) why the more distant galaxies are, the
more redshifted light coming from them is. If, as it travels, the
photon regularly bumps into something and so gradually loses its speed
(this assumption has a lot to do with the tired light hypothesis), its
speed will decrease proportionally to the distance (this reconciles
Hubble's law with the idea of a static universe):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085.pdf
"However, it may be interesting to note that Hubble, even up to his
final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the
possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but
might be caused by something else."

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"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.prlog.org/10252874-the-ex...expanding.html
"The existence of Dark Energy is moot because the Universe is not
expanding. Dark energy thought to be the cause of an expanding
Universe is moot because cosmic dust is shown to produce the Hubble
redshift measurements without the Universe expanding.... Given that
Supernova light is unequivocally absorbed by DPs [dust particles] on
its way to the Earth, the measured Hubble redshift Z is most likely
caused by DPs and has nothing to do with an expanding Universe. Cosmic
dust therefore makes moot the existence of dark energy because it is
no longer necessary in non-expanding Universe. Cosmic dust also holds
in question the Hubble redshift as the first and only proof that the
Universe began with the Big Bang suggesting the new cosmological
paradigm adopted at the forthcoming Invisible Universe Conference in
Paris should be a return to Einstein’s static Universe in dynamic
equilibrium."

http://cosmologystatement.org/
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."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
varies with frequency suggests that a universal principle called the
Redshift Law might be valid:

f'/f = c'/c

where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

The variability of the speed of light and the constancy of the
wavelength also imply that one should look for another reason
(different from Big Bang ones) why the more distant galaxies are, the
more redshifted light coming from them is. If, as it travels, the
photon regularly bumps into something and so gradually loses its speed
(this assumption has a lot to do with the tired light hypothesis), its
speed will decrease proportionally to the distance (this reconciles
Hubble's law with the idea of a static universe):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085.pdf
"However, it may be interesting to note that Hubble, even up to his
final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the
possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but
might be caused by something else."

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"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.prlog.org/10252874-the-ex...expanding.html
"The existence of Dark Energy is moot because the Universe is not
expanding. Dark energy thought to be the cause of an expanding
Universe is moot because cosmic dust is shown to produce the Hubble
redshift measurements without the Universe expanding.... Given that
Supernova light is unequivocally absorbed by DPs [dust particles] on
its way to the Earth, the measured Hubble redshift Z is most likely
caused by DPs and has nothing to do with an expanding Universe. Cosmic
dust therefore makes moot the existence of dark energy because it is
no longer necessary in non-expanding Universe. Cosmic dust also holds
in question the Hubble redshift as the first and only proof that the
Universe began with the Big Bang suggesting the new cosmological
paradigm adopted at the forthcoming Invisible Universe Conference in
Paris should be a return to Einstein’s static Universe in dynamic
equilibrium."

http://cosmologystatement.org/
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."

Pentcho Valev

When we travel in space we might choose to go from A to B. If this is
considered a wrong choice some people would say the only thing you have
to do is to travel back to A (undo the choice) and then go to C instead.

But because space is tangeled with time traveling back to A will not
result in A but in A'. Traveling from A' to C has become impossible.
After you've been in B, after the initial choice, you can only travel to C'.

This logic has an implication, i.e. there must be a maximum speed.
Because when you travel from A to B at the same time C changes to C'.
It cannot change faster and it must change. This is relativity.

I don't know what you try to prove, but you cannot escape this logic.

On 26 Juli, 16:18, Leon wrote:
When we travel in space we might choose to go from A to B. If this is
considered a wrong choice some people would say the only thing you have
to do is to travel back to A (undo the choice) and then go to C instead.

But because space is tangeled with time traveling back to A will not
result in A but in A'. Traveling from A' to C has become impossible.
After you've been in B, after the initial choice, you can only travel to C'.

This logic has an implication, i.e. there must be a maximum speed.
Because when you travel from A to B at the same time C changes to C'.
It cannot change faster and it must change. This is relativity.

I don't know what you try to prove, but you cannot escape this logic.

The real laugh is that A and B may not even use same timeflow/scale/
rate, And according specialrelativit traveller E=EGGHEAD" "can not
have same timerate" since he is moving relative them. And as for your
time C you are completly worng, SPECIAL RELATIVITY is the only theory
where you can travel over space instaneous, at velocity c time stop
for traveller EGGHEAD and his local clock stops ticking. The clocks at
A and B ticks on however in their respective tickrate.(All according
to special relativity) you have to assign local time and tickrates to
all none comoving objects.

So the laugh is on EGGHEAD, to prove he really travel at c in both
frame A and B although they are not comoving. But maybe EGGHEAD could
not think when time stood still.

JT

JT schreef:
On 26 Juli, 16:18, Leon wrote:
When we travel in space we might choose to go from A to B. If this is
considered a wrong choice some people would say the only thing you have
to do is to travel back to A (undo the choice) and then go to C instead.

But because space is tangeled with time traveling back to A will not
result in A but in A'. Traveling from A' to C has become impossible.
After you've been in B, after the initial choice, you can only travel to C'.

This logic has an implication, i.e. there must be a maximum speed.
Because when you travel from A to B at the same time C changes to C'.
It cannot change faster and it must change. This is relativity.

I don't know what you try to prove, but you cannot escape this logic.

The real laugh is that A and B may not even use same timeflow/scale/
rate, And according specialrelativit traveller E=EGGHEAD" "can not
have same timerate" since he is moving relative them. And as for your
time C you are completly worng, SPECIAL RELATIVITY is the only theory
where you can travel over space instaneous, at velocity c time stop
for traveller EGGHEAD and his local clock stops ticking. The clocks at
A and B ticks on however in their respective tickrate.(All according
to special relativity) you have to assign local time and tickrates to
all none comoving objects.

So the laugh is on EGGHEAD, to prove he really travel at c in both
frame A and B although they are not comoving. But maybe EGGHEAD could
not think when time stood still.

I am worng heh?

You cannot have the same spot in space being different at the same time.
Not in one universe that is.
When there are speeds greater than c, this would become possible.
You could travel to B with 2c and travel to B with 3c, getting there
simoultaneously but then you would have two worlds. One world where
speed of information would be 3c, and one where speed of information
would be 2c. Impossible.

"Leon" wrote in message
...
I am worng heh?

Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! I'll say!

On 26 Juli, 17:17, Leon wrote:
JT schreef:





On 26 Juli, 16:18, Leon wrote:
When we travel in space we might choose to go from A to B. If this is
considered a wrong choice some people would say the only thing you have
to do is to travel back to A (undo the choice) and then go to C instead.

But because space is tangeled with time traveling back to A will not
result in A but in A'. Traveling from A' to C has become impossible.
After you've been in B, after the initial choice, you can only travel to C'.

This logic has an implication, i.e. there must be a maximum speed.
Because when you travel from A to B at the same time C changes to C'.
It cannot change faster and it must change. This is relativity.

I don't know what you try to prove, but you cannot escape this logic.

The real laugh is that A and B may not even use same timeflow/scale/
rate, And according specialrelativit traveller E=EGGHEAD" "can not
have same timerate" since he is moving relative them. And as for your
time C you are completly worng, SPECIAL RELATIVITY is the only theory
where you can travel over space instaneous, at velocity c time stop
for traveller EGGHEAD and his local clock stops ticking. The clocks at
A and B ticks on however in their respective tickrate.(All according
to special relativity) you have to assign local time and tickrates to
all none comoving objects.

So the laugh is on EGGHEAD, to prove he really travel at c in both
frame A and B although they are not comoving. But maybe EGGHEAD could
not think when time stood still.

I am worng heh?

You cannot have the same spot in space being different at the same time.
Not in one universe that is.
When there are speeds greater than c, this would become possible.
You could travel to B with 2c and travel to B with 3c, getting there
simoultaneously but then you would have two worlds. One world where
speed of information would be 3c, and one where speed of information
would be 2c. Impossible.

The term c is meaningless to begin with all have their own lengths and
time, there is no global scale fundament for measuring in special
realtivity.

I guess there is a place in 3D space you could call spot, it can have
a clock or some observer can use a clock watching it. But ACCORDING TO
SPECIAL RELATIVITY the theory of egghead and his SRIAN monkey
followers, there is no universal time flow or agreement on measure
standards for lenghts and distances, so even if "SPOT SYNCHED WITH
OBSERVER" to begin with they could show different timings as time pass
by.

This is what the monkeys told me *BUT*ut they always measures with
bananas so i would not hold it for a truth

So they actually have both spots with different timings, and even
different timings for events depending who is observing using the
EGGHEAD clocks

Well the SRIANS do not deal with time as we now it, they have no use
of clocksync everyone have their own pocket watch and banana ruler to
measure the time it took the light to pass the banana. There is no
such thing as a global measurement of time or length and distance in
that theory.

You are simply wrong buy a pocket watch and join the army of monkey's.
Maybe i join them to as soon i get my banana diploma.

And about your notion of c and 2c recently the monkeys found out there
must be closing speeds of 2c, amazing how brigth they are isn't it.
All hail the bananas and the fabulous celebrated EGGHEAD monkey
deity.

Recently they found out that objects that exists in one frame of
reference not necessarily have to exist at all in another is fully
possible, muhahahah. You can thank the monkey deity who gave birth to
parallell dimension and put the final knife to macro level casuality
and determinism, all hail the magic deity and his measuring bananas.

Or you could simply acknowledge they all have their head up their
asses, and can't not differ a turd from a grain of gold. I understand
now that turd start to look like a rather tempting prospect if it
comes with a degree in theoretical physics.

But i would have a look again it is just a turd after all, go look for
grains of gold elsewhere.

JT

JT schreef:

You cannot have the same spot in space being different at the same time.
Not in one universe that is.
When there are speeds greater than c, this would become possible.
You could travel to B with 2c and travel to B with 3c, getting there
simoultaneously but then you would have two worlds. One world where
speed of information would be 3c, and one where speed of information
would be 2c. Impossible.

The term c is meaningless to begin with all have their own lengths and
time, there is no global scale fundament for measuring in special
realtivity.

Says who?

I guess there is a place in 3D space you could call spot, it can have
a clock or some observer can use a clock watching it. But ACCORDING TO
SPECIAL RELATIVITY the theory of egghead and his SRIAN monkey
followers, there is no universal time flow or agreement on measure
standards for lenghts and distances, so even if "SPOT SYNCHED WITH
OBSERVER" to begin with they could show different timings as time pass
by.

This is what the monkeys told me *BUT*ut they always measures with
bananas so i would not hold it for a truth

So they actually have both spots with different timings, and even
different timings for events depending who is observing using the
EGGHEAD clocks

You are confused. You cannot have information coming from one world at
different speeds. This would result in having different worlds at the
same time. As long as an observer is restricted to one universe that is.

Well the SRIANS do not deal with time as we now it, they have no use
of clocksync everyone have their own pocket watch and banana ruler to
measure the time it took the light to pass the banana. There is no
such thing as a global measurement of time or length and distance in
that theory.

You are simply wrong buy a pocket watch and join the army of monkey's.
Maybe i join them to as soon i get my banana diploma.

And about your notion of c and 2c recently the monkeys found out there
must be closing speeds of 2c, amazing how brigth they are isn't it.
All hail the bananas and the fabulous celebrated EGGHEAD monkey
deity.

Your alternative to an explanation of the world is no explanation at all?


Recently they found out that objects that exists in one frame of
reference not necessarily have to exist at all in another is fully
possible, muhahahah. You can thank the monkey deity who gave birth to
parallell dimension and put the final knife to macro level casuality
and determinism, all hail the magic deity and his measuring bananas.

It's not possible for me to imagine an observer that is in several
universes at the same time. But I will agree on the fact that these
"monkeys" are not restricted to one universe where everything remains
the same forever.

"Leon" wrote in message
...

Your alternative to an explanation of the world is no explanation at all?

Better that than a wrong one.
Your alternative to parents is Santa put the prezzies under the tree?

On 26 Juli, 18:18, Leon wrote:
JT schreef:

You cannot have the same spot in space being different at the same time.
Not in one universe that is.
When there are speeds greater than c, this would become possible.
You could travel to B with 2c and travel to B with 3c, getting there
simoultaneously but then you would have two worlds. One world where
speed of information would be 3c, and one where speed of information
would be 2c. Impossible.

The term c is meaningless to begin with all have their own lengths and
time, there is no global scale fundament for measuring in special
realtivity.

Says who?



I guess there is a place in 3D space you could call spot, it can have
a clock or some observer can use a clock watching it. But ACCORDING TO
SPECIAL RELATIVITY the theory of egghead and his SRIAN monkey
followers, there is no universal time flow or agreement on measure
standards for lenghts and distances, so even if "SPOT SYNCHED WITH
OBSERVER" to begin with they could show different timings as time pass
by.

This is what the monkeys told me *BUT*ut they always measures with
bananas so i would not hold it for a truth

So they actually have both spots with different timings, and even
different timings for events depending who is observing using the
EGGHEAD clocks

You are confused. You cannot have information coming from one world at
different speeds. This would result in having different worlds at the
same time. As long as an observer is restricted to one universe that is.

No you are the confused one, all noneaccelerated observers do assume
to be at rest in SR.

So observers travelling at A=0.3c, B=0.6c , C=0.9c relative to monkey
deity, will measure different timing for extinction of it, assuming
the implosion ot the airfilled ballon take 3 sec of local monkey time,
each oberver will measure it to take different time. This is
"according to relativity".

There is only one event but three different timings of it.

One for each observer, if not at rest worth eachother.
But the real problem is the beleif light travel at c, it trash
causality.

It is easy to see if the three ships shoots the monkey deity when
they *ALL* are at a distance of 1 lightsecond, 300 000 km according to
the monkey deities measurement and clock. When they all line up is
event in monkeyframe.

The first uestion is raised which ships laser will reach the inflated
monkey deity ballon first.
*FEEL FREE TO ANSWER*

And the second question is how can each ship measure it's own laser to
be fired at 300 000 km relative them.

*FEEL FREE TO ANSWER*
Omly local monkey meters and monkey pocke****ches will solve that
problem.

BECAUSE LIGHT DO NOT TRAVEL INVARIANT THRU SPACE, according to
relativity each observer will measure it to do so though, USING MONKEY
METERS AND POCKET WATCHES.

JT

Well the SRIANS do not deal with time as we now it, they have no use
of clocksync everyone have their own pocket watch and banana ruler to
measure the time it took the light to pass the banana. There is no
such thing as a global measurement of time or length and distance in
that theory.

You are simply wrong buy a pocket watch and join the army of monkey's.
Maybe i join them to as soon i get my banana diploma.

And about your notion of c and 2c recently the monkeys found out there
must be closing speeds of 2c, amazing how brigth they are isn't it.
All hail the bananas and the fabulous celebrated EGGHEAD monkey
deity.

Your alternative to an explanation of the world is no explanation at all?



Recently they found out that objects that exists in one frame of
reference not necessarily have to exist at all in another is fully
possible, muhahahah. You can thank the monkey deity who gave birth to
parallell dimension and put the final knife to macro level casuality
and determinism, all hail the magic deity and his measuring bananas.

It's not possible for me to imagine an observer that is in several
universes at the same time. But I will agree on the fact that these
"monkeys" are not restricted to one universe where everything remains
the same forever.