|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN KNICKER ELASTIC GOOD FOR SAGGING KNOCKERS
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ELASTIC WAVELENGTH VERSUS VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ELASTIC WAVELENGTH VERSUS VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do bums have rights?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do bums have rights?
BUMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO FART!
This is a UNIVERSAL LAW and cannot be interfered with. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ELASTIC WAVELENGTH VERSUS VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ELASTIC WAVELENGTH VERSUS VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT
"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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Three smouldering tramps in burning skip raise CO2 levels
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ELASTIC WAVELENGTH VERSUS VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 30 | August 3rd 08 01:10 AM |
Speed of light is variable says Einstein | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 35 | September 20th 07 03:23 AM |
Speed of light is variable says Einstein | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | August 11th 07 09:39 AM |
Speed of light is variable says Einstein | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 0 | August 11th 07 09:22 AM |
Light Speed Test versus Special Relativity | Stan Byers | Astronomy Misc | 35 | April 4th 05 01:43 PM |