THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF COSMOLOGY

I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
following question:

Given the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

is the redshift of a distant star's light due to a change in the speed
of light, or is it due to a change in wavelength?

The answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
automatically converts what Einstein in 1954 characterized as
"entirely possible" into a fact:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Silly old interpretations of "redshift is due to a change in
wavelength" can only make clever cosmologists sick at heart:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

The correct answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
will have to be officially adopted soon:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

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."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 9, 4:06*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
following question:


Very informative...thanks.

It is a long held view in philosophy that "what you see is not what
you get".Taken to a more spiritual view (NOT religious), the observed
world is said (in many disciplines) to be illusory.

How do you reconcile what you refer to, with the quantum observation
regarding super entanglement?
A clear demonstration of greater speeds than light? Seems to me that
what is reported indicates sponteneity.

My view is it provides greatergeneral confirmation to many
philosophical/spiritual positions with regard to the 'observer' as
opposed to the observed.

BOfL (alt.philosophy)



Pentcho Valev

On Apr 9, 2:06*am, BOfL wrote:
On Apr 9, 4:06*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
following question:

Very informative...thanks.

It is a long held view in philosophy that "what you see is not what
you get".Taken to a more spiritual view (NOT religious), the observed
world is said (in many disciplines) to be illusory.

How do you reconcile what you refer to, with the quantum observation
regarding super entanglement?
A clear demonstration of greater speeds than light? Seems to me that
what is reported indicates sponteneity.

My view is it provides greatergeneral confirmation to many
philosophical/spiritual positions with regard to the 'observer' as
opposed to the observed.

BOfL (alt.philosophy)

Reflect on the classical Noak (Truism) of Zin --"The observer must
always receive, the observed must always transmit. Sine qua non,
Zinnic.

Zinnic (alt. mysticism)

On Apr 10, 12:13*am, wrote:
On Apr 9, 2:06*am, BOfL wrote:





On Apr 9, 4:06*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
following question:

Very informative...thanks.

It is a long held view in philosophy that "what you see is not what
you get".Taken to a more spiritual view (NOT religious), the observed
world is said (in many disciplines) to be illusory.

How do you reconcile what you refer to, with the quantum observation
regarding super entanglement?
A clear demonstration of greater speeds than light? Seems to me that
what is reported indicates sponteneity.

My view is it provides greatergeneral confirmation to many
philosophical/spiritual positions with regard to the 'observer' as
opposed to the observed.

BOfL (alt.philosophy)

* Reflect on the classical Noak (Truism) of *Zin --"The observer must
always receive, the observed must always transmit. Sine qua non,
Zinnic.

Zinnic (alt. mysticism)- Hide quoted text -

Actually, now you mentioned it, do you do try to alt.er mysticism to
suit the trans-mission..or do you have a different mission?

In case you are wondering why, I added that location because the
writer cross threaded, and I found his contribution to be of value.

If thats an example of Noak of Zin, you are welcome to him...:-)

BOfL



- Show quoted text -

On Apr 9, 9:46*am, BOfL wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:13*am, wrote:





On Apr 9, 2:06*am, BOfL wrote:

On Apr 9, 4:06*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:

I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
following question:

Very informative...thanks.

It is a long held view in philosophy that "what you see is not what
you get".Taken to a more spiritual view (NOT religious), the observed
world is said (in many disciplines) to be illusory.

How do you reconcile what you refer to, with the quantum observation
regarding super entanglement?
A clear demonstration of greater speeds than light? Seems to me that
what is reported indicates sponteneity.

My view is it provides greatergeneral confirmation to many
philosophical/spiritual positions with regard to the 'observer' as
opposed to the observed.

BOfL (alt.philosophy)

* Reflect on the classical Noak (Truism) of *Zin --"The observer must
always receive, the observed must always transmit. Sine qua non,
Zinnic.

Zinnic (alt. mysticism)- Hide quoted text -

Actually, now you mentioned it, do you do try to alt.er mysticism to
suit the trans-mission..or do you have a different mission?

In case you are wondering why, I added that location because the
writer cross threaded, and I found his contribution to be of value.

If thats an example of Noak of Zin, you are welcome to him...:-)

BOfL


I kno, I know... just as you are welcome to the Koans of Zen which
discourage reason..

On Apr 9, 9:03 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
following question:

Given the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

is the redshift of a distant star's light due to a change in the speed
of light, or is it due to a change in wavelength?

The answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
automatically converts what Einstein in 1954 characterized as
"entirely possible" into a fact:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Silly old interpretations of "redshift is due to a change in
wavelength" can only make clever cosmologists sick at heart:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

The correct answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
will have to be officially adopted soon:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

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."

Yet for the moment Einsteiniana's incredible wisdom is still filling
the universe:

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/961217a.html
Jim Lochner: "We'll first tackle the question you asked - whether a
change in the speed of light could be detected. The answer is, in
principle, yes. One way is that the values for atomic transitions
depend on the speed of light. We observe these transitions as lines in
a spectrum. Hence, if the speed of light has changed, then the values
for these transitions from sources far away (and hence which emitted
their light long ago) would be different from present day values. The
difficulty is that there are many other factors which cause the
observed values of these transitions to change. These factors include
the Doppler shift due to the expansion of the Universe, local motions
of the object, gravitational redshifts, etc. In practice, it would be
difficult to disentangle the effect of a changing speed of light from
these."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 9, 9:03 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Silly old interpretations of "redshift is due to a change in
wavelength" can only make clever cosmologists sick at heart:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

Similar idiocies:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...k-energy-exist
"Astronomers find, for example, that the light from distant galaxies
is redder than that of nearby galaxies. This phenomenon, known as
redshift, is neatly explained as a stretching of light waves by the
expansion of space."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
following question:

Given the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

is the redshift of a distant star's light due to a change in the speed
of light, or is it due to a change in wavelength?

The answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
automatically converts what Einstein in 1954 characterized as
"entirely possible" into a fact:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Silly old interpretations of "redshift is due to a change in
wavelength" can only make clever cosmologists sick at heart:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

The correct answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
will have to be officially adopted soon:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

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."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 17, 12:53 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On Apr 9, 9:03 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Silly old interpretations of "redshift is due to a change in
wavelength" can only make clever cosmologists sick at heart:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

Similar idiocies:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...k-energy-exist
"Astronomers find, for example, that the light from distant galaxies
is redder than that of nearby galaxies. This phenomenon, known as
redshift, is neatly explained as a stretching of light waves by the
expansion of space."

Even greater idiocies (Einsteinians know no limits):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/458587a.html
Nature 458, 587-589 (2 April 2009): "What about dark energy? The
observation that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up, instead
of slowing down owing to the mutual gravitational attraction of
matter, indicates that there is much more to the Universe than we
understand at present. The leading interpretation is that the Universe
is filled by something dubbed dark energy that ’antigravitates’.
Whereas the possibility for gravitational repulsion does not exist in
Newtonian gravity, it does exist in general relativity. The
equivalence between matter and energy means that gaseous pressures
caused by thermal molecular motions can be a source of gravitational
fields. The gravitational field of a fluid with sufficiently negative
pressure is repulsive. Although it may be difficult to imagine how
molecular motions can give rise to a negative pressure, it has been
realized that some of the quantum fields that arise in elementary-
particle theory allow for fluids with negative pressure. Dark energy
is thus simply the negative-pressure fluid that is postulated to
account for cosmic acceleration."

Pentcho Valev

On Apr 9, 9:03 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
I suspect clever cosmologists now clearly see the importance of the
following question:

Given the formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

is the redshift of a distant star's light due to a change in the speed
of light, or is it due to a change in wavelength?

The answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
automatically converts what Einstein in 1954 characterized as
"entirely possible" into a fact:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ontent&task=vi...
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Silly old interpretations of "redshift is due to a change in
wavelength" can only make clever cosmologists sick at heart:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
"In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
(red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
shifted."

The correct answer "redshift is due to change in the speed of light"
will have to be officially adopted soon:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

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."

Usually Einsteinians avoid any discussion of the implications of the
formula:

frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

but still from time to time they extract career and money from an
idiotic interpretation of the fact that the frequency and the speed of
light change while the wavelength remains constant:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0212075309.htm
"Einstein In Need Of Update? Calculations Show The Speed Of Light
Might Change.....Dimitri Nanopoulos, who holds the rank of
Distinguished Professor of Physics at Texas A&M University and heads
the Houston Advanced Research Center's Group for Astroparticle
Physics, established, along with other physicists, that the speed of
light, instead of being the constant value of 186,282 miles per
second, might change. In 1905, Einstein established that light was the
only object to have a constant speed in all reference frames. This
idea was the cornerstone to his theory of relativity, and later to
laws of physics. "If the speed of light proves not to be constant any
more, even by a very small changeable amount, laws of physics - the
theory of relativity included - will have to undergo significant
changes," says Nanopoulos. Nanopoulos, who chairs the Theoretical
Physics Division of the Academy of Athens, is among the many
physicists who are trying to establish the basis of quantum gravity, a
theory that has been dreamed of by physicists since the
1920s...."Through our calculations, we found that the speed of light
is frequency-dependent," says Nanopoulos. "But a change in the usual
speed of light value of 186,282 miles per second is noticeable only
for light coming from astronomical objects situated very far from
Earth, which is why this frequency dependence has not been noticed so
far."....Nanopoulos says that if the frequency-dependence of the speed
of light is further confirmed by other experiments, the theory of
relativity would still be valid under certain circumstances. "There is
nothing wrong with Einstein's theory of relativity. If the energy of
an object is much smaller than 1019 proton masses or if the distance
between two objects is smaller than millions of light-years,
Einstein's equations are still valid," he says."

Pentcho Valev