COSMOLOGY CRISIS AND REDSHIFT

Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead) so it is time for
cosmologists to try various salvation approaches, including the
following one. All interpretations of the redshift are based on the
assumption that in the formula:

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

the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light is
constant because the hymn "Divine Einstein" is perfect and "we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc. However Divine
Albert allegedly thought in terms of hypotheses and there is no reason
why cosmologists should not do so from time to time. That is, those of
them who know well the established interpretations of, say,
accelerating expansion observations, suddenly change direction and
reinterpret everything based on the assumtion that frequency and speed
of light vary while the wavelength is constant. No need to stop
singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity" - after all, Divine Albert himself, in one of
his metamorphoses, pleeded for variable speed of light:

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."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead)
[snip crap]

You are a bring idiot.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Uncle Al a écrit :
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead)
[snip crap]

You are a bring idiot.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

--
kd

On Aug 27, 10:02*pm, kduc wrote:
Uncle Al a écrit :

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead)
[snip crap]

You are a bring idiot.

http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/science/03dark.html
"Dark, Perhaps Forever....A decade ago, astronomers discovered that
what is true for your car keys is not true for the galaxies. Having
been impelled apart by the force of the Big Bang, the galaxies, in
defiance of cosmic gravity, are picking up speed on a dash toward
eternity. If they were keys, they would be shooting for the
ceiling......Some physicists are even willing to burn down their old
sainted Einstein and revise his theory of gravity, general relativity,
to make the cosmic discrepancies go away."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8T3IxGOHHY
Where once was light
Now darkness falls
Where once was love
Love is no more
........................
And you will weep
When you face the end alone
You are lost
You can never go home
You are lost
You can never go home

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 27, 1:37 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead) so it is time for
cosmologists to try various salvation approaches, including the
following one. All interpretations of the redshift are based on the
assumption that in the formula:

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

the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light is
constant because the hymn "Divine Einstein" is perfect and "we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc. However Divine
Albert allegedly thought in terms of hypotheses and there is no reason
why cosmologists should not do so from time to time. That is, those of
them who know well the established interpretations of, say,
accelerating expansion observations, suddenly change direction and
reinterpret everything based on the assumtion that frequency and speed
of light vary while the wavelength is constant. No need to stop
singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity" - after all, Divine Albert himself, in one of
his metamorphoses, pleeded for variable speed of light:

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."

In other words, instead of procrusteanizing cosmology to fit the 21st
century idiocies taught by "modern" universities:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=278
Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the
expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is
referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an
entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the
expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving
away from each other - rather, the space between these objects
stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched,
and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a
special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational
redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes
the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic
example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth;
if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it
is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that
the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the
gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its
surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be
"stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and
hence the wavelength of the light.)"

one should just return to the 18th century amateur John Michell who,
fortunately, did not know Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_...Ch01-Essay.pdf
Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from.How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev

On Aug 28, 11:30*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=278
Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the
expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is
referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an
entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the
expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving
away from each other - rather, the space between these objects
stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched,
and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a
special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational
redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes
the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic
example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth;
if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it
is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that
the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the
gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its
surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be
"stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and
hence the wavelength of the light.)"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085.pdf
University of Hull: "Despite the distinction between redshifts caused
by the velocity of objects and the redshifts associated with the
expanding universe, astronomers sometimes refer to “recession
velocity” in the context of the redshifting of distant galaxies from
the expansion of the Universe, even though it is only an apparent
recession. As a consequence, popular literature has a tendency to use
the expression “Doppler redshift” instead of “cosmological redshift”
to describe the motion of galaxies dominated by the expansion of
spacetime, despite the fact that a “cosmological recessional speed”
when calculated will not equal the velocity in the relativistic
Doppler equation. In particular, Doppler redshift is bound by the laws
of Einstein’s special relativity, which dictates that an object cannot
travel faster than the speed of light through a vacuum; thus v c is
impossible. On the other hand, in the case of cosmological redshift, v
c is possible because the space which separates the objects (e.g. a
quasar from the Earth) can expand faster than the speed of light; this
is because space, not being composed of any material, can grow faster
than the speed of light since, not being an object, it is not bound by
the speed of light upper bound.....In the theory of general
relativity, there is time dilation within a gravitational well. This
is known as the gravitational redshift or “Einstein Shift”. The
gravitational redshift of spectral lines is often held to be one of
the “crucial tests” of general relativity. However, the result may
also be derived with no recourse to the general theory of relativity
whatsoever, nor even to the principle of equivalence, as has been
shown on several occasions."

Einsteinians, what are you doing? Why should human rationality be
destroyed so mercilessly?

Pentcho Valev

Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead) [snip crap]

You are a bring idiot.

boring?

On Aug 27, 5:03*pm, "Simple Simon"
wrote:
Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead) [snip crap]

You are a bring idiot.

boring?

Also blithering. Valev is both a blithering AND boring idiot.

On 27 aug, 12:37, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead) so it is time for
cosmologists to try various salvation approaches, including the
following one. All interpretations of the redshift are based on the
assumption that in the formula:

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

the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light is
constant because the hymn "Divine Einstein" is perfect and "we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc. However Divine
Albert allegedly thought in terms of hypotheses and there is no reason
why cosmologists should not do so from time to time. That is, those of
them who know well the established interpretations of, say,
accelerating expansion observations, suddenly change direction and
reinterpret everything based on the assumtion that frequency and speed
of light vary while the wavelength is constant. No need to stop
singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity" - after all, Divine Albert himself, in one of
his metamorphoses, pleeded for variable speed of light:

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."

Pentcho Valev


Too dangerous, in cern they take irresponsible risks, stop the project

On Aug 27, 4:37 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead) so it is time for
cosmologists to try various salvation approaches, including the
following one. All interpretations of the redshift are based on the
assumption that in the formula:

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

the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light is
constant because the hymn "Divine Einstein" is perfect and "we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc. However Divine
Albert allegedly thought in terms of hypotheses and there is no reason
why cosmologists should not do so from time to time. That is, those of
them who know well the established interpretations of, say,
accelerating expansion observations, suddenly change direction and
reinterpret everything based on the assumtion that frequency and speed
of light vary while the wavelength is constant. No need to stop
singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
relativity, relativity" - after all, Divine Albert himself, in one of
his metamorphoses, pleeded for variable speed of light:

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."

Pentcho Valev


You are only going to **** off the Zionist/Nazi mainstream status quo.

btw, a good radar magnatron also bends and/or focuses photons.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth

~ BG