Prev: converting "pi base" to "e base" Re: Euclidean geom = Elliptic unioned Hyperbolic #4.33 & #249 Correcting Math & Atom Totality
Next: "The Universe"
From: Pentcho Valev on 31 Jul 2010 02:07
The old 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."

The new money-spinner (in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it can
function simultaneously with the old one):

http://qedradiation.scienceblog.com/33153/cosmic-dust-and-the-2010-lindau-nobel-meeting-on-elementary-particles-in-cosmology/
"Cosmology is only beginning to recognize that redshift in submicron
cosmic dust significantly alters how the Universe looks to us.
Redshift in cosmic instead of by the Doppler effect allows one to
entertain the cosmology of a static Universe without any need for dark
matter and energy. Given that our knowledge of the Universe by seeing
is unequivocally altered by absorption in cosmic dust, Smoot's
comments may be rephrased by: "The properties of cosmic dust should
dictate what the Universe looks like..." Yet the Lindau Meeting
excluded discussion on cosmic dust in cosmology, instead focusing on
dark matter based on the anticipated discovery of exotic WIMPs from
the LHC experiments. But cosmic dust is of greater importance to
cosmology because light from a distant galaxy is redshift upon
absorption in cosmic dust without the Doppler shift. Therefore, the
redshift Hubble measured in 1929 was most likely caused by cosmic dust
having nothing to do with an expanding Universe. Hence, there is no
need for dark energy to explain an expanding Universe that is not
expanding."

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/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.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/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-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/science-nature/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."

"SPEED OF LIGHT CHANGES OVER THE VAST STRETCHES OF THE UNIVERSE" is
Einsteiniana's future money-spinner. For the moment only two vague
hints can be found in Internet:

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 1 Aug 2010 02:21
Imminent evolution of cosmology:

1. Original Idiocy: The speed of expansion of the universe is
proportional to the distance to the observer. Ad hoc auxiliary
idiocies: initially the universe was smaller than an atom (Big Bang);
the expanding universe somehow stretches the wavelength of light
("cosmological redshift").

2. Camouflaged truth: Over the vast stretches of the universe photons
gradually lose their ENERGY as they constantly bump into unknown
ingredients of "empty" space ("tired light" hypothesis). Common sense
automatically converts "energy loss" into "speed loss" but for the
moment such a conversion is categorically forbidden in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world.

3. Truth: Over the vast stretches of the universe photons gradually
lose their SPEED as they constantly bump into unknown ingredients of
"empty" space. A universal "Redshift Law" (involving the gravitational
redshift) holds:

f'/f = c'/c

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

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 2 Aug 2010 01:58
Einsteiniana's new revolution (Einsteinians know no limits when it
comes to destruction of human rationality):

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25492/
"Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe. A new cosmology
successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe
without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no
end. As one of the few astrophysical events that most people are
familiar with, the Big Bang has a special place in our culture. And
while there is scientific consensus that it is the best explanation
for the origin of the Universe, the debate is far from closed.
However, it's hard to find alternative models of the Universe without
a beginning that are genuinely compelling. That could change now with
the fascinating work of Wun-Yi Shu at the National Tsing Hua
University in Taiwan. Shu has developed an innovative new description
of the Universe in which the roles of time space and mass are related
in new kind of relativity. Shu's idea is that time and space are not
independent entities but can be converted back and forth between each
other. In his formulation of the geometry of spacetime, the speed of
light is simply the conversion factor between the two. Similarly, mass
and length are interchangeable in a relationship in which the
conversion factor depends on both the gravitational constant G and the
speed of light, neither of which need be constant. So as the Universe
expands, mass and time are converted to length and space and vice
versa as it contracts."

There can be nothing sillier (that is, human rationality has no
chances against Wun-Yi Shu's "fascinating work") and yet Professor
Michael Drinkwater from the University of Queensland explains why
Einsteiniana's new revolution will have to be stopped:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/08/02/2969095.htm
"But Professor Michael Drinkwater from the University of Queensland
and member of the WiggleZ Dark Energy Survey team has some concerns.
(...) He says he's uncomfortable with the idea of the speed of light
not being constant. "The speed of light being a constant in relativity
theory is an assumption, but it's a very useful assumption and it's
never failed the test so far," says Drinkwater."

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world rejecting or even hinting at the
rejection of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is a crime against
the civilization.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: converting "pi base" to "e base" Re: Euclidean geom = Elliptic unioned Hyperbolic #4.33 & #249 Correcting Math & Atom Totality
Next: "The Universe"