Prev: Monic natural transformation
Next: A question about Z[sqrt(-p)]
From: master1729 on 30 Jan 2010 07:09
Pentcho Valev wrote :

i think he is a bit to hard on einstein.
but im here to comment about something different.

climate-gate cosmology-gate and entropy-gate are good.

i like those physics posters on sci.math :)


> More CLIMATE-GATE:
>
> http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17641
> "A science mafia? In November somebody illegally
> hacked into the
> University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit
> (CRU) in the UK,
> subsequently publishing 1079 emails and 72 documents
> on the Internet.
> However reprehensible an act of cyber-pilfering, the
> contents of the
> authenticated emails were both decidedly in the
> 'public interest', and
> carried within them the seeds of a major science
> scandal; a scandal
> Andrew Bolt rightly sees as the "greatest in modern
> science". What
> was particularly explosive was the unheralded insight
> it gave us into
> the scientific 'mafia' world of some of the leading
> promoters of man-
> made Global Warming (GW) theory. A theory that is
> about to divert
> massive global economic resources into a science
> 'consensus' black
> hole. Reading the emails is a chilling experience
> when one realizes
> that some of these same individuals gave the UN IPCC
> 'the spine' to
> declare the climate science 'settled'. The UK Daily
> Telegraph's James
> Delingpole sums up the contents: "Conspiracy,
> collusion in
> exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal
> destruction of
> embarrassing information, organised resistance to
> disclosure,
> manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in
> their public
> claims and much more." (...) Britain's Viscount
> Monckton, a leading
> climate sceptic, has denounced the CRU and its
> partners as "not merely
> bad scientists - they are crooks. And crooks who have
> perpetrated
> their crimes at the expense of British and US
> taxpayers."
>
> How Einstein procrusteanized his equations into
> conformity with the
> Mercury precession anomaly (RELATIVITY-GATE):
>
> http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/2
> 6/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
> "D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse
> (facile à dire
> aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit
> les relations
> étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de
> matière de cet
> espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer
> l'avance du
> périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à
> l'époque) du mouvement
> de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso
> aboutissent
> finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent
> qu'en fait le
> résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une
> erreur dans la masse
> du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste
> loin des
> observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son
> idée. "Nous
> voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient
> toujours respectés, la
> théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate,
> ironique, Etienne Klein.
> Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira
> Einstein de la
> difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En
> quelques jours,
> il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie
> de Mercure..."
>
> COSMOLOGY-GATE:
>
> 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."
>
> http://cosmologystatement.org/
> An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
> (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
> "The big bang today relies on a growing number of
> hypothetical
> entities, things that we have never observed--
> inflation, dark matter
> and dark energy are the most prominent examples.
> Without them, there
> would be a fatal contradiction between the
> observations made by
> astronomers and the predictions of the big bang
> theory. In no other
> field of physics would this continual recourse to new
> hypothetical
> objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap
> between theory and
> observation. It would, at the least, raise serious
> questions about the
> validity of the underlying theory."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scient
> ists-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.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/f
> ulltext.pdf
> Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
> Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
> "Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was
> never an advocate
> for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was
> Hubble who personally
> thought that a model universe based on the
> tired-light hypothesis is
> more simple and less irrational than a model universe
> based on an
> expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon
> gradually loses its
> energy while traveling over a large distance in the
> vast space of the
> universe."
>
> http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,75714
> 5,00.html
> "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.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
> "Does the apparently constant speed of light change
> over the vast
> stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of
> black holes,
> ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the
> origins of the
> universe and its ultimate fate be different if the
> speed of light were
> not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed
> vacuum of space is
> acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed
> of light like some
> cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged
> into the pool
> appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that
> affect all our
> observations about the universe. I asked theoretical
> physicist Leonard
> Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently
> reviewed in Science
> Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are
> entirely right,"
> he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the
> propagation of
> light that astronomers and astrophysicists must
> account for. The point
> of course is that they (not me) do take these effects
> into account and
> correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic
> but unheralded,"
> adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely
> brilliant analysis has
> gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to
> eliminate these
> 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just
> say 'light travels
> with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My
> concern about
> cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed
> apply, but
> physicists have taken the deviations into account so
> that other
> physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen
> Hawking wrong,
> can battle their way to a better understanding of the
> universe."
>
> http://www.amazon.fr/bang-nest-th%C3%A9orie-comme-autr
> es/dp/2360120026
> "Le big bang n'est pas une théorie comme les autres.
> Ce n'est
> d'ailleurs pas une théorie physique au sens propre du
> terme, mais un
> scénario cosmologique issu des équations de la
> relativité générale. Il
> est le modèle qui s'ajuste le mieux aux observations
> actuelles, mais à
> quel prix ? Il nous livre un Univers composé à 96 %
> de matière et
> d'énergie noires inconnues. C'est donc un euphémisme
> que de dire que
> le big bang semble poser autant - sinon plus - de
> questions qu'il n'en
> résout. En ce sens, le big bang apparaît davantage
> comme une
> paramétrisation de notre ignorance plutôt que comme
> une modélisation
> d'un phénomène. Pourtant, le succès du big bang et
> l'adhésion qu'il
> suscite, tant dans la sphère scientifique que dans la
> sphère
> médiatique, ne se démentent pas. Surmédiatisé, son
> statut dépasse
> celui de modèle théorique, et la simple évocation de
> son nom suffit
> pour justifier des opérations de marketing
> scientifique ou rejeter des
> cosmologies alternatives. Pour éclaircir les
> problématiques -
> scientifiques, médiatiques, économiques ou politiques
> - liées à la
> cosmologie d'aujourd'hui, il est nécessaire de
> multiplier les angles
> de vue et de distinguer, selon leur registre, les
> différents enjeux.
> C'est le but que se sont fixés les auteurs de cet
> ouvrage. Pour chaque
> point soulevé, leurs regards croisés contribuent à
> favoriser
> l'émergence citoyenne d'un esprit éclairé et
> critique."
>
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
> Suppression of Science Within Science
> by Henry Bauer
> "I wasn't as surprised as many others were, when it
> was revealed that
> climate-change "researchers" had discussed in private
> e-mails how to
> keep important data from public view lest it shake
> public belief in
> the dogma that human activities are contributing
> significantly to
> global warming. (...) Take cosmology and the Big-Bang
> theory of the
> origin of the universe. Halton Arp was a respected,
> senior American
> observational astronomer. He noticed that some pairs
> of quasars that
> are physically close together nevertheless have very
> different
> redshifts. How exciting! Evidently some redshifts are
> not Doppler
> effects, in other words, not owing to rapid relative
> motion away from
> us. That means the universe-expansion calculations
> have to be revised.
> It may not have started as a Big Bang! That's just
> the sort of major
> potential discovery that scientists are always hoping
> for, isn't it?
> Certainly not in this case. Arp was granted no more
> telescope time to
> continue his observations. At age 56, Halton Arp
> emigrated to Germany
> to continue his work at the Max Planck Institute for
> Astrophysics. But
> Arp was not alone in his views. Thirty-four senior
> astronomers from 10
> countries, including such stellar figures as Hermann
> Bondi, Thomas
> Gold, Amitabha Ghosh, and Jayant Narlikar, sent a
> letter to Nature
> pointing out that Big Bang theory:
> *relies on a growing number of hypothetical . . .
> things . . . never
> observed;
> *that alternative theories can also explain all the
> basic phenomena of
> the cosmos
> *and yet virtually all financial and experimental
> resources in
> cosmology go to Big-Bang studies.
> Just the sort of discussion that goes on in science
> all the time,
> arguing pros and cons of competing ideas. Except that
> Nature refused
> to publish the letter. It was posted on the Internet,
> and by now
> hundreds of additional signatures have been added...
> (...) Then
> there's that most abstract of fundamental sciences,
> theoretical
> physics. The problem has long been, How to unify
> relativity and
> quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics regards the
> world as made up of
> discrete bits whereas relativity regards the world as
> governed by
> continuous, not discrete, fields. Since the
> mid-1970s, there has been
> no real progress. Everyone has been working on
> so-called "string
> theory," which has delivered no testable conclusions
> and remains a
> hope, a speculation, not a real theory. Nevertheless,
> theoretical
> physicists who want to look at other approaches can't
> find jobs, can't
> get grants, can't get published. (...) You begin to
> wonder, don't you,
> how many other cases there could be in science, where
> a single theory
> has somehow captured all the resources? And where
> competent scientists
> who want to try something different are not only
> blocked but
> personally insulted?"
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com

RIEMANN-GATE ?

climate-gate relativity-gate cosmology-gate entropy-gate are all about science. *general physics* actually.

but some "-gates may also exist in mathematics.

i dont know if pentcho valev likes to comment on math or even what his opinions are on math but im telling anyway.

RIEMANN-GATE :

> Relativists are
> then able to use the argument of authority to
> discredit these critics.

(no pun on relativists or relativity and its validity but...)
same is done in the math community.

they use the argument of authority.
even worse , in fact the media requires it !

let me explain :

a professor claims no amateur could possible prove RH or claims to have a proof of it himself.

he gets published despite being wrong.

many others have claimed a proof of RH , and despite the majority probably being wrong , NOBODY of them is being published or even taken seriously.

in fact there almost seems to be a ' second hypothesis ' ; only a handfull prof could possibly prove RH and other people are not worth considering , they couldnt succeed.

many people send parts of their proofs to profs , to at least try to convince them without giving the full proof ofcourse ( e.g. fear of theft or dishonesty ) but their work is not even considered.

in fact , a prof CAN LEGALLY IGNORE EVERY MAIL SEND TO HIM , THEY DONT HAVE ANY RESPONSABILITY IF THEY DONT READ OR REPLY TO INTRESTING MAILS !

in fact , a magazine CAN LEGALLY IGNORE EVERY MAIL SEND TO THEM , THEY DONT HAVE ANY RESPONSABILITY IF THEY DONT READ OR REPLY OR PUBLISH INTRESTING MAILS !

instead of justifying that educational systems , profs , researchers and media blame eachother or otherwise simply:

they use the argument of authority.

so some people think ; why would they ? there is no money involved in math is there ?

YES THERE IS , AND A LOT.

fundings , positions , research grants and Millenium prizes for instance.

even some less powerfull professors are deliberately ignored by the more powerfull. ( thus its not just about getting a degree first )

no matter how much good math you post , if you start about a proof of RH you lost your career , unless you belong to ' the elite '.

i posted about math mistakes of those who are suppose to correct me but in vain.

Im willing to bet ; i pay 500 dollar if im wrong , i get 5 000 000 dollar if im correct or the situation is unclear or it turns out the proof already existed or it turns out my math is correct but based on other math told to be true but turning out to be wrong. Using set theory , set topology , vectors , knot polynomials and statistics is not allowed as (or as part of) a disproof of the validity of my proof of RH.

seems an unfair bet but if your all so certain ?!?

sorry if i started about math , but since this thread is full of critical views , i thought it fitted in.

regards

tommy1729
From: master1729 on 30 Jan 2010 07:28
Pentcho Valev wrote :

> More ENTROPY-GATE:
>
> For a closed system doing reversible work of
> expansion the first law
> of thermodynamics takes the form
>
> dU = dQ - PdV /1/
>
> where dU is the internal energy change, dQ is the
> heat absorbed, P is
> pressure and V is volume. Since the system is CLOSED
> and undergoes
> reversible changes the entropy change is, by
> definition, dS=dQ/T and /
> 1/ becomes:
>
> dU = TdS - PdV /2/
>
> J. Gibbs managed to convince the world that, if the
> system is OPEN
> (substances are added to it), /2/ should be replaced
> by
>
> dU = TdS - PdV + SUM mu_i dn_i /3/
>
> where mu_i is the chemical potential and n_i is the
> amount of the ith
> component. However Gibbs failed to explain the
> meaning of the entropy
> change, dS, for an OPEN system. Was dS again equal to
> dQ/T, as it is
> for a closed system, or was dS equal to something
> else when substances
> were added to the system?
>
> The fact that dS was not defined for open systems
> made the equation /
> 3/ so fashionable (scientists adore equations with
> undefined terms)
> that in the end /3/ was called "the fundamental
> equation of
> thermodynamics":
>
> L. McGlashan, Chemical thermodynamics, Academic
> Press, London (1979),
> pp. 72-73: "For an infinitesimal change in the state
> of a phase alpha
> we write
> dU = T dS - p dV + SUM mu_B dn_B (1)
> We regard equation (1) as an axiom and call it the
> fundamental
> equation for a change of the state of a phase alpha.
> It is one half of
> the second law of thermodynamics. We do not ask where
> it comes from.
> Indeed we do not admit the existence of any more
> fundamental relations
> from which it might have been derived. Nor shall we
> here enquire into
> the history of its formulation, though that is a
> subject of great
> interest to the historian of science. It is a
> starting point ; it must
> be learnt by heart."
>
> Yet scientists somehow felt that a new explicit
> definition of dS could
> bring even more career and money. The quickest among
> them, Ilya
> Prigogine, simply combined /1/ and /3/ and obtained
>
> dS = dQ/T - (1/T)SUM mu_i dn_i /4/
>
> That was a new incredible definition of the entropy
> change (the
> scientific community had never seen anything like
> this) so the Nobel
> Committee immediately gave Prigogine the Nobel Prize.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background
> /index.html
> Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always
> increases, holds, I
> think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature.
> If someone
> points out to you that your pet theory of the
> universe is in
> disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much
> the worse for
> Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be
> contradicted by observation
> - well, these experimentalists do bungle things
> sometimes. But if your
> theory is found to be against the second law of
> thermodynamics, I can
> give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to
> collapse in deepest
> humiliation."
>
> http://www.beilstein-institut.de/bozen2004/proceedings
> /CornishBowden/CornishBowden.htm
> ATHEL CORNISH-BOWDEN: "The concept of entropy was
> introduced to
> thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an
> obscure term for
> it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would
> sound similar to
> "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that
> would mean the same
> to everyone regardless of their language, and, as
> Cooper [2] remarked,
> he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant
> the same to
> everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a
> very difficult
> concept for other thermodynamicists, even including
> such accomplished
> mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed,
> despite his own
> major contributions to the subject, never appreciated
> the idea of
> entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created
> have continued to
> the present day, with the result that a fundamental
> idea that is
> absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of
> chemical
> equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to
> students but also to
> scientists who need the concept for their work."
>
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/
> Jos Uffink: "This summary leads to the question
> whether it is fruitful
> to see irreversibility or time-asymmetry as the
> essence of the second
> law. Is it not more straightforward, in view of the
> unargued
> statements of Kelvin, the bold claims of Clausius and
> the strained
> attempts of Planck, to give up this idea? I believe
> that Ehrenfest-
> Afanassjewa was right in her verdict that the
> discussion about the
> arrow of time as expressed in the second law of the
> thermodynamics is
> actually a RED HERRING."
>
> ftp://ftp.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/pub/SISTA/markovsky/repo
> rts/06-46.pdf
> "From the pedagogical point of view, thermodynamics
> is a disaster. As
> the authors rightly state in the introduction, many
> aspects are
> "riddled with inconsistencies". They quote V.I.
> Arnold, who concedes
> that "every mathematician knows it is impossible to
> understand an
> elementary course in thermodynamics". Nobody has
> eulogized this
> confusion more colorfully than the late Clifford
> Truesdell. On page 6
> of his book "The Tragicomical History of
> Thermodynamics" 1822-1854
> (Springer Verlag, 1980), he calls thermodynamics "a
> dismal swamp of
> obscurity". Elsewhere, in despair of trying to make
> sense of the
> writings of some local heros as De Groot, Mazur,
> Casimir, and
> Prigogine, Truesdell suspects that there is
> "something rotten in the
> (thermodynamic) state of the Low Countries" (see page
> 134 of Rational
> Thermodynamics, McGraw-Hill, 1969)."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com

damn , i wanted to write something similar myself.

congr for this understanding pentcho :)

this is perhaps the best critical entropy post ever made on sci.math ?

despite uncomplete of course.

the idea of thermodynamics is basicly that heat creates a kind of 'chaos' called entropy.

but we see ' order ' in biology and everything around us, with only a few exceptions ( fire , lightning ).

i greet you my fellow critic.

high regards

tommy1729
From: Pentcho Valev on 4 Feb 2010 05:02
RELATIVITY-GATE:

Joseph Goebbels: "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the
truth".

Nowadays Einsteinians believe that, as they start moving against
waves, the wavelength decreases and the speed of the wave remains
constant relative to them (so that they can safely sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity"):

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/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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)."

A lie that has become the truth CAN be challenged in Einsteiniana but
in the end it should be replaced by another lie (the genuine truth
should remain buried forever):

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf
Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation
Stephan J. G. Gift
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Faculty of Engineering
The University of the West Indies
St. Augustine, Trinidad, West Indies
Email: Stephan.Gift(a)sta.uwi.edu
"Light speed variation relative to a moving observer occurring
according to classical velocity composition is demonstrated using
Doppler Shift. This directly contradicts the light speed invariance
postulate of special relativity and confirms ether drift."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 8 Feb 2010 11:22
W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, Routledge, London,
1981, p. 3: "For vewed sub specie eternitatis scientists (even
physical scientists) are a fickle lot. The history of science is a
tale of multifarious shiftings of allegiance from theory to theory."

Scientists that are "a fickle lot" kill science much more efficiently
than orthodox gatekeepers in science. Nowadays they appropriate and in
the end fatally distort any sound heretical idea:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article7018438.ece
Lord John Krebs, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford: "An Oxford
colleague, one of the world's top climate scientists, made the same
point last week when he said to me: "It's odd that people talk about
'climate sceptics' as though they are a special category. All of us in
the climate science community are climate sceptics."

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/13/quantum-challenge-usd-professor/
"Clean-cut and middle-aged, a tenured professor at a conservative
Catholic university, Sheehan is hardly a rebel. Yet for years, he and
a few other physicists have been pressing peers to re-examine the
Second Law of Thermodynamics, one of the most celebrated and cherished
tenets of physics. (...) But Sheehan suggests big things are possible
if even the tiniest of violations can be proven, and ultimately
exploited in an economically feasible way. For example, it might
become possible to convert ambient heat into an infinite energy
source, he said."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Feb 2010 04:01
The essence of COSMOLOGY-GATE:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/wiggles-on-the-dark-side-20100205-nh2d.html
"The wavelength of light from a galaxy that is accelerating away from
our Milky Way is "stretched" so the light is seen as "shifted" towards
the red part of the spectrum."

The above fraud is a relatively new version of a classical fraud
designed to camouflage the falsehood of Einstein's 1905 light
postulate: in order for the speed of light to appear constant, the
wavelength should change in an idiotic way (it is granted that the
scientific community invariably sings "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"):

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/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/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 wrote:

COSMOLOGY-GATE:

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."

http://cosmologystatement.org/
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter
and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
validity of the underlying theory."

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.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
"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.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

http://www.amazon.fr/bang-nest-th%C3%A9orie-comme-autres/dp/2360120026
"Le big bang n'est pas une théorie comme les autres. Ce n'est
d'ailleurs pas une théorie physique au sens propre du terme, mais un
scénario cosmologique issu des équations de la relativité générale. Il
est le modèle qui s'ajuste le mieux aux observations actuelles, mais à
quel prix ? Il nous livre un Univers composé à 96 % de matière et
d'énergie noires inconnues. C'est donc un euphémisme que de dire que
le big bang semble poser autant - sinon plus - de questions qu'il n'en
résout. En ce sens, le big bang apparaît davantage comme une
paramétrisation de notre ignorance plutôt que comme une modélisation
d'un phénomène. Pourtant, le succès du big bang et l'adhésion qu'il
suscite, tant dans la sphère scientifique que dans la sphère
médiatique, ne se démentent pas. Surmédiatisé, son statut dépasse
celui de modèle théorique, et la simple évocation de son nom suffit
pour justifier des opérations de marketing scientifique ou rejeter des
cosmologies alternatives. Pour éclaircir les problématiques -
scientifiques, médiatiques, économiques ou politiques - liées à la
cosmologie d'aujourd'hui, il est nécessaire de multiplier les angles
de vue et de distinguer, selon leur registre, les différents enjeux.
C'est le but que se sont fixés les auteurs de cet ouvrage. Pour chaque
point soulevé, leurs regards croisés contribuent à favoriser
l'émergence citoyenne d'un esprit éclairé et critique."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
Suppression of Science Within Science
by Henry Bauer
"I wasn't as surprised as many others were, when it was revealed that
climate-change "researchers" had discussed in private e-mails how to
keep important data from public view lest it shake public belief in
the dogma that human activities are contributing significantly to
global warming. (...) Take cosmology and the Big-Bang theory of the
origin of the universe. Halton Arp was a respected, senior American
observational astronomer. He noticed that some pairs of quasars that
are physically close together nevertheless have very different
redshifts. How exciting! Evidently some redshifts are not Doppler
effects, in other words, not owing to rapid relative motion away from
us. That means the universe-expansion calculations have to be revised.
It may not have started as a Big Bang! That's just the sort of major
potential discovery that scientists are always hoping for, isn't it?
Certainly not in this case. Arp was granted no more telescope time to
continue his observations. At age 56, Halton Arp emigrated to Germany
to continue his work at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. But
Arp was not alone in his views. Thirty-four senior astronomers from 10
countries, including such stellar figures as Hermann Bondi, Thomas
Gold, Amitabha Ghosh, and Jayant Narlikar, sent a letter to Nature
pointing out that Big Bang theory:
*relies on a growing number of hypothetical . . . things . . . never
observed;
*that alternative theories can also explain all the basic phenomena of
the cosmos
*and yet virtually all financial and experimental resources in
cosmology go to Big-Bang studies.
Just the sort of discussion that goes on in science all the time,
arguing pros and cons of competing ideas. Except that Nature refused
to publish the letter. It was posted on the Internet, and by now
hundreds of additional signatures have been added... (...) Then
there's that most abstract of fundamental sciences, theoretical
physics. The problem has long been, How to unify relativity and
quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics regards the world as made up of
discrete bits whereas relativity regards the world as governed by
continuous, not discrete, fields. Since the mid-1970s, there has been
no real progress. Everyone has been working on so-called "string
theory," which has delivered no testable conclusions and remains a
hope, a speculation, not a real theory. Nevertheless, theoretical
physicists who want to look at other approaches can't find jobs, can't
get grants, can't get published. (...) You begin to wonder, don't you,
how many other cases there could be in science, where a single theory
has somehow captured all the resources? And where competent scientists
who want to try something different are not only blocked but
personally insulted?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Prev: Monic natural transformation
Next: A question about Z[sqrt(-p)]