Prev: 30 Days
Next: What is truth?
From: John Jones on 16 Apr 2010 06:24
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> An explanation of the Hubble redshift that might be referred to as
> "the elastic wavelength explanation":
>
> http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/ARTICLE/6359/2010-04-06.html
> "When light begins its long journey from an exploding supernova, it
> has to confront an expanding universe along its path. This expansion
> of pace "redshifts" the light waves. In other words, the wavelength of
> light is stretched to the red end of the spectrum. The level of
> redshift and the distance of the explosion allow us to measure the
> rate of the expansion of the universe. These observational data form a
> large number of supernovae record the expansion history of the
> universe. Some unknown force is prompting the acceleration. This force
> is greater than that neutralizing the combined gravitational pull of
> normal and dark matter. This discovery wasn't cause for celebration
> among astronomers - rather it was shocking."
>
> The "unknown force" (Dark Energy) may be "shocking" but Einsteinians
> know it is a fantastic money-spinner:
>
> http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
> "More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
> under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
> of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."
>
> Billions are billions and yet, late at night, alone in beds,
> Einsteinians indulge in blasphemy: something in the vacuum seems to be
> responsible for slowing down the speed of light (sorry, Divine Albert)
> and this, combined with the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> gives an explanation of the Hubble redshift much more reasonable than
> the elastic wavelength explanation:
>
> http://www.littleindia.com/news/143/ARTICLE/6359/2010-04-06.html
> "This repulsive background energy associated with the empty space
> could be dark energy. However, there is no compelling evidence for
> that claim. The theoretical calculations suggest that the amount of
> vacuum energy is too high for reasonable explanations. Emptiness is
> not a true void as was deemed in the past. Quantum theory considers a
> vacuum as a pool of virtual particles rapidly popping in and out of
> existence. The particles and energy incarnate inside the so-called
> emptiness as a result of invisible interactions."
>
> http://www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
> "Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
> stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
> ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
> universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
> not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
> acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
> cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
> appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
> observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
> Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
> Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
> he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
> light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
> of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
> correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
> adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
> gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
> 'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
> with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
> cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
> physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
> physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
> can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/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.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
> Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested,
> such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great
> stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the
> expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a
> cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had
> shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation
> of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more
> improbable than a non-expanding one."
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
> "The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
> State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
> are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
> most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/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."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: 30 Days
Next: What is truth?