THE REASON BEHIND DARK ENERGY
in [Logic]
|
Prev: Principles Of Foundation Engineering (6thEd) - Das - Solution Manual is available at affordable prices. Email me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com if you need to buy this. All emails will be answered ASAP.
Next: FALSE PREMISES AND INVALID ARGUMENTS
From: Pentcho Valev on 11 Dec 2009 01:36 Sometimes hints come from the Royal Society but billions are billions and work in the Kingdom of Dark Energy continues: 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." I think Einsteinians should take more notice of what the Royal Society, Einsteiniana's creator, says. A few years ago the Royal Society said tests on Divine Albert's Divine Theory should stop and they did stop: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3322462/Did-Einstein-get-all-his-sums-right.html "Did Einstein get all his sums right?.....Last week, an American probe began an 18-month mission to put Einstein's prediction to the test, 90 years after he unveiled his ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was blasted into space from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and will orbit the Earth for more than a year. The $700 million joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University, conceived in 1958, uses four of the most perfect spheres ever created inside the world's largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said: "The project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the persistence and lobbying power of Stanford University. But its gestation has been grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have been equally gross. I recall hearing a talk about the project from Francis Everitt (principal investigator) when I was still a student and it was already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for Einstein's theory was meagre just two tests, with 10 per cent precision. But relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with precision of one part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to have new and different tests. But the level of confidence in Einstein's theory is now so high that an announcement of the expected result will 'fork no lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected result, I suspect most people will suspect an error in this very challenging experiment rather than immediately abandon Einstein: There's now so much evidence corroborating Einstein, that a high burden of proof is required before he'll be usurped by any rival theory. "So the most exciting if un-alluring outcome of Gravity Probe B would be a request by Stanford University for another huge sum of money to repeat it." Pentcho Valev wrote: The only reason behind Dark Energy: 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." Sometimes the correct solution to the problem is hinted at in Einsteiniana but then no billions, not even millions, come and Einsteinians promise not to hint anymore: 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 pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 5 Jan 2010 03:11 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 wrote: Sometimes hints come from the Royal Society but billions are billions and work in the Kingdom of Dark Energy continues: 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." I think Einsteinians should take more notice of what the Royal Society, Einsteiniana's creator, says. A few years ago the Royal Society said tests on Divine Albert's Divine Theory should stop and they did stop: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3322462/Did-Einstein-get-all-his-sums-right.html "Did Einstein get all his sums right?.....Last week, an American probe began an 18-month mission to put Einstein's prediction to the test, 90 years after he unveiled his ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was blasted into space from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and will orbit the Earth for more than a year. The $700 million joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University, conceived in 1958, uses four of the most perfect spheres ever created inside the world's largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said: "The project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the persistence and lobbying power of Stanford University. But its gestation has been grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have been equally gross. I recall hearing a talk about the project from Francis Everitt (principal investigator) when I was still a student and it was already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for Einstein's theory was meagre just two tests, with 10 per cent precision. But relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with precision of one part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to have new and different tests. But the level of confidence in Einstein's theory is now so high that an announcement of the expected result will 'fork no lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected result, I suspect most people will suspect an error in this very challenging experiment rather than immediately abandon Einstein: There's now so much evidence corroborating Einstein, that a high burden of proof is required before he'll be usurped by any rival theory. "So the most exciting if un-alluring outcome of Gravity Probe B would be a request by Stanford University for another huge sum of money to repeat it." The only reason behind Dark Energy: 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." Sometimes the correct solution to the problem is hinted at in Einsteiniana but then no billions, not even millions, come and Einsteinians promise not to hint anymore: 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 pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 20 Jan 2010 01:52 Slow and painful movement towards the truth in Einsteiniana. Slow and painful because "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" (see below): http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100119172846.htm "Is dark energy constant, or is it dynamic? Or is it unreal, merely an illusion caused by a limitation in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity?" Einsteinians will discover some day that dark energy is merely an illusion caused by a limitation in Einstein's SPECIAL Theory of Relativity (Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false). Pentcho Valev wrote: 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?" Sometimes hints come from the Royal Society but billions are billions and work in the Kingdom of Dark Energy continues: 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." I think Einsteinians should take more notice of what the Royal Society, Einsteiniana's creator, says. A few years ago the Royal Society said tests on Divine Albert's Divine Theory should stop and they did stop: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3322462/Did-Einstein-get-all-his-sums-right.html "Did Einstein get all his sums right?.....Last week, an American probe began an 18-month mission to put Einstein's prediction to the test, 90 years after he unveiled his ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was blasted into space from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and will orbit the Earth for more than a year. The $700 million joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University, conceived in 1958, uses four of the most perfect spheres ever created inside the world's largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions in the fabric of the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, said: "The project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the persistence and lobbying power of Stanford University. But its gestation has been grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have been equally gross. I recall hearing a talk about the project from Francis Everitt (principal investigator) when I was still a student and it was already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for Einstein's theory was meagre just two tests, with 10 per cent precision. But relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with precision of one part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to have new and different tests. But the level of confidence in Einstein's theory is now so high that an announcement of the expected result will 'fork no lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected result, I suspect most people will suspect an error in this very challenging experiment rather than immediately abandon Einstein: There's now so much evidence corroborating Einstein, that a high burden of proof is required before he'll be usurped by any rival theory. "So the most exciting if un-alluring outcome of Gravity Probe B would be a request by Stanford University for another huge sum of money to repeat it." The only reason behind Dark Energy: 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." Sometimes the correct solution to the problem is hinted at in Einsteiniana but then no billions, not even millions, come and Einsteinians promise not to hint anymore: 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 pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: spudnik on 20 Jan 2010 01:56
it ain't necessarily any problem with SR and GR, per se, but the assumption that gravity is the end-all and be-all of the "curvature of phase-space." thus quoth: The heart of the matter before us, begins with the hypothesis and experimental validation of the Ampère angular force. Before the discovery by Oersted and Ampère of the effective equivalence of a closed current and a magnet, it appeared that the pairwise forces between bodies were governed by the same law of universal gravitation, which Johannes Kepler had first noted in his 1609 New Astronomy.1 At the time in question, 1819-1821, three known phenomena appeared to behave according to the assumption that the force between two bodies was determined according to the inverse square of their distance of separation. Apart from gravitation, these were the phenomena of electrostatic, and magnetic attraction and repulsion, investigated especially by Coulomb and Poisson. In all three cases, there was some question as to the perfect validity of the inverse-square assumption. In the case of magnetism, the impossibility of separating the two opposite poles, made exact measurement of the pairwise relationship of one magnet to another always inexact. This problem of the existence of a third body did not entirely go away, even in the case of the most carefully observed of these phenomena, gravitation. The Ampère Angular Force http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/Electrodynamics.html --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com |