Prev: Make thousands of Musatov's
Next: Estimate of norm of function vanishing near the boundary
From: Pollux on 11 Jun 2010 20:50
Can somebody summarize for me? Is this about Einstein being stupid, or Cantor? Or that the integers don't exist?


> http://www.physorg.com/news4999.html
> "The widely accepted idea that the universe began
> with a Big Bang
> could be wrong, according to astrophysicists who took
> part in a
> "Crisis in cosmology" meeting in Portugal and
> reported in this month's
> Physics World magazine. According to the standard Big
> Bang theory, the
> universe began in a hot dense fireball about 13
> billion years ago and
> has been expanding ever since. But despite plenty of
> evidence to
> support the theory, not everyone is convinced. Eric
> Lerner of
> Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, who organized the
> Portuguese meeting,
> says that certain properties of the cosmic microwave
> background - the
> so-called "echo of the Big Bang" - do not match
> predictions from the
> theory. Others are unhappy that cosmologists have had
> to introduce
> weird concepts like dark matter and dark energy to
> explain the
> universe. Mainstream scientists, however, have hit
> back, saying that
> we just need to tweak the Big Bang model and tie up
> "loose ends"."
>
> Mainstream scientists are going to tweak the Big Bang
> model forever
> because this brings billions:
>
> 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 also force mainstream scientists to ignore
> and eventually
> suppress any alternative idea, although in moments of
> aberration they
> admit: "We have a complete inventory of the
> universe," Sean Carroll, a
> California Institute of Technology cosmologist, has
> said, "and it
> makes no sense."
>
> 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/f
> ulltext.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/0,9171,75714
> 5,00.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-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.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."
>
> http://io9.com/5528758/ask-a-physicist-why-believe-in-
> dark-matter
> "And don't even get me started about Dark Energy.
> It's the stuff that
> accelerates the universe, and if you think you've got
> a problem with
> Dark Matter, wait'll you see Dark Energy. It's no so
> much that we
> don't understand where Dark Energy could come from;
> it's just that the
> "natural" value (the one that comes out of reasonable
> assumptions
> based on vacuum energy) is about 10^100 times the
> density that we
> actually observe. For my money, this is the absolute
> biggest problem
> in physics."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Make thousands of Musatov's
Next: Estimate of norm of function vanishing near the boundary