Prev: deriving speed of light out of just pure mathematics; 2nd attempt #583 Correcting Math
Next: I write for future physics, not the misguided current community #584 Correcting Math
From: John Jones on 10 Apr 2010 05:11
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 (the speed of light
> decreases with distance and this causes Hubble's redshift) is hinted
> at in Einsteiniana but then billions may not 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."
>
> 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
> 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."
>
> In the end dark minds enter the stage and things get irreversible
> (billions are guaranteed):
>
> 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://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.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7522026/Hubble-telescope-shows-Universe-expansion-is-speeding-up-and-proves-Einsteins-theory.html
> "And the astronomers found that the universe was growing faster and
> faster with time, as predicted by Einstein in his theory of general
> relativity. Scientists claim that the universe is made up of three
> different components - normal matter, which is the physical objects in
> the universe such as the planets - dark matter, which is invisible
> matter that creates the gravitational pull that causes galaxies to
> form - and an unknown energy referred to as "dark energy", the force
> which causes the universe to expand. Einstein's theory of general
> relativity claims that space and time are a geometrical structure
> which can be changed by the behaviour of the matter inside it. So
> proof that the expansion of the universe is speeding up shows that the
> contents of the universe, such as the "dark energy" causing it to
> inflate, are influencing its structure. Ludovic Van Waerbeke, of the
> Department of Physics and Astronomy at Leiden University in the
> Netherlands, said: "Our results confirmed that there is an unknown
> source of energy in the universe which is causing the cosmic expansion
> to speed up, stretching the dark matter further apart exactly as
> predicted by Einstein's theory."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pvalev(a)yahoo.com
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: deriving speed of light out of just pure mathematics; 2nd attempt #583 Correcting Math
Next: I write for future physics, not the misguided current community #584 Correcting Math