light velocity variable, no dark energy needed
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Does a flat observable universe imply an infinite universe?
Next: 40 TH ANNIVERSARY OF TELFER MINE DISCOVERY ON OCT 14TH 2010. Copy herein of letter sent to WESTERN AUSTRALIA PREMIER COLIN BARNETT as personal communication to the Silent Majority.
From: Yevgen Barsukov on 2 Aug 2010 16:42 Check out the new paper by Wun-Yi Shu on modification of general relativity that makes speed of light dependent on degree of universe expansion. Eliminates need for dark energy, presently needed to explain accelerated expansion (2/3 of all energy in the universe in present model). Popular explanation is here: http://www.physorg.com/news199591806.html Actual paper: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1007/1007.1750.pdf Looks promising, although more work is needed on deriving constants from experimental data. I guess they rushed to publish this, while working on more rounded up papers later. Regards, Yevgen -- Tune in to "Strange Drawing of the Day" buzz: http://www.google.com/profiles/100679771837661030957#buzz
From: Sam Wormley on 2 Aug 2010 17:37 On 8/2/10 3:42 PM, Yevgen Barsukov wrote: > > Check out the new paper by Wun-Yi Shu on modification of general > relativity > that makes speed of light dependent on degree of universe expansion. > Eliminates need for dark energy, presently needed to explain > accelerated expansion (2/3 of all energy in the universe in present > model). Contradicted by observations.
From: Yevgen Barsukov on 2 Aug 2010 19:14 Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 3:42 PM, Yevgen Barsukov wrote: > > > > > Check out the new paper by Wun-Yi Shu on modification of general > > relativity > > that makes speed of light dependent on degree of universe expansion. > > Eliminates need for dark energy, presently needed to explain > > accelerated expansion (2/3 of all energy in the universe in present > > model). > > Contradicted by observations. Which observations? Please elaborate... it fits correctly all the data on Type-I supernova red shifts. If you just like to see the graph, here is a short summary: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/25492/ Regards, Yevgen -- Tune in to "Strange Drawing of the Day" buzz: http://www.google.com/profiles/100679771837661030957#buzz
From: spudnik on 2 Aug 2010 19:15 iff Universe is expanding faster & faster, there goes any programme d'espace! (for those of you, who believe in Pascal's Plenum, like herr doktor-professor Albert .-) > Contradicted by observations. thus: how can a massless & momentumless "photon" have polarity, let-alone wavelength & frequency? didn't Young essentially overthow Newton's untheory (wherein corpuscles go faster in denser media) ?? > In portions of the magnetic resonance community, there is a > misunderstanding of the process of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) > signal generation and reception, and even in accepted texts, it is > frequently described in terms of absorption and emission of radio > waves, or radiation, by a two-level quantum system. This difficulty > is examined, and an explanation of the signal given whereby Faraday's > law is explained simply in terms of an exchange of virtual photons. thus: ah, so; light is relatavistic, because its waves "go" through no medium, or redshifts are dopplerian, if the object is going at some fraction of lightspeed -- not velocity -- w.r.t "free space?" I may have muddled this, or you have. > That's what distinguishes relativistic Doppler from the Doppler in > medium-carried signals. Different basis, similar outcome. thus: the pytahgorean theorem is perfectly dimensional, as he and I both concern ourselves with "circling," instead of "tatragoning." that is, "Einstein's proof" via similarity, which he probably found at the gymnasium in Euclid, is merely diagrammatic as he gave it; the actual construction *is* the lunes proof (Hippocrates', I think, but different than the Oath's .-) thus: in spite of his slogan about phase-space, Minkowski was a fantastic Nd geometer. anyway, it's downright innumerate to worry about it, without actually peeking at l'OEuvre de Fermatttt, but Hipparchus' (or Hippocrates') lunes proof is all that you need for the dimensionality of the 2d pythag. thm., if not the 3d pair of them (quadruplets). the main thing, though, is that Fermat didn't have to prove n=3, since his proof apparently applied to all of the odd primes; only the special case of n=4 does not fall to teh well-known lemma for composite exponents, and this he showed, in one of his rare expositions. thus: too bad, the unit associated with the pound, had to be associated with The newton -- the plagiarist, the spook, the freemason, the corpuscular "theorist" ... --les ducs d'oil! http://tarpley.net/online-books/ --Light, A History! http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: Yousuf Khan on 2 Aug 2010 20:04
On 02/08/2010 4:42 PM, Yevgen Barsukov wrote: > > Check out the new paper by Wun-Yi Shu on modification of general > relativity > that makes speed of light dependent on degree of universe expansion. > Eliminates need for dark energy, presently needed to explain > accelerated expansion (2/3 of all energy in the universe in present > model). I think this is the right approach that is going to eventually emerge about the universe, whether or not this particular theory is the right theory or not is of no particular importance. What is going to happen is that it will become more and more evident that time, space, mass and energy are all really the same things, where one can be converted into another and vice-versa. The beginning of the 20th century saw us figure out that mass and energy are the same things. Now in the 21st century, the last bits of the universe will also now be folded in. Yousuf Khan |