An article by the European Space Agency today reads: "Monster galactic cluster seen in deep Universe"

Supposedly this is touted as more "proof" of the existence of Dark Energy. Feynman would be turning over in his grave right now!

Dark energy was created to explain anomalous accelerations against gravity, of galaxies. Now, the observance of this anomalous galaxy is considered proof. You cannot postulate a thing based on observation and then use observation as evidence that you are correct. If the underlying assumptions are wrong, you've proven nothing!

The expansion of the universe is predicated on two basic assumptions, neither of which have been proven. First that redshift is a reliable measure of distance and/or recessional velocity. Second, that gravity is the dominant force in large-scale galactic structure. Halton Arp published a catalog of so-called anomalous galaxies which defy the first assumption. Dark matter was invented to deal with anomalies observed with the second. Instead of rethinking the assumptions, more ad-hoc patches have been added to salvage the existing dogma. This is not science. It is religion.

I thank God that humans are relatively short-lived. Perhaps the next generation will inject some sanity into cosmology.

-Dave


http://www.thunderbolts.info

Dave wrote: "I thank God that humans are relatively short-lived. Perhaps the next generation will inject some sanity into cosmology."

Who knows. Science seems to be dying irreversibly. For instance, some time ago, people still did care about the second law of thermodynamics: if you claim it is wrong, vigilant orthodoxes would call you mad perpetuum mobile constructor etc. Now NOBODY cares about the second law, not even professors of physical chemistry who reduce substantially the number of students by teaching it. Something similar is going to happen to Einstein's relativity. Absurd theories produce miracles and people love them for a while but then Harry Potter is always stronger. And there is no place for rationality in the miraculous world.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead) so it is time for cosmologists to try various salvation approaches, including the following one. All interpretations of the redshift are based on the assumption that in the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light is constant because the hymn "Divine Einstein" is perfect and "we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc. However Divine Albert allegedly thought in terms of hypotheses and there is no reason why cosmologists should not do so from time to time. That is, those of them who know well the established interpretations of, say, accelerating expansion observations, suddenly change direction and reinterpret everything based on the assumtion that frequency and speed of light vary while the wavelength is constant. No need to stop singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" - after all, Divine Albert himself, in one of his metamorphoses, pleeded for variable speed of light:

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of
relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the gravitational redshift factor."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Actually, with a discretized elastic vacuum, it is possible to have light's path curved with still maintaining constant velocity. In fact, it would also explain its reference frame independence.

However, this would lead to an aether, which was killed by Relativity despite Einstein's admission late in life that he felt the aether must exist.

Einstein had humility. It's the zealous followers that do not.

-Dave


http://www.thunderbolts.info

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Cosmology is in deep crisis (some say it is dead) so it is time for
> cosmologists to try various salvation approaches, including the
> following one. All interpretations of the redshift are based on the
> assumption that in the formula:
>
> (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light is
> constant because the hymn "Divine Einstein" is perfect and "we all
> believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" etc. However Divine
> Albert allegedly thought in terms of hypotheses and there is no reason
> why cosmologists should not do so from time to time. That is, those of
> them who know well the established interpretations of, say,
> accelerating expansion observations, suddenly change direction and
> reinterpret everything based on the assumtion that frequency and speed
> of light vary while the wavelength is constant. No need to stop
> singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity,
> relativity, relativity" - after all, Divine Albert himself, in one of
> his metamorphoses, pleeded for variable speed of light:
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
> "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
> learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
> Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
> textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
> after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
> Einstein, I found this quote:"In the second place our result shows
> that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
> constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
> the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
> and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
> unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place
> when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we
> might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
> relativity and with it the whole theory of
> relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the
> case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity
> cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only
> so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational
> fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein
> (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few
> Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find
> that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part
> of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to
> even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a
> constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself
> suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the
> Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of
> light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the
> variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly
> shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should
> bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in
> his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational
> potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/
> c^2 is also known as the gravitational redshift factor."

In other words, instead of procrusteanizing cosmology to fit the 21st century idiocies taught by "modern" universities:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278
Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these objects stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched, and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth; if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be "stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and hence the wavelength of the light.)"

one should just return to the 18th century amateur John Michell who, fortunately, did not know Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0534493394/4891/Ch01-Essay.pdf
Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell. Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special relativity.)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278
> Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the
> expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is
> referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an
> entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the
> expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving
> away from each other - rather, the space between these objects
> stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched,
> and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a
> special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational
> redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes
> the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic
> example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth;
> if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it
> is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that
> the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the
> gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its
> surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be
> "stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and
> hence the wavelength of the light.)"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085.pdf
University of Hull: "Despite the distinction between redshifts caused by the velocity of objects and the redshifts associated with the expanding universe, astronomers sometimes refer to “recession velocity” in the context of the redshifting of distant galaxies from the expansion of the Universe, even though it is only an apparent recession. As a consequence, popular literature has a tendency to use the expression “Doppler redshift” instead of “cosmological redshift” to describe the motion of galaxies dominated by the expansion of spacetime, despite the fact that a “cosmological recessional speed” when calculated will not equal the velocity in the relativistic Doppler equation. In particular, Doppler redshift is bound by the laws of Einstein’s special relativity, which dictates that an object cannot travel faster than the speed of light through a vacuum; thus v > c is impossible. On the other hand, in the case of cosmological redshift, v > c is possible because the space which separates the objects (e.g. a quasar from the Earth) can expand faster than the speed of light; this is because space, not being composed of any material, can grow faster than the speed of light since, not being an object, it is not bound by the speed of light upper bound.....In the theory of general relativity, there is time dilation within a gravitational well. This is known as the gravitational redshift or “Einstein Shift”. The gravitational redshift of spectral lines is often held to be one of the “crucial tests” of general relativity. However, the result may also be derived with no recourse to the general theory of relativity whatsoever, nor even to the principle of equivalence, as has been shown on several occasions."

Einsteinians, what are you doing? Why should human rationality be destroyed so mercilessly?

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch08/080829constants.htm



http://www.thunderbolts.info

Thanks for the "thunderbolts" link Dave. Fascinating stuff and well worth the read, compelling actually.

bob s

Right on Dave!!