CRIMESTOP IN COSMOLOGY
Pentcho Valev
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Cosmologists stop short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of
the dangerous thought: "The properties of the tiniest particles should
dictate what the COSMOLOGICAL REDSHIFT looks like":
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/astronomy-and-particle-physics-race-to-replace-standard-model.ars
"If cosmology has become a part of elementary particle physics, as
Nobel Laureate George Smoot put it at the Lindau Meeting, it's because
we've found that "it's a continuum from quantum mechanics to clumps of
matter to galaxies." The properties of the tiniest particles should
dictate what the Universe looks like, but all the cosmological data is
telling us there must be something in addition to what we know about,
dark matter particles that we haven't yet identified."
For the moment there are only two official hints in Internet going
beyond the threshold, one of them recently suppressed:
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."
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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
if there is redshift and you wish the speed of light to remain
constant (Divine Albert has said it is constant), you should STRETCH
THE WAVELENGTH. So for a century Einsteinians have been fiercely
stretching the wavelength no matter what type of redshift is measured:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278
"In both cases, the light emitted by one body and received by the
other will be "redshifted" - i.e. its wavelength will be stretched, so
the color of the light is more towards the red end of the spectrum.
But there's a subtle difference, which you sort of allude to. In fact,
only in the first case (a nearby body moving away from the earth) is
the redshift caused by the Doppler effect. You've experienced the
Doppler effect if you've ever had a train go past you and heard the
whistle go to a lower pitch (corresponding to a longer wavelength for
the sound wave) as the train moves away. The Doppler effect can happen
for light waves too (though it can't be properly understood without
knowing special relativity). It turns out that just like for sound
waves, the wavelength of light emitted by an object that is moving
away from you is longer when you measure it than it is when measured
in the rest frame of the emitting object. 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.) Practically
speaking, the difference between the two (Doppler redshift and
cosmological redshift) is this: in the case of a Doppler shift, the
only thing that matters is the relative velocity of the emitting
object when the light is emitted compared to that of the receiving
object when the light is received. After the light is emitted, it
doesn't matter what happens to the emitting object - it won't affect
the wavelength of the light that is received. In the case of the
cosmological redshift, however, the emitting object is expanding along
with the rest of the universe, and if the rate of expansion changes
between the time the light is emitted and the time it is received,
that will affect the received wavelength. Basically, the cosmological
redshift is a measure of the total "stretching" that the universe has
undergone between the time the light was emitted and the time it was
received."
Are Einsteiniana's idiocies, "stretching the wavelength" in
particular, eternal?"
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
principle does not consist in a universal procrusteanization of the
wavelength into conformity with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate.
Rather, the principle consists in a universal proportionality between
the frequency (the measurable feature) and the VARIABLE speed of
light:
f'/f = c'/c
where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer or receiver (at the
moment of reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter
(at the moment of emission).
Pentcho Valev
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/new-cosmological-model-bye-bye-big-bang/
"Having realised that the Hubble 'constant' had been changed on a
regular basis to save the big bang theory, I came to the conclusion
that redshift didn't mean what cosmologist thought it did, and that it
was perfectly possible the speed of light had changed over the course
of the history of the universe."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The redshift of light does obey a universal principle but this
principle does not consist in a universal procrusteanization of the
wavelength into conformity with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate.
Rather, the principle consists in a universal proportionality between
the frequency (the measurable feature) and the VARIABLE speed of
light:
f'/f = c'/c
where f' is the shifted frequency of light (at the moment of
reception), f is the original frequency (at the moment of emission),
c' is the speed of light relative to the observer or receiver (at the
moment of reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter
(at the moment of emission).
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> On Fri, 20 Aug Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
> >David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by
> >something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part.
> >This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A
> >DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."
>
>
> >The redshift of light does obey a universal principle but this
> >principle does not consist in a universal procrusteanization of the
> >wavelength into conformity with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate.
> >Rather, the principle consists in a universal proportionality between
> >the frequency (the measurable feature) and the VARIABLE speed of
> >light:
>
> >f'/f = c'/c
>
> wavelength using your ratios?
> L = c/f = c'/f'
> Your ratios say that the wavelength remains unchanged contrary
> experience. Our only means of measuring red shift is to measure the
> change in wavelength, it looks like your ratios can't be supported.
> Sorry.
> ( but the wavelength remains constant in a gravity well such as in the
> Pound & Rebka experiment).
Your admission that "the wavelength remains constant in a gravity
well" is a step in the right direction. This means that, in accordance
with the formula:
(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
the frequency varies with the gravitational potential, phi, as
f'=f(1+phi/c^2) (experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka) while
the speed of light varies as c'=c(1+phi/c^2) (an equation given by
Newton's emission theory of light and explicitly used by Einstein in
the period 1907-1915).
Now it is time for your next step in the right direction. Does the
wavelength vary with the speed of the observer, as Einsteinians (not
very enthusiastically) claim, or is it the speed of the wave relative
to the observer that varies:
http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."
The third (and last) step in the right direction consists in admitting
that there can be no stretching of the wavelength by an allegedly
expanding universe. Hubble himself was moving in that direction:
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."
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://io9.com/5607692/are-physicists-just-making-up-dark-energy
Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University:
"The idea of dark energy is so ridiculous that almost every question
is based on trying to make it go away. And believe me, I share your
concerns. I don't want to believe in dark energy, but I have no
choice. (...) Basically, if you want to get rid of dark energy, you
have to get rid of relativity."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com