🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 3, 5:43 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 3, 10:48 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Einsteinians make career and money by devising new idiocies while
> > going around the truth:
>
> >http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/erasing_dark_energy/
> > "AGAINST ALL REASON, the universe is accelerating its expansion. (...)
> > To Temple and Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California–
> > Davis and the University of Michigan, respectively, dark energy seemed
> > an ad hoc addition to cosmology. (...) But as an explanation to
> > replace dark energy, there are at least two serious problems with
> > Temple and Smoller’s wave of expansion, cosmologists say. (...) But
> > perhaps the largest objection voiced is that this model would require
> > Earth to be at the center of the universe. In other words, it would
> > violate the Copernican principle, which states that the Earth does not
> > have a special, favored place and that the universe is essentially
> > homogeneous."
>
> The above idiocy looks insurmountable but there is always a greater
> idiocy in Einsteiniana:
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_10_117/ai_n31116578/
> "Even if we set the value of the cosmological constant to account for
> the accelerating expansion of the universe, the implications of a
> nonzero constant boggle the mind. The constant's mathematical value
> corresponds to the amount of dark energy that lurks in every cubic
> centimeter of space. It follows that, as the cosmos expands and new
> space comes into existence, every cubic centimeter of new space will
> contain just as much dark energy as every old cubic centimeter does.
> Accordingly, the universe not only expands at an accelerating rate,
> but also produces a correspondingly growing amount of dark energy.
> Here we find the ultimate free lunch--energy produced without any
> investment beyond the original creation of the universe. But doesn't
> this violate the law of conservation of energy, which states that the
> total amount of energy remains constant, though it may change its form
> (matter being a form of energy, with a value expressed by Einstein's
> famous equation, E = [mc.sup.2])? No, because this law applies to any
> isolated, closed system--and the universe, which continuously creates
> new space, does not satisfy that condition."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Admitting to the tired light hypothesis is harder
than believing in ....what..?

1. a new class of matter (invisible)
2. a new kind of energy (repulsive- but, no, not gravitational)
3. ...........what other idiocies?...Al?? You're
the idiot master; help me out, here.

john