🚀 go-pugleaf

On Oct 3, 10:32 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einsteinians should take more notice of what the Biggest Brother, Lord
> Martin Rees, says:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedo...
> Lord 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."
>
> A few years ago Lord Martin Rees said: "Divine Albert's Divine Theory
> can no longer be a money-spinner!" - and Einsteiniana did obey:
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/3322462/Did-Einstein-...
> "Did Einstein get all his sums right?.....Last week, an American probe
> began an 18-month mission to put Einstein's prediction to the test, 90
> years after he unveiled his ideas in Berlin. Gravity Probe B was
> blasted into space from the Vandenberg Air Force Base in California on
> a Boeing Delta 2 rocket and will orbit the Earth for more than a year.
> The $700 million joint mission between Nasa and Stanford University,
> conceived in 1958, uses four of the most perfect spheres ever created
> inside the world's largest Thermos flask to detect minute distortions
> in the fabric of the universe.....Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer
> Royal, said: "The project's a technical triumph, and a triumph of the
> persistence and lobbying power of Stanford University. But its
> gestation has been grotesquely prolonged, and the cost overruns have
> been equally gross. I recall hearing a talk about the project from
> Francis Everitt (principal investigator) when I was still a student
> and it was already well advanced. "Back in the 1960s the evidence for
> Einstein's theory was meagre just two tests, with 10 per cent
> precision. But relativity is now confirmed by several tests, with
> precision of one part in 10,000. It's still, in principle, good to
> have new and different tests. But the level of confidence in
> Einstein's theory is now so high that an announcement of the expected
> result will 'fork no lightening'. "Moreover, if there's an unexpected
> result, I suspect most people will suspect an error in this very
> challenging experiment rather than immediately abandon Einstein:
> There's now so much evidence corroborating Einstein, that a high
> burden of proof is required before he'll be usurped by any rival
> theory. "So the most exciting if un-alluring outcome of Gravity Probe
> B would be a request by Stanford University for another huge sum of
> money to repeat it."
>
> Pentcho Valev 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
> CaliforniaDavis 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 Smollers 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

Our concept of gravity is backward.
How can every iota of matter possibly
put out an infinite number of gravitons?
Matter absorbs some sort of radiation.
It is the absorption of this common component
that creates the sinks.
Electrons are negative charge whipping
around in *very* small circles.
That has to radiate.
Yet we don't detect it.
What if that radiation is at a much higher
frequency and speed, while being a
much smaller version "photon"?
Why couldn't gravity-causing radiation
also be off the charts, frequency-wise and
using much smaller units?

joh n