🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sep 13, 10:53 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einsteiniana's contribution to the hypothesis that the speed of light
> decreases over the vast stretches of the universe (a silly explanation
> of course but still going in the right direction):
>
> http://ldolphin.org/recentlight.html
> "However, since a major paper by Andreas Albrecht and Jao Magueijo in
> 1999, and another one by John Barrow in the same issue of Physical
> Review D, the speed of light has come under increasing scrutiny as a
> physical quantity that may be varying. These scientists are saying
> that if lightspeed was significantly higher at the inception of the
> cosmos (about 1060 higher) then a number of astronomical problems can
> be readily resolved. Paul Davies statements echo that and he, like
> Barrow, considers that lightspeed has declined over the history of the
> universe. By contrast, Albrecht and Magueijo contained the lightspeed
> change to the earliest moments of the Big Bang and had it drop to its
> present value immediately afterwards. In that sense, this recent work
> is consolidating the belief that the drop in lightspeed has extended
> over the whole history of the universe. This is the position that the
> cDK research has advocated since the early 1980's. The cause of the
> change in the speed of light has still to be determined, but according
> to Lineweaver, one of the prime suspects is that the structure of the
> vacuum has been changing uniformly across the cosmos. This is also the
> position that the cDK research has advocated since the early to mid
> 1990's and was formalised a technical paper which has so far been
> submitted for publication to two physics journals, one astronomy
> journal and one general science journal and none have been willing to
> publish it. It is also the key subject of another paper also under
> review, entitled "Exploring the Vacuum." Because there is an intrinsic
> energy in every cubic centimetre of the vacuum, this energy may
> manifest as virtual particle pairs like electron/positron pairs that
> flit in and out of existence. As a photon of light travels through the
> vacuum, it hits a virtual particle, is absorbed, and then shortly
> after is re-emitted. This process, while fast, still takes a finite
> time to occur. Thus, a photon of light is like a runner going over
> hurdles. The more hurdles over a set distance on the track the longer
> it takes for runners to reach their destination. Thus, if the energy
> content of space increased with time, more virtual particles would
> manifest per unit distance, and so the longer light would take to
> reach its destination."
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
> Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
> Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
> "Many advocates of big-bang cosmology believe observations showing the
> dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae prove beyond reasonable doubt
> that the expanding universe is undergoing acceleration. It is thought
> that the acceleration is driven by some unknown type of dark energy.
> Although this standard interpretation of the supernovae data is widely
> accepted, it could be completely wrong. (...) 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. This statement is the final answer to the question asked in
> Sect. 1 of the present study. 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. The static cosmology does require the Andrews (2006)
> anomalous dimming of distant Type Ia supernovae. It is emphasized that
> the anomalous dimming effect has nothing to do with a particular
> cosmology. The anomalous dimming effect has everything to do with the
> intrinsic short duration of supernova light curves and the cosmic
> redshift of the supernova light. The intrinsic short duration of a
> celestial body is the key concept because the observed redshift-
> magnitude relation for the brightest E-type cluster galaxies do not
> show the anomalous dimming effect at all."
>
> Do Einsteiniana's highest priests know that the only reasonable
> alternative to idiotic Big Bangs, accelerated expansions of the
> universe etc. is the assumption that "the supposed vacuum of space is
> acting as an interstellar medium TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT"? They
> do, but for the moment that is a grand secret between them:
>
> http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
> "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


Also, tired light explains how every point
can be the center for the expansion mirage.
john