🚀 go-pugleaf

The journal Nature believes that "there is a decided absence of
compelling theoretical explanations for the physics underlying cosmic
acceleration" and is waiting for some clue about the nature of dark
energy to "pop out":

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7238/full/458587a.html
Nature 458, 587-589 (2 April 2009)
Cosmology: Dark matter and dark energy
Robert Caldwell & Marc Kamionkowski
"What experiments can help to determine the nature of dark energy?
There is a decided absence of compelling theoretical explanations for
the physics underlying cosmic acceleration, so the approach to date
has been to gather more of the same type of data in the hope that some
clue will pop out. Apart from using supernovae and baryon acoustic
oscillations, other methods that measure the rate at which normal and
dark matter cluster under the influence
of gravitation in an accelerating Universe are also progressing. One
promising technique uses gravitational lensing in the 'weak' regime to
set constraints on dark energy; in this regime, instead of the strong
bending of
light that results in highly distorted images in the form of elongated
arcs, the images of distant sources are only weakly stretched and
magnified by foreground matter (the ‘lenses’). Another technique uses
X-ray emissions of hot gas in galaxy clusters to determine the depth
of their gravitational potential wells. But despite the promise of
these methods, it may be difficult to determine the underlying physics
of cosmic acceleration. On the other hand, this seems to be the only
way to tackle such a challenging and fundamental problem."

In fact, neither cosmic acceleration occurs nor dark energy exists.
Rather, the speed of light changes "over the vast stretches of the
[static] universe":

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci
"Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate
for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally
thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is
more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an
expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its
energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the
universe."

In the era of Postscientism it is extremely difficult, even
impossible, to move from "any photon gradually loses its ENERGY while
traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the universe" to
"any photon gradually loses its SPEED while traveling over a large
distance in the vast space of the universe". George Orwell calls this
"crimestop":

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/dd27d99950d28e39?
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."

The fact that it is the speed of light, not the wavelength, that
varies with frequency suggests that a universal principle called the
Redshift Law might be valid:

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 (at the moment of
reception), c is the speed of light relative to the emitter (at the
moment of emission).

The variability of the speed of light and the constancy of the
wavelength also imply that one should look for another reason
(different from Big Bang ones) why the more distant galaxies are, the
more redshifted light coming from them is. If, as it travels, the
photon regularly bumps into something and so gradually loses its speed
(this assumption has a lot to do with the tired light hypothesis), its
speed will decrease proportionally to the distance (this reconciles
Hubble's law with the idea of a static universe):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0806/0806.4085.pdf
"However, it may be interesting to note that Hubble, even up to his
final lecture before the Royal Society, always held open the
possibility that the redshift did not mean velocity of recession but
might be caused by something else."

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."

http://www.prlog.org/10252874-the-existence-of-dark-energy-is-moot-because-the-universe-is-not-expanding.html
"The existence of Dark Energy is moot because the Universe is not
expanding. Dark energy thought to be the cause of an expanding
Universe is moot because cosmic dust is shown to produce the Hubble
redshift measurements without the Universe expanding.... Given that
Supernova light is unequivocally absorbed by DPs [dust particles] on
its way to the Earth, the measured Hubble redshift Z is most likely
caused by DPs and has nothing to do with an expanding Universe. Cosmic
dust therefore makes moot the existence of dark energy because it is
no longer necessary in non-expanding Universe. Cosmic dust also holds
in question the Hubble redshift as the first and only proof that the
Universe began with the Big Bang suggesting the new cosmological
paradigm adopted at the forthcoming Invisible Universe Conference in
Paris should be a return to Einsteins static Universe in dynamic
equilibrium."

http://cosmologystatement.org/
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical
entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter
and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there
would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by
astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other
field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and
observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the
validity of the underlying theory."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com