🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 17, 12:53 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 9:03 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Silly old interpretations of "redshift is due to a change in
> > wavelength" can only make clever cosmologists sick at heart:
>
> > http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
> > Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3:
> > "In the 1920s, when astronomers began to look at the spectra of stars
> > in other galaxies, they found something most peculiar: there were the
> > same characteristic sets of missing colors as for stars in our own
> > galaxy, but they were all shifted by the same relative amount toward
> > the red end of the spectrum. To understand the implications of this,
> > we must first understand the Doppler effect. As we have seen, visible
> > light consists of fluctuations, or waves, in the electromagnetic
> > field. The wavelength (or distance from one wave crest to the next) of
> > light is extremely small, ranging from four to seven ten-millionths of
> > a meter. The different wavelengths of light are what the human eye
> > sees as different colors, with the longest wavelengths appearing at
> > the red end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths at the blue
> > end. Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us,
> > such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength.
> > Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as
> > the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of
> > the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect).
> > Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source
> > emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance
> > between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary.
> > This means that the wavelength of the waves we receive is shorter than
> > when the star was stationary. Correspondingly, if the source is moving
> > away from us, the wavelength of the waves we receive will be longer.
> > In the case of light, therefore, means that stars moving away from us
> > will have their spectra shifted toward the red end of the spectrum
> > (red-shifted) and those moving toward us will have their spectra blue-
> > shifted."
>
> Similar idiocies:
>
> http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=does-dark-energy-exist
> "Astronomers find, for example, that the light from distant galaxies
> is redder than that of nearby galaxies. This phenomenon, known as
> redshift, is neatly explained as a stretching of light waves by the
> expansion of space."

Even greater idiocies (Einsteinians know no limits):

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7238/full/458587a.html
Nature 458, 587-589 (2 April 2009): "What about dark energy? The
observation that the expansion of the Universe is speeding up, instead
of slowing down owing to the mutual gravitational attraction of
matter, indicates that there is much more to the Universe than we
understand at present. The leading interpretation is that the Universe
is filled by something dubbed dark energy that ’antigravitates’.
Whereas the possibility for gravitational repulsion does not exist in
Newtonian gravity, it does exist in general relativity. The
equivalence between matter and energy means that gaseous pressures
caused by thermal molecular motions can be a source of gravitational
fields. The gravitational field of a fluid with sufficiently negative
pressure is repulsive. Although it may be difficult to imagine how
molecular motions can give rise to a negative pressure, it has been
realized that some of the quantum fields that arise in elementary-
particle theory allow for fluids with negative pressure. Dark energy
is thus simply the negative-pressure fluid that is postulated to
account for cosmic acceleration."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com