🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/6909341.html
"As the 2006 recipient of the American Society of Engineering Award
for Computer Engineering and author of 10 books dealing mostly with
computer simulation, I feel qualified to challenge the hypothesis of
the authors of the article on global warming that appeared in the
Chronicle. Let me also point out that I have never received a penny of
federal funds to shill cap and trade, or government subsidies to
promote global warming scenarios. The scientists try to justify that
the global climate is changing and that this is the result of human
activities that produce heat-trapping gases. They base these
conclusions on computer models that are highly speculative and
incomplete, including some that are notoriously inaccurate and should
not be put to the use of linking greenhouse gases and temperature
change. Most scientists support this hypothesis. Astrophysicists are
unable to predict the movement of celestial bodies using Newtonian
physics even with relativistic corrections. In the science of
cosmology, only 30 percent of celestial masses can be accounted for,
and it requires a mass correction of 70 percent to calculate planetary
trajectories. YOU CAN GET ANY ANSWER YOU WANT BY MANIPULATING
CONSTANTS."
ERNEST J. HENLEY
professor emeritus, University of Houston

Pentcho Valev wrote:

More CLIMATE-GATE:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17641
"A science mafia? In November somebody illegally hacked into the
University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the UK,
subsequently publishing 1079 emails and 72 documents on the Internet.
However reprehensible an act of cyber-pilfering, the contents of the
authenticated emails were both decidedly in the 'public interest', and
carried within them the seeds of a major science scandal; a scandal
Andrew Bolt rightly sees as the "greatest in modern science". What was
particularly explosive was the unheralded insight it gave us into the
scientific 'mafia' world of some of the leading promoters of man-made
Global Warming (GW) theory. A theory that is about to divert massive
global economic resources into a science 'consensus' black hole.
Reading the emails is a chilling experience when one realizes that
some of these same individuals gave the UN IPCC 'the spine' to declare
the climate science 'settled'. The UK Daily Telegraph's James
Delingpole sums up the contents: "Conspiracy, collusion in
exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of
embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure,
manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public
claims and much more." (...) Britain's Viscount Monckton, a leading
climate sceptic, has denounced the CRU and its partners as "not merely
bad scientists - they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated
their crimes at the expense of British and US taxpayers."

How Einstein procrusteanized his equations into conformity with the
Mercury precession anomaly (RELATIVITY-GATE):

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/26/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

COSMOLOGY-GATE:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a BILLION DOLLARS, are at the design concept stage."

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."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
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."

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."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.html
"Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or
a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two
years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an
illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view.
Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even
further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he
now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-
expanding one."

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.amazon.fr/bang-nest-th%C3%A9orie-comme-autres/dp/2360120026
"Le big bang n'est pas une théorie comme les autres. Ce n'est
d'ailleurs pas une théorie physique au sens propre du terme, mais un
scénario cosmologique issu des équations de la relativité générale. Il
est le modèle qui s'ajuste le mieux aux observations actuelles, mais à
quel prix ? Il nous livre un Univers composé à 96 % de matière et
d'énergie noires inconnues. C'est donc un euphémisme que de dire que
le big bang semble poser autant - sinon plus - de questions qu'il n'en
résout. En ce sens, le big bang apparaît davantage comme une
paramétrisation de notre ignorance plutôt que comme une modélisation
d'un phénomène. Pourtant, le succès du big bang et l'adhésion qu'il
suscite, tant dans la sphère scientifique que dans la sphère
médiatique, ne se démentent pas. Surmédiatisé, son statut dépasse
celui de modèle théorique, et la simple évocation de son nom suffit
pour justifier des opérations de marketing scientifique ou rejeter des
cosmologies alternatives. Pour éclaircir les problématiques -
scientifiques, médiatiques, économiques ou politiques - liées à la
cosmologie d'aujourd'hui, il est nécessaire de multiplier les angles
de vue et de distinguer, selon leur registre, les différents enjeux.
C'est le but que se sont fixés les auteurs de cet ouvrage. Pour chaque
point soulevé, leurs regards croisés contribuent à favoriser
l'émergence citoyenne d'un esprit éclairé et critique."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/bauer1.1.1.html
Suppression of Science Within Science
by Henry Bauer
"I wasn't as surprised as many others were, when it was revealed that
climate-change "researchers" had discussed in private e-mails how to
keep important data from public view lest it shake public belief in
the dogma that human activities are contributing significantly to
global warming. (...) Take cosmology and the Big-Bang theory of the
origin of the universe. Halton Arp was a respected, senior American
observational astronomer. He noticed that some pairs of quasars that
are physically close together nevertheless have very different
redshifts. How exciting! Evidently some redshifts are not Doppler
effects, in other words, not owing to rapid relative motion away from
us. That means the universe-expansion calculations have to be revised.
It may not have started as a Big Bang! That's just the sort of major
potential discovery that scientists are always hoping for, isn't it?
Certainly not in this case. Arp was granted no more telescope time to
continue his observations. At age 56, Halton Arp emigrated to Germany
to continue his work at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. But
Arp was not alone in his views. Thirty-four senior astronomers from 10
countries, including such stellar figures as Hermann Bondi, Thomas
Gold, Amitabha Ghosh, and Jayant Narlikar, sent a letter to Nature
pointing out that Big Bang theory:
*relies on a growing number of hypothetical . . . things . . . never
observed;
*that alternative theories can also explain all the basic phenomena of
the cosmos
*and yet virtually all financial and experimental resources in
cosmology go to Big-Bang studies.
Just the sort of discussion that goes on in science all the time,
arguing pros and cons of competing ideas. Except that Nature refused
to publish the letter. It was posted on the Internet, and by now
hundreds of additional signatures have been added... (...) Then
there's that most abstract of fundamental sciences, theoretical
physics. The problem has long been, How to unify relativity and
quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics regards the world as made up of
discrete bits whereas relativity regards the world as governed by
continuous, not discrete, fields. Since the mid-1970s, there has been
no real progress. Everyone has been working on so-called "string
theory," which has delivered no testable conclusions and remains a
hope, a speculation, not a real theory. Nevertheless, theoretical
physicists who want to look at other approaches can't find jobs, can't
get grants, can't get published. (...) You begin to wonder, don't you,
how many other cases there could be in science, where a single theory
has somehow captured all the resources? And where competent scientists
who want to try something different are not only blocked but
personally insulted?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com