Einsteiniana is getting rid of Big Bang, accelerating expansion of the universe and related idiocies (slowly, painfully, with a lot of camouflage):

io9.com/5607692/are-physicists-just-making-up-dark-energy
Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University: "The idea of dark energy is so ridiculous that almost every question is based on trying to make it go away. And believe me, I share your concerns. I don't want to believe in dark energy, but I have no choice. (...) Basically, if you want to get rid of dark energy, you have to get rid of relativity."

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.0953v1.pdf
Observational evidence favours a static universe
David F. Crawford
Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, University of Sydney
"The common attribute of all Big Bang cosmologies is that they are based on the assumption that the universe is expanding. However examination of the evidence for this expansion clearly favours a static universe. (...) Curvature cosmology (CC) is a static tired-light cosmology where the Hubble redshift (and many other redshifts) is produced by an interaction of photons with curved spacetime called curvature redshift."

www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as ordinary Doppler shifts. 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. (...) 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."

www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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."

tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/new-c...el-bye-bye-big-bang/
"Having realised that the Hubble 'constant' had been changed on a regular basis to save the big bang theory, I came to the conclusion that redshift didn't mean what cosmologist thought it did, and that it was perfectly possible THE SPEED OF LIGHT HAD CHANGED over the course of the history of the universe."

In accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

if there is redshift and you wish the speed of light to remain constant (Divine Albert has said it is constant), you should STRETCH THE WAVELENGTH. So for a century Einsteinians have been fiercely stretching the wavelength no matter what type of redshift is measured:

curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278
"In both cases, the light emitted by one body and received by the other will be "redshifted" - i.e. its wavelength will be stretched, so the color of the light is more towards the red end of the spectrum. But there's a subtle difference, which you sort of allude to. In fact, only in the first case (a nearby body moving away from the earth) is the redshift caused by the Doppler effect. You've experienced the Doppler effect if you've ever had a train go past you and heard the whistle go to a lower pitch (corresponding to a longer wavelength for the sound wave) as the train moves away. The Doppler effect can happen for light waves too (though it can't be properly understood without knowing special relativity). It turns out that just like for sound waves, the wavelength of light emitted by an object that is moving away from you is longer when you measure it than it is when measured in the rest frame of the emitting object. In the case of distant objects where the expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these objects stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched, and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth; if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be "stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and hence the wavelength of the light.) Practically speaking, the difference between the two (Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift) is this: in the case of a Doppler shift, the only thing that matters is the relative velocity of the emitting object when the light is emitted compared to that of the receiving object when the light is received. After the light is emitted, it doesn't matter what happens to the emitting object - it won't affect the wavelength of the light that is received. In the case of the cosmological redshift, however, the emitting object is expanding along with the rest of the universe, and if the rate of expansion changes between the time the light is emitted and the time it is received, that will affect the received wavelength. Basically, the cosmological redshift is a measure of the total "stretching" that the universe has undergone between the time the light was emitted and the time it was received."

The redshift of light does obey a universal principle but this principle does not consist in a universal procrusteanization of the wavelength into conformity with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Rather, the principle consists in a universal proportionality between the frequency (the measurable feature) and the VARIABLE speed of light:

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

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Why is it idiocy?

The presence or absence of the big bang
is not idotic up front.

In a court of law, such smearing would
be called prejuduicial speech and you
would be held in contempt.

In a science convention, similar regard
would be held for cheap tricks.

...and then the usual cherry-picking and frankensteinian argumentation.
(stitching chopped bits together and acting shocked).

More confessions in Einsteiniana:

www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give...dom-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."

www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no sense."

Yet Big Bang, accelerating expansion of the universe and related idiocies will continue to devastate scientific rationality for some more time - for the moment Einsteinians see no better money-spinner:

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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Slow, painful and securely camouflaged movement towards the truth in Einsteiniana:

www.universetoday.com/74426/astronomy-wi...scope-dark-denial-2/
"A recent cosmological model seeks to get around the sticky issue of dark energy... Like a number of alternate cosmological models, this one also requires the speed of light in a vacuum to vary over the evolution of the universe."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho wrote:
Einsteiniana is getting rid of Big Bang, accelerating expansion of the universe and related idiocies (slowly, painfully, with a lot of camouflage):

io9.com/5607692/are-physicists-just-making-up-dark-energy
Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University: "The idea of dark energy is so ridiculous that almost every question is based on trying to make it go away. And believe me, I share your concerns. I don't want to believe in dark energy, but I have no choice. (...) Basically, if you want to get rid of dark energy, you have to get rid of relativity."

arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1009/1009.0953v1.pdf
Observational evidence favours a static universe
David F. Crawford
Sydney Institute for Astronomy, School of Physics, University of Sydney
"The common attribute of all Big Bang cosmologies is that they are based on the assumption that the universe is expanding. However examination of the evidence for this expansion clearly favours a static universe. (...) Curvature cosmology (CC) is a static tired-light cosmology where the Hubble redshift (and many other redshifts) is produced by an interaction of photons with curved spacetime called curvature redshift."

www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/fulltext.pdf
Astrophys Space Sci (2009) 323: 205211
Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law
Wilfred H. Sorrell
"The question is this: Do astronomical observations necessarily support the idea of an expanding universe? Almost all cosmologists believe as sacrosanct that the Hubble recession law was directly inferred from astronomical observations. As this belief might be ill-founded... (...) It turns out that the Hubble recession law was not directly inferred from astronomical observations. The Hubble recession law was directly inferred from the ad hoc assumption that the observed spectroscopic redshifts of distant galaxies may be interpreted as ordinary Doppler shifts. 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. (...) 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."

www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html
David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

www.sciscoop.com/2008/10
"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."

tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/new-c...el-bye-bye-big-bang/
"Having realised that the Hubble 'constant' had been changed on a regular basis to save the big bang theory, I came to the conclusion that redshift didn't mean what cosmologist thought it did, and that it was perfectly possible THE SPEED OF LIGHT HAD CHANGED over the course of the history of the universe."

In accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

if there is redshift and you wish the speed of light to remain constant (Divine Albert has said it is constant), you should STRETCH THE WAVELENGTH. So for a century Einsteinians have been fiercely stretching the wavelength no matter what type of redshift is measured:

curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=278
"In both cases, the light emitted by one body and received by the other will be "redshifted" - i.e. its wavelength will be stretched, so the color of the light is more towards the red end of the spectrum. But there's a subtle difference, which you sort of allude to. In fact, only in the first case (a nearby body moving away from the earth) is the redshift caused by the Doppler effect. You've experienced the Doppler effect if you've ever had a train go past you and heard the whistle go to a lower pitch (corresponding to a longer wavelength for the sound wave) as the train moves away. The Doppler effect can happen for light waves too (though it can't be properly understood without knowing special relativity). It turns out that just like for sound waves, the wavelength of light emitted by an object that is moving away from you is longer when you measure it than it is when measured in the rest frame of the emitting object. In the case of distant objects where the expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving away from each other - rather, the space between these objects stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched, and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth; if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be "stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and hence the wavelength of the light.) Practically speaking, the difference between the two (Doppler redshift and cosmological redshift) is this: in the case of a Doppler shift, the only thing that matters is the relative velocity of the emitting object when the light is emitted compared to that of the receiving object when the light is received. After the light is emitted, it doesn't matter what happens to the emitting object - it won't affect the wavelength of the light that is received. In the case of the cosmological redshift, however, the emitting object is expanding along with the rest of the universe, and if the rate of expansion changes between the time the light is emitted and the time it is received, that will affect the received wavelength. Basically, the cosmological redshift is a measure of the total "stretching" that the universe has undergone between the time the light was emitted and the time it was received."

The redshift of light does obey a universal principle but this principle does not consist in a universal procrusteanization of the wavelength into conformity with Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. Rather, the principle consists in a universal proportionality between the frequency (the measurable feature) and the VARIABLE speed of light:

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

Why, according to some Einsteinians, cosmic acceleration and dark energy are not idiocies:

www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7304/full/466321a.html
Eugenio Bianchi and Carlo Rovelli in NATURE: "Is cosmic acceleration such a great problem? Many commentators have argued that it is, and that the explanation is to be found in invoking a mysterious substance, dark energy, that as yet has no theoretical underpinning. We disagree. An explanation is to hand and has been for many years. Cosmic acceleration is predicted and simply described by the theory of general relativity..."

How can something that is "predicted and simply described by the theory of general relativity" be an idiocy? Impossible. Moreover, this something brings billions of dollars:

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."

Yet other Einsteinians suggest that cosmic accelaration and dark energy are idiocies after all:

io9.com/5607692/are-physicists-just-making-up-dark-energy
Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University: "The idea of dark energy is so ridiculous that almost every question is based on trying to make it go away. And believe me, I share your concerns. I don't want to believe in dark energy, but I have no choice. (...) Basically, if you want to get rid of dark energy, you have to get rid of relativity."

www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no sense."

io9.com/5528758/ask-a-physicist-why-believe-in-dark-matter
Dave Goldberg, Associate Professor of Physics at Drexel University: "And don't even get me started about Dark Energy. It's the stuff that accelerates the universe, and if you think you've got a problem with Dark Matter, wait'll you see Dark Energy. It's no so much that we don't understand where Dark Energy could come from; it's just that the "natural" value (the one that comes out of reasonable assumptions based on vacuum energy) is about 10^100 times the density that we actually observe. For my money, this is the absolute biggest problem in physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com