The old 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."
The new money-spinner (in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world it can function simultaneously with the old one):
qedradiation.scienceblog.com/33153/cosmi...ticles-in-cosmology/
"Cosmology is only beginning to recognize that redshift in submicron cosmic dust significantly alters how the Universe looks to us. Redshift in cosmic instead of by the Doppler effect allows one to entertain the cosmology of a static Universe without any need for dark matter and energy. Given that our knowledge of the Universe by seeing is unequivocally altered by absorption in cosmic dust, Smoot's comments may be rephrased by: "The properties of cosmic dust should dictate what the Universe looks like..." Yet the Lindau Meeting excluded discussion on cosmic dust in cosmology, instead focusing on dark matter based on the anticipated discovery of exotic WIMPs from the LHC experiments. But cosmic dust is of greater importance to cosmology because light from a distant galaxy is redshift upon absorption in cosmic dust without the Doppler shift. Therefore, the redshift Hubble measured in 1929 was most likely caused by cosmic dust having nothing to do with an expanding Universe. Hence, there is no need for dark energy to explain an expanding Universe that is not expanding."
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.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."
"SPEED OF LIGHT CHANGES OVER THE VAST STRETCHES OF THE UNIVERSE" is Einsteiniana's future money-spinner. For the moment only two vague hints can be found in Internet:
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."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
