WorriedLad

The moderator Klaynos stated in post $ 9 Some of topic speculative posts have been split off to here: http://www.sciencefo...ology-is-wrong/ which action is definitely recommendable to separate serious science from personal fringe beliefs, However, the moderator has also moved to the "speculative" post Santilli's diagram establishing that the cosmological redshifts measured on Earth cannot be the same for other observers in the universe, thus confirming the view by Hubble, de Broglie, Fermi et al that the ACCELERATION of the believed expansion necessarily implies Earth at the center of the universe because of its evident radial character in all directions from Earth. Additionally, the moderator has eliminated references to the independent experimental verifications of Santilli's IsoRedShift and other experimental data perhaps because disproving widely accepted beliefs. Quite respectfully, I believe these actions have damaged this blog because they have turned this site into this incredible chain of extremely farfetched personal speculations, while the website http://www.sciencefo...ology-is-wrong/ is the scientific one with rigorous verification of statements and at least experimental verifications on Earth.

Juanga states I agree on that there are fundamental issues with the current cosmological models, but the recession velocity is not an ordinary velocity. Galaxies are not "traveling" at speeds faster than light, but the space between galaxies is expanding with a recession velocity faster than that of light. I do not find any problem with such recession speeds. No known law is violated. I appreciate the honesty in stating "I do not find..." because that's decent and deserving respect because fully admitted under a true scientific democracy. However, I have to disagree with sincere respect because the ACCELERATION of the expansion caused Earth being at the center of the universe even under the assumption that space itself is expanding (see Santilli's diagram in the main section and related text). THAT is the point for which Santilli suggests a moment of reflection on all these hyperbolic assumptions, because the IsoRedShift of the Sun at Sunset provides a numerically exact and time invariant representation of the experimental data on cosmological redshift without any expansion, without any acceleration of the expansion, without any expansion of space itself, without any big Bang, without any dark matter, without any dark energy e, without any hyperbolic assumption to justify a preceding hyperbolic assumption, etc. see the comprehensive MEASUREMENTS of IRS in two continents http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf Until these measurements are disproved by massive counter-measurements, this series of hyperbolic conjectures on the universe remain fringe science. Juanga additionally states The Big bang is not an ordinary explosion. It is often presented as such in pictorial or popular presentations, but it is not. In an explosion matter moves in a fixed space, and there is a center of the explosion. This is not how the Big Bang works. The Big Bang deals with the expansion of the own space and there is not a true center. I am sorry but Juanga this time presents these views as reality out there and, as such, the presentation does not warrant respect because the views are extremely, incredibly, unbelievably farfetched. If I assume that the Sun is made up of excited bees, I can prove any astrophysical model I wish, but that would be the negation of science. There must be a limit in: assuming a farfetched conjecture (the universe originated from an explosion at a point as originally proposed by Weinberg and his brothers); then to modify it because of its evident inconsistency with astrophysical evidence (return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center due to the acceleration of the expansion radially from Earth from Hubble's law); and then modify it again to avoid the preceding inconsistencies; and then modify the latter again by claiming (how???) that the Big Bang occurred everywhere in the universe !!!!!!! But then where is the Bang to begin with???? This is ultra farfetched theology, at the limit of being the negation even of fringe science. When he was at Harvard University, it is nowadays internationally known that Santilli had "irreconcilable disagreements" with Weinberg, Glashow and (the late) Coleman on the Big Bang (as well as otehr aspects) because the Big Bang conjecture is grossly inconsistent with the original intent, represent the expansion of the universe. When you add the acceleration of the expansion (that is, the proportionality of the redshift on the distance from Earth), Juanga illustrates quite clearly what one has to do, add the farfetched conjecture on farfetched conjectures, none of which avoid Earth at the center of the universe (due to the acceleration of the expansion) and, most seriously, all conjectures having been disproved by Santilli IRS MEASUREMENTS on Earth. Their continued ignorance without massive counter-measurements and disproofs PUBLISHED IN REFEREED JOURNAL 9rather than fake abuses of pseuodo-authority) only damages the image of American Science throughout the world. See the DVD http://www.world-lecture-series.org/a-new-renaissance The moderator Kleynos requests Mordecai please do not post your own non mainstream ideas in the main science forums, that is considered thread hijacking and is avant our rules. However, with due respect, I believe that Mordecai merely posted statements published in refereed journals perhaps for the intent of illustrating that indeed: 20th century cosmological conjectures have reached a self-destructive stage

WorriedLad stated According to Hubble's law, the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance from Earth in all directions in space. As a consequence, the cosmological redshifts measured from Earth are solely and specifically valid for Earth and cannot possibly be the same for other regions of the universe. ACG52 commented No the redshift is proportional to the distance from any point in the universe, not just Earth. This is a purely personal opinion that should be respected when presented as such. By contrast this senior poster presents his personal belief as a physical reality occurring throughout the universe, thus doing theology or fringe science. As well known to serious physicists, the only measurements of the proportionality of the redshift from the distance are those done from Earth. That is serious science. Besides, rather than disproving it, this senior poster mimics lack of inspection of Santilli's diagram posted above by Jdizz establishing beyond possible doubts that the values of redshifts measured from Earth CANNOT be the same for another regions of the universe. Dreaming of doling science via the old trick that, following continued ignorance, dissident evidence eventually disappears for the unspoken aim of maintaining (and abusing) Einstein for personal objectives, is obscurantism very damaging the originators and to American science.

After reading the various pots in the topic, I must agree with Santilli. As he recalls, one century of astrophysical measurements have established Hubble's law according to which the cosmological redshift is proportional to the distance of galaxies from Earth, thus being the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth IN ALL RADIAL DIRECTIONS FROM EARTH. When (and only when) this experimental evidence is interpreted via the hypothetical validity of the Doppler's shift law within intergalactic physical media (already disproved for physical media on Earth....), it implies, firstly, the conjecture that the universe is expanding and secondly, the additional conjecture that the expansion is accelerating because it increases with the distance from Earth due to the proportionality of the cosmological redshift from the distance. Besides all sort of consistency problems, Santilli's points out the absence in refereed papers of any hypothesis on the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ENERGY needed to accelerate billions of galaxies for billions of years all the way to incredible speeds (something totally unexplained by the ultra conjecture of dark energy). thus suggesting a moment of reflection on all these unverifiable conjectures followed by conjectures, complemented by additional unverifiable conjectures, etc., all resulting in true fringe science. The consequential return to the Middle Ages from Hubble's law with Earth at the center of the universe is simply beyond scientific doubts because the expansion and its acceleration have to occur necessarily ALONG ALL POSSIBLE RADIAL DIRECTIONS FROM EARTH. In the above quoted lecture (which I attended) and the related diagram, Santilli simply clarified that Earth at the center of the universe occurs for whatever geometry you wish to concoct for the universe (including the hyperbola that space itself is expansion), since you need in any case a locally Euclidean tangent plane as a necessary condition to conform with redshift measurements. Additionally, Santilli clarified that the measured numerical values of cosmological redshifts and their increases with the distance solely occur for Earth since they cannot possibly occur for other observers in the universe, namely, cosmological redshifts are all different for different observers in the universe. In this way, the MEASUREMENTS of the cosmological redshift remain 100% real, but their hypothetical INTERPRETATION as due to the EXPANSION of the universe is a pure theology disproved in any case by his measurements of the IsoRedShift of the Sun at Sunset without any relative motion, due to the measured loss of energy by light to the medium (and not due to scattering as per the Tired Light). under such a clear evidence, "physicists" who remain glued to the the theology that the expansion is the same for all observers in the universe, thus believing the cosmological redshift for a given galaxy is the same everywhere in the universe, EITHER have been brainwashed by patented crooks OR are patented crooks It papers that dripto bisvas is in good faith, thus deserving respect, but I fear he/she may have been brainwashed to serve hidden agendas because, for his/her theology to pass the boundary of fringe science and become serious science, I have to accept Santilli's request recalled in my preceding post according to which he/she has first to identify the origin of the ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ENERGY needed to accelerate billions of galaxies for billions of years all the way to currently believed extreme speeds. Note that, in the event dark energy provides the needed energy, it should have disappeared billions of years ago. Independently from all that, there are serious difficulties for a serious acceptance of Einstein's GR and the Riemannian geometry for the large scale dynamics of the universe because the gravitational force between galaxies is expected to be virtually null due to the very large mutual distances. Therefore, it appears I am being asked by "science preachers" first to accept the hyperbolic and unverifiable conjecture of the expansion of the universe, then accept the additional hyperbolic conjecture of the acceleration of the expansion, then accept the further unbelievable, ultra hyperbolic conjecture that space itself is expanding, then I am asked to accept the unbelievable conjecture of the big bang (all implying Earth at the center of the universe). And now in addition to all that, dripto bisvas asks me to believe in the incredible conjecture that the universe is filled up with an invisible form of energy outside any physical reality and, then, in addition to all this huge concoction of unverifiable conjectures, dripto bisvas asks me to believe in yet an additional unverifiable conjecture that dark energy creates the missing gravitational attraction between galaxies so as to please Einstein's fanatics and, then yet in addition dripto bisvas asks me to believe in some hypothetical unverified gravitational solution which is ad hoc set to counterbalance like a rubber band said hypothetical gravitational attraction and actually create the acceleration of the expansion, and then after all this huge concoction, dripto bisvas asks me to look for yet an additional ultra hyperbolic conjecture of some totally unreal events producing the immense energy needed for the continuous acceleration of billions of galaxies for billions and billions of years. Ladies and Gentlemen, is there any serious scientist out these besides Santilli and his associates who at least questions the credibility of this unbelievable concoction of pure fringe science? particularly after knowing that all that has been disproved by the IRS measurements repeated by now in two continents by various independent groups as reported by others?