Well, generally anybody who names something after themselves is demonstrating an ego of Brobdingnagian proportions. No? I can't think of a single other person who afforded themselves the honor in science, unless I'm misreading who did made up "Einstein-Santilli" tensors...
And I think I just pointed out two big technical flaws, that is, to anybody who understands physics. Furthermore if you read the expansion of the universe and are impressed by the fact that he thinks inflationary theories - in fact - tired light theories too - predict a geocentric universe, then you simply don't understand why we can observe a constant redshift and conclude that space is expanding equally in all directions and then not have any problems at all as regards geocentrism. One could equally likely ask, doesn't the notion of light tiring evenly as respects to us equally predict that Earth is at the center of the universe? If you answer that you'll start on the way to realizing why it's absurd.
And anybody whose first post is merely to post a link of a non-peer reviewed...thing...what exactly is that, part of a book?...as if it were irrefutable gospel, and then to complain of a lack of technical argument? Please. Santilli publishes his own papers because nobody else will. Read about "magnecules" and since you are so into empirical physics, Michael, see if your bs-o-meter goes off...
;-)
Perhaps I should say - in comparison to tired light theorists, physicists who believe in Santilliscience are a scarce breed indeed.
Probably wise, since what Santilli says says that we're all wrong, tired light included.
Zwicky proposed the hypothesis that light loses energy to intergalactic gases based on the mechanism of scattering.
Such a scattering origin was correctly dismissed because it would have prevented a clear view of the galaxies because scattering does not cause a redshift and other correct reasons which led to the expansion of the universe as the only plausible alternative at that time.
The reason I initiated this post is because I would appreciate technical comments, not on tired light which I know well, but on the new mechanism for light losing energy to a gaseous medium recently identified by various experimentalists.
Please examine the summary of a decade or so of studies by R.M. Santilli (See his CV: world-lecture-series.org/santilli-cv ) establishing that the redness of the sun at the horizon is due to an apparent new mechanism for direct sunlight losing energy to a cold medium (or gaining energy in the case of a hot medium.) I feel that Prof. Santilli is correct with his mechanisms and am looking for additional comments to point out any holes.
More specifically, to my attentive understanding, part of sunlight is lost due to scattering resulting in the colors of Earth's atmosphere that are beautifully represented by Rayleigh scattering and others.
Santilli's new mechanism called IsoRedShift (IRS) deals with the remaining part of direct sunlight that has not scattered but reaches us along a straight line. The numerous measurements which have been conducted on two continents established the apparent existence of an IRS for the entire spectrum of direct sunlight from the zenith to the horizon of about 100nm.
In particular, the blue light at the zenith completely disappears at the horizon and the red light is shifted into the infrared frequency not existing at the zenith. In view of these numerous measurements now available for both sunset and sunrise, it appears that all of the above is an experimental reality.
I am soliciting comments by qualified colleagues following the studies of scientific literature, on Santilli's consequential reduction of no expansion of the universe because the IRS of the entire spectrum of sunlight at the horizon is virtually identical to the cosmological redshift of far away galaxies and the former occurs without any relative motion.
Additionally and most seriously, Santilli has apparently proved the dismissal by Hubble, Zwicky, and De Broglie, of the expansion of the universe because its "acceleration" implies a return to the middle ages with Earth mandated at the center of the universe.
Hubble's law established the proportionality of the cosmological redshift with the distance for all possible radial directions from Earth.
Please inspect Santilli's diagram establishing the inconsistency of the conjecture of the expansion of the universe because the relative acceleration between galaxies solely occurs for Earth and does not occur for other observers throughout the universe.
See diagram:
i.imgur.com/jFXH1.png
In fact, under the Doppler's interpretation z = v/c of the Hubble law z = H d, the galaxies G_2 and G_1 have the cosmological redshifts z_2 = v_2/c and z_1 = v_1/c with v_2 = 2 v_1 since d_2 = 2 d_1, thus implying that the galaxy G_2 accelerates away from G_1 when seen from Earth E. However, when z_2 and z_1 are measured from the galaxy G, we have z_2 = z_1 since the two galaxies are located at the same distance d_2 from G, thus establishing that the galaxy G_2 has no acceleration away from G_1 when seen from G.
Note that the inconsistency persists under the far fetched conjecture of the expansion of space itself or of any far fetched preferred geometry since the latter must verify Hubble's law, thus having Santilli's diagram in the local tangent plane. In view of this clear inconsistency, Santilli's diagram ends one century of controversies by disproving the expansion of the universe and related conjectures, but confirms the original conception by Hubble and, therefore, its interpretation via Santilli IRS, see the comprehensive experimental verifications in the paper.
santilli-foundation.org/docs/IRS-confirmations-212.pdf
!
