Re: Expansion is wrong and its soooo freakin' obvious

On May 15, 3:41 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 15, 7:09 am, jjs...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Why do photons lose energy?

Think of it like car with full tank of gas.

When the car drives 10 miles, it uses gas in the tank.

But it can drive at a constant speed the whole time.

Let's say the photon has a rule.

After traveling ~ 60 Mpc, the tank starts to get the low, so the
photon takes the foot of the gas.

This is horse-*** since photons are massless and have nothing to do
with gas and cars, sorry mike, this is not a reason.... This is not a
scientific explanation of why a photon loses energy... Photons
propagate at c, its not an if... they are not tied to any form of tank
of gas... this is observed....

This is OBSERVED as Hubble redshift.

NO its not....

<snip>

Where does that energy go?

Well, according to Sean Carroll, it's not conserved.

So if deceleration is in hot water for not conserving energy, so is
expansion:

"Actually, there is a field of physics in which energy is not
conserved: it's called general relativity. In an expanding universe,
as we have known for many decades, the total energy is not conserved.
Nothing fancy to do with dark energy -- the same thing is true for
ordinary radiation. Every photon loses energy by redshifting as the
universe expands, while the total number of photons remains conserved,
so the total energy decreases. An effect which has, of course, been
observed. "

http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004/05/doubt-and-dissent-ar...

This is of course complete trash since conservation of energy is
supported by both SR and GR. This blog post is just unverified
unsupported crap, not worth the bits it takes up... In fact
Conservation of Energy can be thought of as a more specific form of
the more general statement of the conservation of mass thanks to
E=mc^2.

Where does this energy go? In what form is energy lost in?

It is used and expires.

Bull***, energy does not expire like that.... if energy is lost it
goes somewhere.... and where it goes would be definable.... have you
even heard of the first law of thermodynamics?

Why don't we observe it all around us, at shorter distances?

Why don't we observe Hubble redshift at shorter distances?

Empirical reality just doesn't work that way.

No actually its just that Hubble Redshift does not support your
theory. And your still wrong... can't even give a cogent answer to
simple questions...

Cheers
.

Quantcast