Re: Expansion is wrong and its soooo freakin' obvious

On May 16, 4:52 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 16, 7:53 am, jjs...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

On May 16, 1:40 am, MichaelHelland<mobyd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

Common sense.

Mikeyour to ignorant to have any...

EM holds atoms together.

Hmmm.... and what about strong nuclear force? the one that happens to
hold the nucleus together?

Good point.

That one has a very short range.

Then try reading about it...

Because the Universe has better things to do than hold nuclei together
over long distances.

Just like it has better things to do than manage electron interactions
at distances of trillions of light years.

What the universe isn't some lazy person, these are irrelevant
comments which even push the envelope for you Mike...

<snip>

It's true for the strong nuclear force.

Why not the em force?

Because this is not an observed behavior... go learn about EM
theory...

Because light always travels at c, and Jesus loves you.

Mike go read about EM theory, do you even understand Maxwell
Equations? The rest of your ponderings are a waste of space...

<snip>

If c is not a Universal constant, but the default velocity of each
individual photon, and that velocity drops in conjunction with it's
frequency (Hubble redshift) then the properties of space-time are
going to be different for that photon.

Huh... where the hell does this come from? This makes no sense what so
ever since there is zero observational evidence since Redshift doesn't
work like that... try learning about it before you open your pie-
hole...

Seems to me the conservations laws would alter similarly as a
consequence.

It seems to me if you bothered to do a single iota of due diligence we
wouldn't be having this discussion, because you'd see how utterly
idiotic your being, and how foolishly nearsighted your being here....

In other words, the conservation laws change where redshift is
observed.

Except they don't since redshift is effected by relative
observation... so your still wrong...

And since you seem to be in the mood to dodge questions let me restate
them for you:

Why do photons decelerate?

Because they have a finite range.

Prove it....

What form is the energy loss?

Deceleration.

Idiot, is it in the form of heat?...

Is the energy lost or converted?

Lost.

Really so what about the conservation of energy which a good principle
to apply... or what about dark matter and energy and the issue of
gravitation...

How do you maintain the conservation of mass and energy, that are both
held by GR, SR?

The first law of thermodynamics says:

"The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the
amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as
a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."

In a deceleration model (just as in expansion) there is no increase in
the internal energy of a system, nor any work being done.

It simply loses energy through observed redshift, caused either by
expansion or deceleration.

Idiot the energy is still conserved even then its merely converted.
There is a form of energy loss for example mechanical energy can be
lost through for example heat. But its really not correct to say the
energy is lost it is merely converted. If you knew anything about
cosmology you'd know conservation of energy holds up pretty well....

So go do one iota of due diligence and come back... it would a nice
change of tune, a way to shake things up....

Cheers
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cosmic acceleration rediscovered
    ... > {snip higher levels} ... cosmogenic emissions of the CMBR are a BB assumption. ... mean starlight. ... > Because the fractional depletion of light energy is tiny ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Horseman of the Apocalypse (hes never even seen a)
    ... Once the oil goes west, won't the global warming calm down? ... you'll probably see a lot more of, EROEI, energy returned on energy invested, ... I looked at the 911 conspiracy doco that you sent me. ...
    (uk.sport.football)
  • Re: Stripping away the bull shit
    ... > Sue... ... the energy equivalent seems the least ... >> When folks speak of energy or space-time as a substance, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Yup the US is now the USSR
    ... >>>the current level is in fact a super high relative to only a couple ... a lot of people profit from higher energy prices. ... >Just because I go after Bush don't think I'm Liberal or a Democrat. ...
    (misc.survivalism)
  • Gasifiers????
    ... promise in the world of alternate energy sources - the gasifier! ... the gasifier quickly clogged with tar ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)