sci.physics.relativity

On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:32:01 -0700, mluttgens@ wrote:

>Was Zwicky right?
>
>"Tired light:

No, because we believe in conservation of energy.

>When Edwin Hubble discovered a linear relationship between
>the distance to a galaxy and its redshift expressed as a
>velocity[12],
>Zwicky immediately speculated that the effect was due not to motions
>of the galaxy, but to some inexplicable phenomena that mysteriously
>caused photons to lose energy as they traveled through space.
><...>
>Cosmological redshift is now conventionally understood to be
>a consequence of the expansion of space; a feature of Big Bang
>cosmology[15]."
>
>( /wiki/Fritz_Zwicky#Tired_light )
>
>The "inexplicable phenomena" should also slow down traveling massive
>objects not orbiting a star or a planet (cf. Pioneer).

Except this "inexplicable phenomena" is easily explained by an
asymmetric radiating of heat from the RTG and outgassing. Plus this
"inexplicable phenomena" has never been observed in orbits of
astonomical bodies - a big clue.

[...]

Your ability to evaluate the ideas of others was revoked the moment
you showed that you were unable to evaluate an equation to check if it
was consistent in units.