sci.physics.relativity

On Sep 20, 9:17 pm, Eric Gisse < ...@ >
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 06:32:01 -0700, mluttg...@ 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 Your ability to evaluate the ideas of others was revoked the moment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.

Why do you stupidely attack me, instead of criticizing Silagadze:

"Interestingly, the Einstein-Hopf drag force does not vanish for the
cosmic microwave background radiation with its black body spectrum.
Therefore one has a curious situation that formally the Aristotelian
view of motion is realized instead of Newton's one: a body begins
to slow down with respect to a reference frame linked to it [108]."

Try also to find out why the Einstein-Hopf slowing down doesn't
affect orbiting bodies.

Marcel Luttgens