sci.physics.relativity

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:24:06 -0700, mluttgens@ wrote:

>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 Your ability to evaluate the ideas of others was revoked the moment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:

I "stupidly attack" you because you post nothing but idiocies. You are
so unacquanited with modern physics that you are incapable of doing
unit analysis or understanding a simple derivation.

It doesn't matter what you post - it will always ALWAYS be stupid.

>
>"Interestingly, the Einstein-Hopf drag force does not vanish for the
>cosmic microwave background radiation with its black body spectrum.

That's because Einstein-Hopf drag couples to charged particles, not a
spectrum of radiation. My desire to read the article dropped to zero.

>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.

...because Einstein-Hopf drag has nothing to do with gravity?

Einstein-Hopf drag is the theorized drag that a charged particle would
feel as it saunters through the electromagnetic zero point background.
Go ahead. Explain why quantum field theory is relevant to gravity.
Just try.


>
>Marcel Luttgens