sci.physics.relativity

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:50:26 -0700, mluttgens@ wrote:

>On Sep 22, 12:27 am, Eric Gisse < ...@ >
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:24:06 -0700, mluttg...@ 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 Your ability to evaluate the ideas of others was revoked the moment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.
>>
>
>You are megastupid.

But I'm still capable of doing unit analysis whereas you cannot. What
does that say about you?

>
>A. V. Shepelev said:
>
>"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 the CMBR."

The CMBR is a predicted part of the big bang theory, along with the
distribution of elements in the universe. I wonder how, if at all, he
handles that.
[...]

>A light ray of wavelength lambda is sent from a point P.
>At a distance d from P, the energy loss of a photon of
>frequency Nu is

Where does the energy come from / go?
[...]

>
>One has also
>
>d = (c/H) * z/(1+z)
>
>If one neglects the factor 1+z, one finds back the
>old Hubble law.

Uhhhm, no. You can't just neglect the 1/(1+z) term. The object with
the largest z ever seen had z ~ 10.

Looks like you still don't understand the concept of the approximation
or when it is allowable to kick out certain terms.

>
>Let's note that z becomes infinite when d = c/H.
>Such distance d thus corresponds to the radius
>of the observable universe.

Which using the currently accepted value of H = 70km/s/mpc, that
corresponds to a distance of 14 thousand billion light years.

Only off by a factor of a thousand.

>
>***
>
>Otoh, don't speak of other people incompetence.
>You have amply demonstrate your own in
>
> /group/ /browse_frm/thread/c02d3e3ccccd887b/9339719bf003c3fc?hl=en&

Why don't you explain why I'm the incompetent one in the thread in
which you claim something isn't an angle because it doesn't have pi in
it and that the GR formula is wrong because it has the wrong units [it
didn't, as I demonstrated]?

>
>Marcel Luttgens