Re: Plate techtonics and asteroid hits


On 21-Jul-2007, George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

in article WinLMSG.469cf410.2698.76cf@xxxxxxxxxxx, Eric Rowley at
no@xxxxxxxx wrote on 7/17/07 9:53 AM:

in article
timberwoof.spam-5262ED.23005815072007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
Timberwoof at timberwoof.spam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 7/15/07
11:00
PM:

In article <C2C04C4F.4EEB%georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Evans <georgee3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >

<snip>

I can't see how a scientist could be so confident that a photon could
travel for billions of years without losing energy, and boldly assume
that
red-shift is due to radial motion.

Aristotelian physics has it that a terrestrial object's natural
tendency is
to stop moving, while a heavenly object's natural tendency is to keep
moving. But Newton showed that an object with mass maintains its
velocity
unless accelerated by a force. There is conservation of energy.

For a similar reason, I have to ask what happens to the photon's
energy.

But your argument is really an appeal to ignorance or incredulity.

That is an overused dodge. The photon's energy would be left along it's
path.
It would be a very slight effect. Maybe something similar to Compton
scattering.

Something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike Compton scattering you
mean.
Since it has to work without the scattering, otherwise the light
wouldn't seem
to come from specific stars.

And it would have to affect the photons from a star equally, otherwise
it
would mess up the spectrum rather than evenly redshifting it.

Got any thoughts on how that would work?

No, nothing pops right out. But it just seems gullible to assume that a
photon would maintain it's energy, perfectly, for 12 billion years,

Photons are massless, hence they travel at c,
hence no time passes for the photon between its
emission and its absorption, hence it has NO time
in which to lose energy.


especially when that assumption is joined by another assumption that we
have
somehow missed 90% or the matter in the universe.

Doesn't have anything to do with "tired light"...
it arises from the WMAP observations that indicate
the universe is closed. Even the most optimistic
"density of the universe" gives only 5% - 10% to
baryonic matter.

Dark matter (or perhaps MOND) is also predicted
because of galaxy orbital observations.

Dark energy is predicted because of distant expansion
observations.

--
Martin Hutton

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What before big bang?
    ... > for a Hot Universe, page 78, regarding the radiation dominated era: ... *really* was *no* matter! ... Its average energy is roughly equal to ... > fourth power of the temperature, just as for photons. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
    ... Photons driven at electrons can free them from their atoms ... Lightwaves contain energy ... >> particles which correspond to the Dark Matter and Dark Energy ... > probability wave. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is TomGee the God of Physics?
    ... Photons driven at electrons can free them from their atoms ... Lightwaves contain energy ... >> particles which correspond to the Dark Matter and Dark Energy ... > probability wave. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Einstein wasnt all wrong
    ... manifestations of matter and energy, ... and cement together, you form concrete, as time manifests. ... Einstein was incorrect about time travel and the warping of spacetime. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Question about Vacuum Gravity
    ... > energy, expressed as virtual particles, is a non-zero amount, ... The Standard view is that the virtuals are popping ... >> Since photons only interact with charges, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)