>Sorry to jump into discussion, but there are some absolutely wrong ideas that you borrowed from people not enough educated in physics.
The person I cited has studied GR far more than you or I. I included references to his lecture notes from the University of Chicago and a link to his book on the subject. I think he's more than adequately educated in physics. You can follow the links at the bottom of this message to verify this.
>Redshifting means that the observer sees the light frequency shifting when source of light and observer move RELATIVE to each other. Nothing to do with photon energy, which is still h * C / L, where C is the (absolute) light speed, L is the light wave length, and h is the Plank constant. The very same observer will not see any changes in L.
That's not exactly correct, AFAIK. The observer
will see the wavelength increase. c = fL, so when the frequency (f) drops, since c stays the same, the wavelength (L) gets larger.
I've been discussing these ideas in moderated usenet groups for a bit now. According to most people, in expansion the wavelength DOES increase, contrary to what you've claimed above:
"Note that a redshift IS an increase in wavelength."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/bbb44a7740ff43e0I'd like to reiterate that I don't accept the expansion explanation of the red-shift to begin with, so I'm not able to justify the reasoning behind this.
>>>I find the entire article doubtful. What makes it
extremely doubtful IMO is that even a partial gravitational shielding would violate the principle of Conservation of Energy.
>>
>>"Actually, there is a field of physics in which energy is not conserved: it's called general relativity. In an expanding universe, as we have known for many decades, the total energy is not conserved. Nothing fancy to do with dark energy -- the same thing is true for ordinary radiation. Every photon loses energy by redshifting as the universe expands, while the total number of photons remains conserved, so the total energy decreases. An effect which has, of course, been observed."
>>
http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004/05/doubt-and-dissent-are-not-tolerated.html>>
>>More information here:
>>
http://preposterousuniverse.blogspot.com/2004/05/energy-and-intelligence.html>>
>>This is the blog of Sean Carroll, who knows a thing or two about General Relativity:
>>
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/frames.html>>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805387323/102-8980535-7366524?v=glance
