>>>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.
>
>And it is unfortunate to the students he teached.
>If you consider it is important, I am PhD in Physics and Applied Math

Cool. What fields specifically did you study in physics?


>>>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.
>
>And you cannot do it here with f, because f is relative measure, but not the actual frequency of the light.

Maybe you can teach me a thing or two about this.

I don't "get" the frequency of photons. I "get" the frequency of radiation, it is the rate over time in which a wave reaches you between wavelengths.

But that would imply that more than one wave-packet is required.

So how is there an "actual frequency" of a single photon?

I had just assumed that there really isn't, and that the frequency of photon is really just a measure of the energy being radiated from a distant electromagnetic interaction.

In that case, how is the relative measure different than the actual frequency?


>>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/bbb44a7740ff43e0
>
>I am not surprised having in mind the quality of math and physics education system in USA.

:-)

I'm a bit more cynical in that the state of physics at the moment (relativity + Big Bang + copenhagen interpretation of QM) has way too much wrong to have a coherent picture.