On Friday, August 22, 2025 at 2:10:46 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 9:31 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *>>> It could mean that the average distance between galaxies, with the exception of those in the local group,* *>> The reason the local group of galaxies are not moving away from us with the expansion of space is because gravity is strong enough to hold them in place. Because of the galaxies movement through space (not through the expansion of space) they could even be moving towards us and us and display a blueshift as the Andromeda galaxy does. * *> I know. AG * *Well you sure don't behave as if you do. * *I challenge you to cite any comment where I denied that. You just read poorly sloppery and won't admit it. AG * *>> If the red shift is caused by the movement of galaxies through space rather than the expansion of space itself then why does the speed of that movement depend on the distance the galaxy is from earth rather than some other place? Was Galileo wrong and his medieval persecutors right, is the Earth the center of the universe? Do you really wanna go down that road? * *> No. I accept that the redshift is caused by the expansion of space,* *I'm sure the universe is relieved that now you accept it. * *> I want what you're not interested in; to have model which explains the phenomenon. You don't have such a model, but what's worse, you're unaware that you don't have a model. What you do have is a silly story that makes no sense. AG * *Since the day it was discovered that a single photon or electron behaves as if it's a wave when it goes through 2 slits but behaves like a particle when it hits a photographic plate physicists have been saying that makes no sense, well maybe so, but that doesn't prevent it from being true because it most certainly is. The least silly story known that explains how that bizarre fact could possibly be true is Many Worlds, Objective Collapse is slightly sillier, and Copenhagen is much sillier, and Superdeterminism is an astronomical number to an astronomical power sillier. * *Is there any evidence, or even a plausible hypothesis, that photons detected by some telescope which shows redshifting, have first passed through a double slit before detection? Since the answer is emphatically negative, your model of photon waves being "stretched" by the expansion of the universe is fatally flawed. Unless you simply admit it, your analysis fails to be considered rigorous. Once you admit this fact, we can move on. AG* *> But obviously you are unable to understand my issue.* *I understand your issue * *You do NOT. Photons do not go through double slits when they're detected by telescopes, so the idea that they have waves which can be stretched by the expansion of the universe just doesn't work, unless you want to revert to classical E&M, which you did in a previous post. AG* *but it's not your issue alone, for over a century physicists have had that exact same issue with experimental results performed in the quantum realm, they are all radically unintuitive; so any story used in an attempt to explain them is going to seem "silly". That's why I say if Many Worlds isn't true then something even sillier must be. * * > Since the photon seems to be a point particle with no spatial dimension* *As I said, a single photon only behaves like a point particle when it goes through two slits, NOT when it hits a photographic plate, and if you think that fact is silly then don't complain to me, complain to nature and hope you haven't hurt her feelings too much. * *You have a typo above which contradicts your earlier statement. The electron behaves like a particle when it goes through one slit, but behaves like a wave when it goes through both slits and interference is manifested, but is always detected as a particle on the photographic plate. AG* *> if photons lose energy as the universe expands, where does the lost energy go?* *You've asked this question before and I've answered it before, the energy doesn't go anywhere it is simply lost * *> It has to go somewhere,* *Why? The conservation of mass/energy is not a logical necessity the way that 2+2=4 is, instead that law was derived from experiments performed in a lab. In 1915 Einstein discovered General Relativity and it predicted the conservation law would not remain true over cosmological distances,* *Where, and how, was this predicted in GR? AG* * and in 1929 Hubble discovered cosmological redshift and proved that Einstein was right.* *Hubble just showed the universe was expanding, and those faint patches, called at that time "nebulas", were external to the Milky Way. Much more important, however, here's where we have a major philosophical dispute. I contend that Something cannot become Nothing, and Nothing cannot become Something. I think this is true even though it was asserted by Scholastic and ancient philosophers. So, based on this principle, Einstein was either mistaken, or you have misinterpreted GR. I contend that the principle of Conservation of Energy is universally true. AG* * > If you claim it just disappears, then you're affirming magic.* *Even in classical physics entropy is not conserved, do you think that fact is also magic?* *No, because Entropy just relates to the organization of matter, positions and momenta, not to the existence of such matter. AG * *> Relying on GR is a mistake IMO. AG* *And you have a right to my opinion. * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 42f rs= -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7e8c7192-a844-476f-a954-19c04abd7dd3n%40googlegroups.com.
