0
5

[–] fixedpoint 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

There is a well-tested model (ΛCDM ) describing expansion of the Universe and numerically connecting it to various stuff that we can observe and measure.

Unless you convert your "light actually loses energy to space" into a verifiable model, this is no different from "elves cause expansion of Universe". Make a verifiable hypothesis, then come up with an experiment to test it. Then you can answer your own question.

0
0

[–] cobeast [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Is it preferable to break the conservation of mass (as yes, light that is redshifted has lost energy) at the universal scale and create dark energy from nothing?

0
4

[–] china_troll 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

You can look at a theory and think to yourself, meh, I can create statements in the similar form, and mine is probably just as legit.

That works in fields like gender study and economic "science". Everybody is bullshitting, so your bullshit is just as valid as anyone's. The trick is to get an institutional position so that your bullshit is now academic bullshit. And who decides you can get that position? The current bullshitters who are already in the position. If your bullshit helps their bullshit, you'll have a chance. And if you get a shitprize like Nobel Economics, you become a shitlord; it doesn't matter you have zero/negative prediction power on the subject you profess in.

Scientific fields are a little better than that. The purest field is mathematics; it doesn't matter who you are or what you say, your work can be judged objectively as right or wrong. The worst field is biology; these lab rats are pretty much playing alchemy, but that's not their fault.

The physics field, or most of it, is all right. We have a huge body of physics theories that together explain the observable universe in a quantified manner to a very accurate degree. Physicists, or most of them, are good people; nothing delights them more than having a little better insight into how the universe works. And the standard to decide which theory is better is mostly objective, quantified, structured and logical. There is very little room for shitposting:)

I'm in no way shitting on your questions; we are all laymen with random entertaining thoughts. Your "theory" is not actionable to physicists, they don't know what you are talking about. A physic theory has to be formalized; it has to fit with other verified theories; or if your theory fundamentally disrupts current theories, it has to provide new explanations to all known observations explainable by the ensemble of previous theories. You can't throw in a random informal statement on an isolated physics phenomena, it's meaningless.

And trust me, there are really really, REALLY, smart physicists having very very VERY deep and wide thoughts on the universe, covering all crazy ideas that can be humanly conjured up. Our chance of helping them with an idea is less than the chance a cat helps to type a master piece novel.

(no need to shit on my rants; I know I'm shitposting, just to entertain myself)

0
0

[–] fixedpoint 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Everything is fine as long as it's expressed in formulas that let us calculate predictions and compare to observations. If we can describe in detail how exactly energy is not conserved, and it matches observations - so be it.

See here for how energy is not conserved and for the answer to your specific redshift question: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/7060/redshifting-of-light-and-the-expansion-of-the-universe

0
3

[–] sqeak 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The red-shift isn't caused by distance but by the Doppler effect which causes the wavelength to be shifted (or stretched) as the object moves away from us faster. Or blue-shifted if it's coming at us as the wavelength gets shorter (or compressed).

0
3

[–] Werdd 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Aren't solar sails supposed to be pushed by light? It would be the same thing only on a much larger scale?

0
1

[–] HoneyNutStallmans 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Doesn't space have a decent amount of interstellar/intergalactic matter?

It was my understanding that, as you leave Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere gradually blends into a very low pressure interstaller system.

0
1

[–] TrivialGravitas 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Redshifting is the result of that expansion. It happens because stuff is moving away from us faster the farther way it is. If for some reason redshifting is due to energy loss, than there's no expanding universe.

That said, stellar wind is a thing, so no redshifting is necessary but I found a review of galactic wind from 2005, and while they specifically refute the possibility I'd assume experts in galactic wind would have brought it up if it were even a remote possibility:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0504435.pdf

2
-2

[–] ChadPUA 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

No. Not at all.

I would go into a deep explanation on why that is just ludicrously impossible, but if you're already asking this question, you wouldn't understand it. The short answer is just absolutely not.

0
1

[–] cobeast [S] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thank you for your terrible, condescending response. Your intellect is so massive that a miserable peon like me is greatful you even acknowledge my existence.

2
-2

[–] ChadPUA 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Thank you for taking the time to not-read the first 2 paragraphs of any of multiple relevant wikipedia articles that would immediately explain why this isn't the case, and instead, making up some random baseless pseudo-scientific explanation then asking people if what you just made up is correct, and then getting mad at them when they refuse to pick out all of the plethora of faults with your made-up conjecture.