The indisputably observed universal redshift (aka Hubble redshift) proves that energy isn’t conserved as the 1st “law” would demand.
No... these concepts aren't even related.
Red-shifting and Blue-shifting is the doppler effect for light. That's all.
Red-shift isn't universal, some stars move away from us (red shift), while others are moving towards us (blue shift). The universe is universally expanding, but that's not a red shift. And all that that means is that the distance between atoms themselves is getting further.
None of that, literally none of that, has anything to do with the conservation of energy.
Zero-point energy... frankly I have no idea again what this has to do with the red shift of objects, let alone the idea of "free energy". You can't change energy without work... that's literally what it means. We literally define it to mean that. That's what a change in energy is.
Listen, don't give this person your money. He is a criminal. He is lying to you. Don't give him your time and attention either, but definitely don't give him money.
Who do you think knows more about the subject, you, or actual cosmologists/astrophysicists/etc?
It’s clear that cosmologists have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s been well-understood since at least the 1920’s: energy is not conserved in general relativity.
It’s so funny how douchey you guys act while obviously being the ignorant ones, too lazy and intellectually dishonest to do anything even approaching “investigating claims” so you just endless yap in the comments without sayinganything
Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from Earth at speeds proportional to their distance. In other words, the farther a galaxy is from the Earth, the faster it moves away. A galaxy's recessional velocity is typically determined by measuring its redshift, a shift in the frequency of light emitted by the galaxy.
frankly I have no idea again what this has to do with the red shift of objects
Both demonstrate that the story of existence is clearly far more complex than those who cry “mUh fiRsT LaW” would seem to think is possible.
It’s funny how you frame your message so condescendingly but you don’t even seem to know much at all about the subjects. Have you really never heard of cosmological redshift? This is like 80 years old, everyone knows about it, basic stuff, in terms of cosmology atleast.
Newton's First Law isn't the same as the conservation of energy. It's related to it, but it's not the same. And again, red-shifting is a behavior, not a law. There is the Hubble-Lemaitre Law, but that's not the same as red-shifting. You are being bamboozled because someone is teaching you to conflate and confuse words and meanings.
"The story of existence" isn't defined by Newton's laws. Newton just created a system to explain kinematics by identifying it's simplest component parts. That system has held entirely true. We already know where Newtonian Mechanics falls apart, which is why Einsteinian Mechanics and Quantum Physics exists, but those fundamental laws do not actually change. It's only that the math context and assumptions Newton was using aren't sufficient.
The energy of galaxies is not red-shifted. The light is. That's because it's moving away. The wavelengs of the light are increased because it's moving away, that's why it's red. That doesn't have anything to do with the energy state of an object.
Yes, Energy is conserved on the scale of the universe. That would be the perfect conservation. It doesn't have a non-universe to go to.
No... these concepts aren't even related.
Red-shifting and Blue-shifting is the doppler effect for light. That's all.
Red-shift isn't universal, some stars move away from us (red shift), while others are moving towards us (blue shift). The universe is universally expanding, but that's not a red shift. And all that that means is that the distance between atoms themselves is getting further.
None of that, literally none of that, has anything to do with the conservation of energy.
Zero-point energy... frankly I have no idea again what this has to do with the red shift of objects, let alone the idea of "free energy". You can't change energy without work... that's literally what it means. We literally define it to mean that. That's what a change in energy is.
Listen, don't give this person your money. He is a criminal. He is lying to you. Don't give him your time and attention either, but definitely don't give him money.
Imma be real. I don't think you're going to be able to reach him.
And I don't mean you personally can't do it, I mean I don't think there's a combination of words that will get through to him.
It happens sometimes. I get this stuff with the moon landings too.
Cf. My mom
Who do you think knows more about the subject, you, or actual cosmologists/astrophysicists/etc?
https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_M._Carroll
It’s so funny how douchey you guys act while obviously being the ignorant ones, too lazy and intellectually dishonest to do anything even approaching “investigating claims” so you just endless yap in the comments without saying anything
https://hubblesite.org/contents/media/images/4509-Image.html
Both demonstrate that the story of existence is clearly far more complex than those who cry “mUh fiRsT LaW” would seem to think is possible.
It’s funny how you frame your message so condescendingly but you don’t even seem to know much at all about the subjects. Have you really never heard of cosmological redshift? This is like 80 years old, everyone knows about it, basic stuff, in terms of cosmology atleast.
You are being bamboozled. Literally.
Newton's First Law isn't the same as the conservation of energy. It's related to it, but it's not the same. And again, red-shifting is a behavior, not a law. There is the Hubble-Lemaitre Law, but that's not the same as red-shifting. You are being bamboozled because someone is teaching you to conflate and confuse words and meanings.
"The story of existence" isn't defined by Newton's laws. Newton just created a system to explain kinematics by identifying it's simplest component parts. That system has held entirely true. We already know where Newtonian Mechanics falls apart, which is why Einsteinian Mechanics and Quantum Physics exists, but those fundamental laws do not actually change. It's only that the math context and assumptions Newton was using aren't sufficient.
It’s okay to admit you don’t understand Hubble redshift, you don’t need to project out your intellectual insecurities onto others.
Energy is not conserved on the scale of the universe. Where do you think the energy being redshifted is going?
Graph.
The energy of galaxies is not red-shifted. The light is. That's because it's moving away. The wavelengs of the light are increased because it's moving away, that's why it's red. That doesn't have anything to do with the energy state of an object.
Yes, Energy is conserved on the scale of the universe. That would be the perfect conservation. It doesn't have a non-universe to go to.