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.
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. (With caveats to be explained below.)
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.
So where is the energy that was once contained in the photons after the photons have been redshifted?
You might think this sounds silly but it’s only because you haven’t thought/read about the subject enough
Here is cosmologist Sean Carroll: