Has Light got a decay factor?

do you have a Divinity degree?

It's true that I am Christian.

Ugh

NO , sorry.  But back to photons, OK ?

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/201111/nobelprize2011.cfm

Sorry, but gravitational redshifting was discovered a long time ago.  In fact the whole universe's expansion is accelerating.

VERY SORRY TOO; But what force existed that would make you think the mass was force outwards ?  GRAVITY works to pull things together and if any force was around it was gravity, Right ?

You didn't read the article did you? It said it was the first time GRS has been 'observed' in a moving body. Einstein predicted it. So your contribution is worthless much as the rest of your inane rubbish is worthless....sorry !

Gee Guys;  bad news.  The redshift is due to photons aging.  We know this for sure since NO ONE believes it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/07/27/there-was-no-big-bang-singularity/#1cdfe14a7d81

No singularity..No Big Bollox

So what was there if no singularity .  IKTM ?

https://www.livescience.com/61914-stephen-hawking-neil-degrasse-tyson-beginning-of-time.html

I guess anyone on a podcast claiming that for 40 years now the science world has "known" that the Big Bang was not a singularity better inform everyone else .  It's just another theory among several.  Physics buffs like to go on about all the pet theories, but honestly, Physics has not advanced in a provable sense much past Einstein, and the whole "industry" around it seeks to make themselves important over tweaks and suppositions.  Gotta make a living once you've gone to school, I guess.

And if anyone's argument is that a subatomic particle containing the entire universe should not be considered a singularity because it's not small enough and there's no way to prove it was even smaller, I think you are being disingenuous,  You might as well argue that .999 repeating decimal can never equal 1 because "it never gets there"...it's a matter of definition and chosen nomenclature.  It wasn't that long ago that an atom was considered the smallest possible unit of matter.

Sorry btickler;  I have to disagree with the last half of your comment.  Why should a FIRST particle be considered the same as a singularity.  The two concepts seem quite different.

Because language is imprecise, and scientists have to talk to non-scientists.  Should they qualify their statements every single time by saying "well, effectively a singularity especially at cosmic scales, but unproven as yet to be an actual singularity...a phenomenon which science has no way of detecting or proving by definition anyway, since we can only detect a singularity *after* it comes into being/emerges into our universe and causes some kind of effect and is therefore not a singularity anymore"...?

Singularity works fine here.  It's a technicality for polemicists to argue otherwise.

Think I will tell you since your answer isn't helping  .  The size is different.  One is Zero the other is the length of the particle.

Tell me what you like...it's not like I care or consider you an authority on anything,  I already implied they are *not* the same thing, and I have not argued that they *are* the same thing.  I'm saying the distinction is meaningless to talk about in a laypersons'/hobbyists conversation (such as this one) unless someone else actually discovers something definitive.

Modern physics is largely a realm where wannabe-Einsteins try to make names for themselves by confirming small distinctions in existing theory, or positing unprovable and often Occam's Razor violating theories and then trying to pass them off as discoveries/prevailing theory.  None of it matters, and it's just a tempest in a teapot.  Even Hawking was little more than window-dressing on existing relativity theory.  I doubt the next Newton/Einstein will be emerging in our lifetimes...not as things sit now.

So are you saying; no body know anything ?  

There are sooooo many things that humans do not know and will never know.

Almost;  of course they have to know they do not know anything.

RPaul, he doesn't know what's happening. He's just blub-blubbing....trying2 impressa fool w/ something he's read. But I give him a thimblefulla credit 4@least trying2 play the spoiler against these so-called brainiacs who don't know nothing either.

Ask someone w/ a 50 IQ and their answer is just as valid, right ?....or let a monkey choose a 10-count straw-in-coconut w/ the answer inside. Same thing.   :/    Right ?....tickle me elmo ?

(we go back awayz....& IDL him much)