Has Light got a decay factor?

Maybe 1a these guys can....

Iknowthemoves

#4825
...don't care. Santa's got smelly arm pits...I've smelt them. He's got Aids as well...all those little helpers.

There is zero expansion.... Z E R O - Inowthemoves

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Anyone who doesn't care about Santa is a jerk imo. Add on the "aids" reference and we see a genuine asshole.

You may know the chess moves, but clearly demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge regarding physics. Obviously, my previous posts went way over the OP's head. Just another troll with this repeated rubbish. Sayonara   

Yes lola ...we need some clever peeps on this thread (skips) 》》》》

Merry Xmas every bods. PEACE .

Merry Xmas every bods. PEACE .

Merry Xmas every bods. PEACE .

New thought. Logically there must be huge numbers of dark bodies between the stars that never grew large enough to become stars. They will probably have their own satellites. Could that be some of the missing Dark Matter ?

The Bullet galaxy is the most commonly sited example of Dark Matter evidence. But what if as the two galaxies that make up the Bullet galaxy ,during collision, activated many of those failed stars . That might be the glow/halo we see which is attributed to Dark Matter.

We need to know how hydrogen is formed? Does it form in the Higgs field?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170330115254.htm

This video suggests Dark Energy isn't needed to explain data.

When Astrophysicists talk about galaxy rotation speeds they give a figure for the "Dark Matter"

of circa 80%+ for the Universal mass . When they talk about the expansion of the Universe they give a figure of 80%+ for Dark Energy. Just doesn't add up.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6549653/Cosmologists-claim-universe-riding-expanding-bubble-extra-dimension.html

 One more ridiculous interpretation of the data if we continue to use the inflationary universe model. Just another proof that the Big Bang model is incorrect as far as i'm concerned.

....oh well.

Now. Where were we ?

I am very disappointed in you 2.   IKTMs has 15 comments of the last 20.  Each time these comments lead to a conclusion that IKTMs has said all along. which is great.   He has implied that a photon loses energy as it passes thru space.  And I agree.  But IKTM doesn't explain that action well, if at all.  Now our difference is I said the photon ages.  The photon loses energy at a constant rate, and either distance or time gives the same answer.  This seems to fit the observations very well. I can't get you to explain what you think is wrong with that concept.  Will you try again ?

I didn't exactly say the photon loses energy. There is no detectable energy loss for the photon over trillions of miles . Counter intuitive though that may be that is what has been observed. Many experiments have concluded that and I accept that evidence. As a result that's why we have the bonkers Big Bang theory. There is no mechanism known to science where the photon decays.

However Gravitational Red Shift is proven. It's a way of saying photons can 'decay' without actually saying it loses energy and it's the search for 'that' decay which inspired this whole thread. In other words the photon doesn't lose energy BUT, once stretched by gravity, it's energy level decreases mathematically over distance. It hasn't lost energy in itself but can be said to lose over a given distance.  It's not space that is being stretched by an expanding universe..it's light that is being stretched by any gravity well. That miniscule stretching has been discounted as being to small to include by Astrophysics but ,I believe , that is where the mistake lies.

So lets say you have the Mass of a star M , the distance the light is observed from that star D plus or minus any actual movement (Re) of the galaxy to the observer should give you the figure for the degree of Red Shift Rs. C is the speed of light.

M/ D x C + or - Re  = Rs

That's just a made up formula but it would be something like that I guess.

A bit like Newtons inverse ratio of mass to distance for gravity.

So to conclude....There is no need for a Big Bang model or Dark Energy or Dark Matter to explain what we observe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJOTlE1K90k&list=FLIcVs9rUklXlP0sSfzvDPbQ&index=3

I need a girl to co - write a science fiction story lola. You would be writing the role of the android on a space ship going to investigate the birth of a small Red Dwarf that has ignited half a light year from our solar system . It has planets and a mystery! The sub plot asks the question does Love exist ? I don't have a synopsis fleshed out. That can evolve with the story. Hopefully Drspud would write a role for himself as well. Would you be interested at all?

....fleshed out ?

Maybe. I don't like real attn but I'm okay as an anonymous. So pseudonym...or better, a ghostess writer ?...lol ! 

Great Lola. So lets 'flesh out' your character . For the purpose of exploring the question " does love exist?" she was grown in a laboratory using a small amount of DNA from my character. It's possible she may also be connected via neural interface but that's something we can decide on. Other than that you can 'flesh her out' in any way you see fit. Clothes (if any , as she will be delivered naked in a packing case) , colour, height ,weight etc. She will need a name as well . You can give her any ability you like..even the ability to be invisible ! Ghostly, no less

LOVE is when you are willing to give up your life to save another life.  Anything less is just talk !!!

The new thread for the story is https://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/living-story#last_comment and it's called Living Story.