Why inelastic scattering is an invalid explanation for cosmological redshift

[RealityCheck01]

As it relates back to the OP of this thread, ...

The OP asked for science, not fact less posts or ignorance or denial of almost 90 years of science or fantasies.
For example: There is not a "loss of momentum of photons in LCDM".
Photons get longer in an expanding universe because distances get longer. That was first derived in 1927 !
It is easy enough to explain to a child. Measure the distance between two crests on an electromagnetic wave. This is called a wavelength. Let the universe double in size so that distances double. Measure the distance between two crests and it will have be double. The wavelength has doubled. Red light has a longer wavelength than visible light so we call this redshift.

 

[mzungu]

The *effect* that God has on human lives as described by humans for thousands of years can be studied in the lab as I outlined in the other thread. As I said, I'm fine with accepting that the *cause* remains a bit of an "act of faith" on may part.

Can you admit that is also true *four different times* as it relates to your own cause/effect claims, IOW, they remain "acts of faith" on your part in 2016?

I don't blame you for not understanding how science works. One of the hardest things for creationists to comprehend is the word "evidence". The reason being their lack of scientific erudition.

 

[Michael]

The paper tests a specific tired light model (not plural).

It tests a specific *mathematical* model, but it's not limited to one type of inelastic scattering. You're just miffed because your math isn't "exclusively" capable of explaining observations of photon redshift. More importantly however, your model *left out* all types (not just some) of inelastic scattering effects in space, hence your *mythical* universe that now must do mythical space expansion gymnastics. Even the *flaw* in your model is *obvious* to anyone paying attention to real plasma physics and real plasma interactions with photons.

You have not given any evidence that tired light (even the model used in that paper) has been detected *working in the lab* !

All different sorts of inelastic scattering events might be occurring, and there's no limitation toward any exclusive type.

18 November 2018 Michael: List the scientific literature stating the detection of any tired light effect working in the lab.

How many different papers on inelastic scattering would you like?

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=inelastic+scattering+plasma&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=

 

[Michael]

I don't blame you for not understanding how science works.

I understand exactly how it works, and I've seen it's "dark" side too.

One of the hardest things for creationists.....

As much as you would *love* to smear me personally with the label "creationist", it's false. I personally embrace an ancient Earth and evolutionary theory. The irony is that it's *you* who is actually spinning a wild tale about "creation" (of all matter) event that supposedly took place at some appointed date. For all I know the universe is infinite and eternal and it's has existed eternally. I have no set "creation" date to toss at you, nor do I have any faith that energy was ever "created".

Swing and a miss. Look in the mirror if you want to see a "creationist".

to comprehend is the word "evidence". The reason being their lack of scientific erudition.

What a crock. I've seen how you folks use the term "evidence" without any actual demonstration of the cause/effect mechanism you're *putting faith in*. "Space expansion" has *never* caused a photon to lose any momentum in a lab. No a shred of real empirical evidence exists to support exotic matter claims.

I know that atheists *ignore* the need for cause/effect demonstrations so long as it does not relate to the topic of God. Anything else goes, including magical space, and magical space expansion claims, none of which actually occur in a lab.

You folks *kludge* the term "evidence" as it relates to astronomy. You simply *assume* that your baryonic mass estimates are correct, therefore "exotic matter did it". You *assume* that you can simply ignore all types of inelastic scattering processes in plasma too, hence the need for a magical invisible universe that does magical expansion tricks for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

 

[Michael]

The OP asked for science, not fact less posts

Fortunately I provided you with all sorts of empirical facts, including the *fact* that inelastic scattering is a *typical* process in dusty plasma, and including published papers that verify that "tired light" models work just as well as your mythical forms of space expansion in terms of explaining the loss of photon momentum over distance.

or ignorance or denial of almost 90 years of science or fantasies.

The only one spewing "ignorant fantasies" are the folks who forgot to include *real* processes in plasma in their models. The only one in denial of the facts are the folks that hold "blind faith" in the notion of "space expansion" as a "cause" of photon redshift *in spite* of a complete *lack* of any support for that claim in controlled experimentation.

For example: There is not a "loss of momentum of photons in LCDM".

Right, because evidently LCDM requires a *mythical* universe with *mythical* plasma that *never* interacts with photons in a *normal* matter like it does here on Earth in the lab. In the lab, the photons lose momentum to the medium.

Photons get longer in an expanding universe because distances get longer. That was first derived in 1927 !

Duh! It's never worked in the lab, not in 1927, and not in 2016, and not a thousand years from now either.

It is easy enough to explain to a child.

Hubble wasn't a child which is why Hubble himself preferred a tired light solution to the problem, not your childish nonsense.

Measure the distance between two crests on an electromagnetic wave. This is called a wavelength. Let the universe double in size so that distances double. Measure the distance between two crests and it will have be double. The wavelength has doubled. Red light has a longer wavelength than visible light so we call this redshift.

If you could actually demonstrate your claim, you wouldn't be reduced to making up anecdotal tales about mythical processes that never occur here on Earth.

Pitiful. You call that evidence? The whole claim is based upon an affirming the consequent fallacy, and pure denial of *real* and *actual* processes in plasma!

 

[Michael]

...be able to read what they cite, find out where it was published

That's the problem for you RC, it *was published*, and you can't handle it. Not only was the model verified, it passed with flying colors too. You can't handle that either. You therefore go low (as always).

and that some of its citations was not published .

Who cares? His model was tested in a published paper and it passed with flying colors. I don't care what kind of residual smear campaign you'd like to run against Holushko, it simply doesn't wash.

Can you understand that arXiv is a pre-print distribution service, not a scientific journal?

I didn't hand you a paper that only came from Arxiv RC. Your legal squirming is irrelevant. Tired light models *work fine* to explain *exactly* the same data sets, and there is *published* support to demonstrate it.

You can bash on individuals all your like,and whine all you like, but you have *nothing* to offer RC. You have *zero* cause/effect support for your claim. You're peddling a model that is *obviously* flawed because it *left out* very important processes in plasma which is why it needs *supernatural gap filler galore*!

Why do you reject the concept of God again RC? You have *zero* cause/effect justification for any of your beliefs!

 

[Michael]

That is a ignorant statement followed by denial

No, the only ignorance is your own, which is why you cannot and never have produce a published paper that considered and ruled out all types of inelastic scattering from consideration. It's why you can't and won't find any mathematical flaw in the *published* paper I handed you which *demonstrates mathematically* that tired light models *work fine* to explain the very same data.

since there are many observations in space that do rule out a static universe as anyone who bothers to learn (and not blindly deny) cosmology knows, e.g. read What is the evidence for the Big Bang?

And there we have it, your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You wined and complained about Holushko's original paper not being published, even though his model was tested in a published paper, yet you have the gall to hand me a random website that was *never published* as your own reference. What a gigantic hypocrite!

Ned Wright's unpublished rants seem to be the beginning and the end of any and all "testing" of tired light models since Hubble. You've got *nothing* to support your claims, and I've destroyed Ned's website a dozen times now.

18 November 2016 Michael: How does a static universe explain a black body CMB

The same way Eddington did it when he nailed the temp to within 1/2 a degree on his first attempt.

with a temperature that increases with distance and its angular power spectrum?
There are some dubious papers attributing the CMB to plasma effects, etc.

I don't even have to do that since your own model *fails* the power spectrum tests at the largest scales and those hemispheric variations in the Planck data demonstrate that Guth's "homogeneous" claims were *false*!

You've got nothing.

 

[Michael]

My suspicions are unfortunately confirmed ..

What you mean is that you're a gigantic hypocrite by citing your friend Ned Wright. You simply cannot handle the *published* paper that I actually cited, nor can you find any actual mathematical error in Holushko's work. Then again, neither did the published author that *tested* his theory and who published the results of those tests.

The only crank around here is guy that keeps citing some random unpublished website by Ned Wright as their only reference to support the claim of the OP! Unbelievable, and unbelievably hypocritical, but you always have set new standards in pure audacity. You have nothing *published* to offer me RC, and we all know it.

 

[mzungu]

Michael, meaning no insult but you betray an ignorance on the fundamental laws that govern science. Your insistence on lab evidence falls short when applied to your own hypotheses.
Pray tell me how you can replicate black holes, neutron stars, the universe, etc. in a lab?
Now according to you the universe is infinite then how do you explain the darkness of the night? Let me remind you that we have clear images of galaxies millions and billions of light years distant.
Hubble initially believed but later dismissed the static universe model.
Now show me your lab evidence for God.
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_expanding.html

 

[Michael]

Michael, meaning no insult but you betray an ignorance on the fundamental laws that govern science.

The only "laws" that actually govern science are the laws of physics, like the conservation of energy law, something *LCDM* theory violates on a huge scale, but not EU/PC theory.

Your insistence on lab evidence falls short when applied to your own hypotheses.
Pray tell me how you can replicate black holes, neutron stars, the universe, etc. in a lab?

You're clearly confusing *scaling* issues with *invention of new supernatural construct* problems. I'm not inventing new supernatural stuff in space that doesn't show up here on Earth. Even if gravity must be scaled beyond what occurs here on Earth to explain events in space, gravity isn't a no show here on Earth. Neutrons aren't shy around a lab.

Now according to you the universe is infinite then how do you explain the darkness of the night?

Dust and distance.

Let me remind you that we have clear images of galaxies millions and billions of light years distant.

Ya, but sooner or later they do appear *blurry* at say Z>10, and we aren't capable of picking out individual stars in distant galaxies to start with.

Hubble initially believed but later dismissed the static universe model.

You have that backwards. Hubble himself *proposed* both an expansion explanation as well as a tired light explanation, but abandoned the idea of expansion in favor of a static universe concept later in his career.

Now show me your lab evidence for God.

How *exactly* are you defining the term "evidence"? You have no direct "cause/effect" evidence that "space expansion" causes photon redshift. It's a pure act of faith on your part. Ditto for the acceleration claims, and exotic matter claims.

The *worst* you might accuse me of is *not* having direct empirical cause/effect evidence that God is the physical "cause" that is having the "effect" that humans describe, but you've never limited your concept of "evidence" to anything of the sort as it relates to LCMD cause/effect claims. All of your cause/effect claims are essentially nothing more than affirming the consequent fallacies.

 

[mzungu]

The only "laws" that actually govern science are the laws of physics, like the conservation of energy law, something *LCDM* theory violates on a huge scale, but not EU/PC theory.



You're clearly confusing *scaling* issues with *invention of new supernatural construct* problems. I'm not inventing new supernatural stuff in space that doesn't show up here on Earth. Even if gravity must be scaled beyond what occurs here on Earth to explain events in space, gravity isn't a no show here on Earth. Neutrons aren't shy around a lab.



Dust and distance.



Ya, but sooner or later they do appear *blurry* at say Z>10, and we aren't capable of picking out individual stars in distant galaxies to start with.



You have that backwards. Hubble himself *proposed* both an expansion explanation as well as a tired light explanation, but abandoned the idea of expansion in favor of a static universe concept later in his career.



How *exactly* are you defining the term "evidence"? You have no direct "cause/effect" evidence that "space expansion" causes photon redshift. It's a pure act of faith on your part. Ditto for the acceleration claims, and exotic matter claims.

The *worst* you might accuse me of is *not* having direct empirical cause/effect evidence that God is the physical "cause" that is having the "effect" that humans describe, but you've never limited your concept of "evidence" to anything of the sort as it relates to LCMD cause/effect claims. All of your cause/effect claims are essentially nothing more than affirming the consequent fallacies.

Oh not that crackpot pseudoscientific EU/PC rubbish again
I'm done here

 

[Michael]

Oh not that crackpot pseudoscientific EU/PC rubbish again
I'm done here

I guess you just cannot see how ironic it sounds to hear you refer to EU/PC theory as "pseudoscientific rubbish", when it is actually the creation mythology called LCDM theory that violates all the conservation of energy laws. LCDM is based upon 95 percent supernatural invisible (dark) nonsense, and 5 percent "pseudoscience" according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory.

EU/PC theory explains exactly the same cosmological observations. Unlike LCDM, It doesn't violate any conservation of energy laws. Instead, it simply *includes* the real laboratory processes that are observed between light and a plasma medium. Conservation laws are completely preserved and accounted for in EU/PC theory, whereas you simply ignored the laws of physics entirely.

The only one peddling pseudo-scientific rubbish is the guy you see in the mirror every morning.

 

[Michael]

It's worth noting here that "space expansion/acceleration" claims are the single most flagrant violation of the conservation of energy laws in the universe.

In any "tired light"/inelastic scattering scenario, any momentum that is lost by the photon is gained by the plasma medium. Energy is simply transferred from the photon, to the plasma medium. The conservation of energy laws are entirely consistent with this "interpretation" of the photon redshift phenomenon.

On the other hand, "space expansion", not to mention "space acceleration", are a *gross* violation of the conservation of energy laws.

Without any form of magical "space expansion", the distance between any two objects represents a form of *potential* energy which can be converted into particle kinetic energy by allowing the two particles of mass to attract one another.

Even if we add movement to the particles in question, we simply add an initial kinetic energy component to the mix, but again, all the energy in conserved in some form or another, either potential or kinetic energy.

When however astronomers start adding "space expansion" to the equations, that increase of potential energy is not offset by anything, particularly when you start adding in "space acceleration" to boot, from a source of energy that magically remains constant over multiple exponential changes in volume no less! Come on.

The whole "redshift is caused by space expansion/acceleration" claim doesn't even jive with the known laws of physics, specifically the conservation of energy laws, one the oldest and most "tested" laws of physics that we know of.

Why in the *universe* would anyone prefer a concept that *violates* the known laws of physics by adding supernatural elements over a perfectly good *empirical* explanation for redshift that is entirely consistent with the known laws of physics? Edwin Hubble preferred a tired light explanation to cosmological redshift for a very good reason!

RC has empirical physics turned on it's head.

The real title of this thread should be why "space expansion/acceleration" is an invalid interpretation of cosmological redshift.

 

[RealityCheck01]

As expected a totally fact less, ignorant and ranting post was the first reply parroting similar posts from 4 years ago !
7 November 2012 Michael: Read Compton scattering (Compton scattering produces blue and red shift!)
7 November 2012 Michael: Where is the scientific literature linking Chen's redshift with cosmological redshift?
13 November 2012 Michael: Where are your citations of astronomers observing blurring of distant objects?
17 November 2016 Michael: Why have astronomers not any blurring of millions of images of galaxies up to high z relative to nearby galaxies.

16 November 2016 Michael: Cite the scientific literature that states Brillouin scattering can reproduce cosmological redshift.
16 November 2016 Michael: Show that any redshift caused by an expanding universe can be detected in labs here on Earth.

16 November 2016 Michael: List the sponsors of "Holushko's model" and where it was published via those sponsors.
16 November 2016 Michael: List the authors (plural) who have papers stating that they are testing "Holushko's model".
18 November 2018 Michael: List the scientific literature stating the detection of any tired light effect working in the lab.
18 November 2016 Michael: How does a static universe explain a black body CMB with a temperature that increases with distance and its angular power spectrum?
18 November 2016 Michael: Cite the publication of Herman Holushko's cosmology work in a scientific journal.

 

[RealityCheck01]

...Hubble wasn't a child which is why Hubble himself preferred a tired light solution to the problem, not your childish nonsense. ...

Usual fact less post and this Hubble argument from authority !
21 November 2016 Michael: A Edwin Hubble "preferred a tired light solution" lie - otherwise cite Hubble's papers on tired light.
Edwin Hubble

According to Allan Sandage,

Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."[27]​

We can assume that Hubble could read and knew that tired light theories were basically debunked when first proposed, e.g. the images of galaxies were not blurred by scattering as noted by Zwicky in 1929 for Compton scattering.

In 1935 (20 years before Hubble died), Hubble and Tolman wrote their opinion that

... both incline to the opinion, however, that if the red-shift is not due to recessional motion, its explanation will probably involve some quite new physical principles [... and] use of a static Einstein model of the universe, combined with the assumption that the photons emitted by a nebula lose energy on their journey to the observer by some unknown effect, which is linear with distance, and which leads to a decrease in frequency, without appreciable transverse deflection.[16]

21 November 2016 Michael: Citing Hubble who died in 1953 before the enormous evidence for an expanding universe was discovered, e.g. the CMB in 1964 !

People who learn about science history know about the actual discoverer of Hubble's law - Georges Lemaitre who published it in 1927 and was a proponent of an expanding universe. They have the many scientists who were convinced by this evidence that the universe was expanding. If you want argument by authority: Einstein who started off wanting a static universe was convinced that this evidence was enough for an expanding universe !

People in the real world know that Hubble's law turned out to be also explained by Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory. That theory was invalidated firstly by the observation that quasars did not exist at low z contrary to its prediction of the universe being the same everywhere and predominantly by the existence of the CMB.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The only "laws" that actually govern science are the laws of physics, like the conservation of energy law, something *LCDM* theory violates on a huge scale, but not EU/PC theory.

There is no such thing as cosmological "EU/PC theory".
21 November 2016 Michael: Cite the textbooks on and scientific reviews of the cosmological "EU/PC theory" explaining what the Lambda-CDM model explains.

There is "plasma cosmology" (not the small p and c because this is not the invalidated Plasma cosmology) which is proponents personal collections of often mutually exclusive expansions for small bits of evidence for the Big Bang cherry picked to support their bias that the universe cannot be expanding.

There is the "EU" of the deluded Thunderbolts authors David Talbott (a mythologist and neo-Velikovskian), Wallace Thornhill (a Australian "physicist" - no sign of any publications, a complete denial of fundamental physics (SR, GR, maybe QM) in his work, a neo-Velikovskian and a documented liar with a web page lying about confirmed Deep Impact predications), Donald Scott (a retired electrical engineer writing about an electrical sun - may have drunk the neo-Velikovskian cool-aid).

The obvious delusion that you know about, Michael, is comets are rocks blasted off planets by electrical discharges in historical times when planets whizzed around according to whatever stories the Thunderbolts authors selected.
21 November 2016 Michael: Do you agree that the physical evidence makes a decades long "comets are rocks blasted off planets..." story a delusion?
The modern idea stems from the 1970's when Ralph Juergens raised an idea of electrical discharges between the Sun and comets idea in Velikovsky's newsletter.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's worth noting here that "space expansion/acceleration" claims are the single most flagrant violation of the conservation of energy laws in the universe.

It is worth noting that:
21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.
A fact less post does not show that an expanding universe violates the conservation of energy.

The law of conservation of energy is a local law meaning that we have not observed energy being conserved over large scales. There is no requirement for the universe to conserve energy globally. If we impose the law of conservation of energy globally then the loss of energy of photons during expansion is converted into gravitational energy. But it is more complex:
Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

In special cases, yes. In general — it depends on what you mean by "energy", and what you mean by "conserved".
...
Expansion of the universe leading to cosmological redshift
The Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR) has red-shifted over billions of years. Each photon gets redder and redder. What happens to this energy? Cosmologists model the expanding universe with Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) spacetimes. (The familiar "expanding balloon speckled with galaxies" belongs to this class of models.) The FRW spacetimes are neither static nor asymptotically flat. Those who harbor no qualms about pseudo-tensors will say that radiant energy becomes gravitational energy. Others will say that the energy is simply lost.

 

[Michael]

Usual fact less post and this Hubble argument from authority !

That "authority" is the very same individual that discovered the distance/redshift relationship, and the same individual that you use to built your "space expansion" claims around, and yet
he personally *rejected* the notion of a single possible explanation! Furthermore you run around using *unpublished website rants* from Ned Wright as your "argument from authority". At least Hubble's opinions were published for goodness sake.

21 November 2016 Michael: A Edwin Hubble "preferred a tired light solution" lie - otherwise cite Hubble's papers on tired light.

http://www.science20.com/eternal_blogs/blog/hubble_eventually_did_not_believe_big_bang_associated_press-8592

“The universe probably is not exploding but is a quiet, peaceful place and possibly just about infinite in size.'''

You're the single sleaziest debater of topics on the internet.

We can assume that Hubble could read and knew that tired light theories were basically debunked when first proposed, e.g. the images of galaxies were not blurred by scattering as noted by Zwicky in 1929 for Compton scattering.

The only thing that Zwicky "ruled out" was Compton scattering as the *exclusive* cause, but Zwicky himself did that *so he could submit one of his own* concepts of "tired light". Hubble didn't rule it out, he came up with a Tolman brightness test to try out both ideas.

In 1935 (20 years before Hubble died), Hubble and Tolman wrote their opinion that

Um, your own quote shows that he *did* include the option of "tired light", but he didn't try to define the specific mechanism whereby photons lose momentum to the medium. He never "ruled out" tired light alternatives as you keep erroneously claiming.

21 November 2016 Michael: Citing Hubble who died in 1953 before the enormous evidence for an expanding universe was discovered, e.g. the CMB in 1964 !

You don't have any "enormous evidence" for an expanding universe that doesn't first begin with a pure affirming the consequent fallacy, and an *act of faith* in "space expansion".

As the paper I cited earlier demonstrates, tired light models "explain" the same data sets that "space expansion" models explain.

People who learn about science history know about the actual discoverer of Hubble's law - Georges Lemaitre who published it in 1927 and was a proponent of an expanding universe. They have the many scientists who were convinced by this evidence that the universe was expanding.

Ya, but not Hubble himself. Funny how that worked out, eh? Same deal with Einstein when he called your dark energy maths a "blunder" theory, and with Alfven when he called mainstream "reconnection" models pure "pseudoscience" over 7 times in a single speech. The mainstream has a bad habit of *kludging* the work of it's own "authorities" apparently.

If you want argument by authority: Einstein who started off wanting a static universe was convinced that this evidence was enough for an expanding universe !

The only thing he was convinced of for certain is that his constant should be set to zero, advice that you simply ignore.

People in the real world know that Hubble's law turned out to be also explained by Fred Hoyle's Steady State theory. That theory was invalidated firstly by the observation that quasars did not exist at low z contrary to its prediction of the universe being the same everywhere and predominantly by the existence of the CMB.

The CMB temp was predicted by Eddington based on the scattering of light on the dust of spacetime, long before BB theory ever got "popular". Eddington calculated the background temp to within 1/2 a degree of the correct number too on his first attempt, whereas early BB "guestimates" were more than an order of magnitude *wrong* about that background temperature!

 

[Michael]

There is no such thing as cosmological "EU/PC theory".

You mean except for that paper I cited on tired light models that predict a "static" universe you mean? Admittedly EU/PC theory isn't *limited* to a static universe/tired light explanation of the universe, but it's clearly the front runner at the moment. Alfven himself certainly entertained an "expansion" model however.

21 November 2016 Michael: Cite the textbooks on and scientific reviews of the cosmological "EU/PC theory" explaining what the Lambda-CDM model explains.

Your Lambda-CDM model doesn't actually "explain" anything. It cannot even "explain" where dark energy comes from and that makes up a full 70 percent of their claim! They cannot "explain" dark matter either, and none of their mathematical models worked out in the lab. What does it really "explain" in your opinion exactly?

There is "plasma cosmology" (not the small p and c because this is not the invalidated Plasma cosmology) which is proponents personal collections of often mutually exclusive expansions for small bits of evidence for the Big Bang cherry picked to support their bias that the universe cannot be expanding.

Technically expanding objects isn't "ruled out" in EU/PC theory to begin with, but "space expansion" is ruled out because it was never *ruled in* to start with!

There is the "EU" of the deluded Thunderbolts authors

There you go again with your sleazy debate tactics and your emotional need to attack *people*, not ideas. Thunderbolts isn't even a "lock step" organization as you keep imagining in your childish rants.

We aren't discussing Velokovsky, or comets, or any of that other nonsense you keep ranting about so stop hijacking the thread!

The modern idea stems from the 1970's when Ralph Juergens raised an idea of electrical discharges between the Sun and comets idea in Velikovsky's newsletter.

FYI, to anyone interested, Juergen's anode solar model is but one of three potential solar models to choose from under the umbrella of EU/PC theory. It's simply the most 'flexible' of the three models in terms of neutrino output flexibility, whereas the other two models predict the same number of neutrinos, and the same number of neutrinos as the standard model. RC is just ranting. Ignore him.

 

[Michael]

It is worth noting that:
21 November 2016 Michael: Violation of the conservation of energy by an expanding universe is at least ignorant and maybe a lie.

It's at least ignorant and ultimately nothing but a lie that I claimed that *all* expanding universe models violate the conservation of energy laws. We aren't talking about ordinary GR theory, we're talking about your "blunder" theory where the dominant component of your blunder theory, "dark energy", somehow magically remains constant over multiple exponential increases in volume. Nice magic trick since it should have *decreased* in density with increasing volume. You've created the ultimate free dark energy machine that keeps expanding forever and adding more and more energy in the process.

Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?

Even your own link 'hedged it's bets' on GR theory as a whole, but again, I'm not even complaining about GR theory in the first place.