Did I not state the conversation laws do not apply across frames?
They apply equally as well in the stationary and moving twins frame...
Are you now claiming the moving twin or stationary twin observe different laws of physics????
Try sticking to the subject involving Doppler shift because it gives a clear insight into what is going on.
Why? You don't really want to discuss Doppler shift which is a wave moving through a medium....
By its very nature Doppler shift is an increase or decrease in energy depending on the whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer.
Because you ignore that Doppler is actually a wave moving in a medium. Need I explain energy transfer if coming towards an object or away from an object?
Shall we look up Doppler shift and find how the only explanation they have is sound waves moving through a medium, then watch them scramble to say light is just like that except no medium??????
Using Noether’s theorem however one cannot define the dynamical system of the observer by a Lagrangian which is invariant under a time translation, hence energy is not conserved since the conservation law is not applicable.
What time translation? If you want time translations then why are you not translating time as you go backwards in time????? Ahhh, because now you need your clock rate to be constant so you can claim decay rate is constant??????
I'm sensing a conflicted argument coming on here by you.....
Gobbledygook to you but textbook stuff since the early 20th century and known well before an expanding Universe was even envisaged.
Since you now admit energy can have a different value in each frame, the observer measures a Doppler shift resulting in an energy loss or gain relative to the moving frame and cannot claim the conservation law is violated, but instead energy is not conserved across frames. This is a simple example of Noether’s theorem at work.
Sigh, because you keep ignoring Doppler is a shift of waves traveling through a medium.....
You know, all that "matter" you keep pretending isn't there....
NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas
http://www.sciencedaily.com/rele...
http://www.space.com/5348-view-u...
Ulysses (spacecraft)
"Ulysses discovered that dust coming into the Solar System from deep space was 30 times more abundant than previously expected."
And the light waves have traveled through..... imparting energy or gaining it.....
For someone who boasted about understanding conservation laws by stating every system has a conservation law you have contradicted yourself by showing the opposite is in fact correct.
This from the guy who's only explanation of Doppler is sound waves moving through a medium imparting or gaining energy from that medium, then claiming we'll ignore all the matter light travels through because i need an argument.....
How the goalposts have changed considerably over so few posts.
Let me remind you of its original content.
"Why, do you have a problem with the scientific claim that energy is not subject to time?????"
This statement seems to change meaning from post to post.
So now we have gone from falling balls to bouncing balls; and now bouncing balls with energy conservation, fishbowls and imaginary matter.
The fact that your original statement was comprehensively wrong as illustrated using a falling ball as an example; it doesn’t make it right with your subsequent spin stories.
Are we going to get yet another version next time?
Ever seen energy be destroyed? Minus your confused conception of Doppler which is a wave traveling through a medium of course. Oh that's right, you need to believe the laws can be violated to postulate your Doppler shift which isnt a Doppler shift but instead caused by expansion of space through magical energy creation. My bad.....
The moving ball shows your flawed thinking in absolute frames. the ball sees no gain or loss of energy for itself... For someone that claims to believe everything is relative you sure have a tendency to try to argue this is an absolute frame.....
You mean where you quoted various values for orbits such as 1000 mph, 67000 mph or 514000 mph blissfully unaware you were quoting velocity not acceleration!!!
Yes, I know, in your world motion magically happens without acceleration.....
Do you understand if these values are constant the acceleration is zero?
Ecept we both know thay are not constant, that is why orbits are calculated as accelerations... Or did you have another strawman to argue??/
For the rest of us even with a minimal knowledge of orbits; the stationary accelerometer reads zero tangential acceleration because the Earth is not accelerating through space.
I even gave you the explanation for circular and near circular orbits where the tangential acceleration is for all intents and purposes zero including a calculation based on the Earth’s perihelion and aphelion velocities leads to a negligibly small acceleration.
If you say so....
Earth Orbits
Apparently you didn't understand Einstein when he told you gravity was the same as an acceleration......
You chose to ignore the accelerometer evidence and the explanations given because your patently absurd ideas are based on a pet theory where the evidence and science can be damned.
You continue to be confused as to WHY the accelerometer reads zero... Although technically it reads 9.8 meters per second per second here on the earth's surface...
An object accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second in free fall would read zero despite its acceleration of 9.8 meters per second per second.
Oh, one built for earth's gravity at least....
But there you go again. Thinking of this earth as an absolute frame and not understanding the results in micro-gravity. According to you "Free-falling" (accelerating at fractions of c) in step with your expansion so that it has no velocity relative to the expansion.....
Ooops, did you forget that????
So we would read none due to our acceleration through space, just the constant 9.8 meters per second per second acceleration here on earth due to gravity.....
Need I remind you of your belief that everything looks the same from any point in space. So that if on a far galaxy, we would have a redshift equaling fractions of c.....
Or is this the part where you claim physics works differently in different parts of the universe while arguing against Dad when he says the same thing?????
Who exactly is piling on the insults here particularly when it is at its most prevalent when you find yourself on the losing end of a discussion?
The truth hurts when it is pointed out via the testimony of your posts as to why you are way out of your depth and your predictable response to resort to arrogance and rudeness as a form of compensation.
I'm not on the loosing end. You just keep hiding behind your conflicting arguments and wont let yourself see them for what they are..... And when you can't hide any more you start claiming physics never observed in any laboratory, but only way-out-that-a-way, while refusing to see it is Dad's argument in a nutshell which you fervently object to... Lol, loosing, Lol.....
Your insult has well and truly backfired as it has been inadvertently directed at the moderators with this impressive conspiracy theory that I can get threads shut down by baiting posters given it is the moderators who have the final decision.
The moderators must be in on the scheme it as well.
Ironically the moderators have been most helpful in providing advice on how to avoid being baited as you have attempted to do with your responses as well as spelling out the forum rules some of which I was not aware of.
Yah, it's usually the ones that start it that end up not being able to take the return heat.....
But I forgive you and glad you learned something at least!!!!
) than calibrations of eternity. Time always assumes a beginning and end. 
