And this post confirms yet again your dishonesty and being out of your depth.I "cherry picked" the parts that were worth responding to, specifically your bait and switch routine. Doppler shift is *not* caused by "space expansion", and they are not equivalent.
The irony is that as a result of "space expansion" (and dark energy), energy isn't being conserved in *either* frame of reference!
The only part of this conversation that's unprofessional, besides your constant string of personal attacks, is the dishonest equivocation fallacy, and your blatant bait (Doppler shift) and switch (space expansion) routine. Doppler shift has *nothing* to do with space expansion, and they aren't equivalent.
You either point out where I implied cosmological redshift and Doppler shift are equivalent or you do the right thing retract the statement and apologize.
While cosmological and Doppler shift are not equivalent there are many similarities.
(1) They both measure the wavelength which is inversely proportional to energy in a rest frame (λₙ)
(2) They both measure the wavelength in an observer’s frame (λ₀)
(3) For low z the formula for both are the same z = (λ₀ - λₙ)/λₙ
(4) The energy difference between the observer’s and rest frame cannot be explained as an interaction with the dynamical system.
(5) Conservation laws do not exist between frames of references and applies to both cosmological and Doppler redshift.
The point I was making that went right over your head if you want to argue that cosmological redshift violates the conservation of energy because no such law exists then it applies to Doppler shift as well.
Instead in keeping with the trend of making up nonsense to cover up your lack of comprehension, you concoct this outrageous lie I am suggesting cosmological and Doppler shift are one in the same thing.
As I stated you should do the right thing…………..
Upvote
0
