swansont

Not all of the light reflects. In fact, very little of it does. Same for gravitational deflection. In any event, twice a very small number is still a small number.

No, not all research projects deliver them. But that’s the nature of basic research. As my thesis adviser once noted, “If we knew the answer, it wouldn’t be research.” So that’s not really a valid criticism, since, as I pointed out, you don’t know what will be discovered. You have to look at research in broader terms. There’s an argument to be made for funding diverse projects, but it’s not like the LHC is the only project being funded.

By how much? Enough to make the mass loss significant? It could go up by 10x and you still wouldn’t get to 1% “What if” isn’t a model with evidence. It’s a guess. You really need to get in the habit of running the numbers behind your claims. Why? How does this affect redshift? Coming back? In physics we quantify claims. Hand-waving doesn’t count for much.

Since the energy of the light can't exceed the mass energy of a star, and the mass of dark matter exceeds the mass of "normal" matter, this seems trivially falsified. Take the example of the sun, which you should have worked out. 4 x 10^9 kg/s converted to photons, which means about 1.2 x 10^16 kg/year, or ~ 10^25 kg per billion years. The sun's mass is 2 x 10^30 kg. There just isn't enough light.

One example: particle accelerators in general are used in medicine - radionuclide production and radiation therapy

I remember sitting in on a review when I was a postdoc at TRIUMF and a (mid-level) government representative asked "What are you going to discover?" (probably in reference to the two-year funding window) You don't know what will be discovered. You don't know what innovations people will come up with to do new experiments. What you do know is that this has always happened.

Equations describing the behavior of nature need to stem from some kind of scientific principle. You can't just pop in and say "it's all Riemann spheres" without some physical principle being tied into it. What does it mean to us? (you've already been told appealing to this alleged computer is a non-starter)

Standard physics says it gets heavier because E=mc^2. If you have some other reason, then your conjecture says relativity must be wrong.

Existing theory already predicts this Where’s the math? This is less than illuminating. What does it mean that you have different things labeled “red” “weak isospin” “mass” etc.

1420 MHz is the hydrogen hyperfine transition frequency.

Yes, you should. How much of an effect is there on the sun? How much lighter does it get, as a fraction of its current mass, every billion years?

The next step is to quantify this to see how much on effect there is.

Why? What’s missing, and what is the evidence that it’s missing? Since it’s 1/r, the climb become easier and easier as you move away. The additional shift gets smaller and smaller. Available in all directions? No, but then (as has already been pointed out) anything that is isotropically distributed adds nothing, since it cancels out. GR has been confirmed to a reasonably high precision in many experiments. Gravitational redshift included - it’s a critical part of GPS working properly. Not without some new physics.

Light traveling a million years will travel a million light years (d = ct). Gravitational redshift depends on distance; GM/rc^2 which is based on gravitational potential, not force Falling into the well and climbing out gives the same shift, only differing in sign. The Pound-Rebka experiment confirms this. If the effect were not symmetric you’d have an issue with conservation of energy. So what matters is the shift when it climbs out of the original well. The biggest effect happens near the source. The shift going from 1 million LY to 2 million LY is going to be tiny

If you aren’t near a mass, there’s little gravity to have any effect. No, that’s refraction from the atmosphere. I don’t see how this follows. Light passing near a mass has to fall into the well and then climb out. There might be a deflection, but why would there be a net effect on redshift? That’s proximity to mass, not time. How much of a change in gravitational potential is there between 1 million and 2 million light years away from a mass? I already showed that we do see galaxies that are more distant.

There are 23 member states. France, Germany, Italy, and the UK combine for more than half of the contributions. Germany contributes the most (just over 20%) so that’s a few hundred million euros. But they spend more than 30 billion on R&D (public sector funding) https://www.research-in-germany.org/en/research-landscape/why-germany/research-funding-system.html CERN gets a disproportionate amount of attention

Higher “exposure” to gravity? How much is gravity going to affect light in deep space? How does “time of exposure” factor in?

We do. CEERS-93316 has a proper distance of more than 34 billion LY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CEERS-93316 HD1 is more that 33 billion LY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD1_(galaxy) Criticism must be accompanied by evidence. Not appeal to personal incredulity.

The visible universe is the universe we can see.

The diameter of the visible universe is ~93 billion LY https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

But most galaxies are more distant than that. A galaxy 14 billion LY distant only contributes 1/4 of this. A galaxy 21 billion LY away contributes 1/9.

So you can’t say that there is some value per unit area (or volume) since that varies with distance.

What articles? If you don’t share this information, how are we to evaluate the source?

Net zero kinetic energy? If they each have KE, the system has KE. Since it was measured by humans, it seems a given that it was from our reference frame.

No, the mass of the sun would only include dark matter in the vicinity of the sun. It’s based on the orbits of the planets. It would not include dark matter in other areas. You don’t appear to be accounting for the 1/r^2 nature of the light intensity. The amount of light far away from a source is smaller than near the source. IOW, stars and galaxies are fairly dim compared to e.g. the sun.