Strange

"Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization The claimed effect was seen in some early studies but was probably due to the selection of galaxies observed. Many more galaxies have been studied since then and the effect is not present. Also, the author is a young earth creationist. And therefore not to be trusted. His "theories" have even been rejected by other creationists as being too embarrassing. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c-decay.html

I don't know why. It was a fairly honest assessment of your president based on the available evidence. Our prime minister is merely useless. Yours is a lying buffoon.

So you think a racist, nepotistic, corrupt liar makes for a good president? In some third world republic, maybe. Your country has become a laughing stock because you have such a clown in charge.

Good grief. You are claiming to have some sort of expertise. Or do you really think someone totally ignorant of modern cosmology is going to contribute anything to the subject? Anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder And: https://www.quantamagazine.org/colliding-neutron-stars-could-settle-cosmologys-biggest-controversy-20171025/ You haven't shown any science yet. I am hoping that you can provide some math to make sense of your waffle. But I am not holding my breath. This is contradicted by all the evidence. So good luck with that.

I didn't mention entropy. I was asking how you think mass can "evaporate". Your waffle and quotes from an article you don't understand are not very convincing.

He is also a compulsive liar.

Correct. Incorrect. You would think that with multiple native speakers telling him that "interaction" and "scattering" are not synonyms (not in common use and especially not in physics) he might get the idea. But apparently not. Obstinate is being kind. Doppler shift doesn't involve any interaction with the wave. It s not conservation of energy that is wrong but your understanding. Straw man. The point is not that there is no interaction but this interaction is NOT scattering.

Or forward it to the appropriate authorities.

Which says absolutely nothing to support your claims that a rock would lose mass over time.

Vibronics are a reggae band, not rock. I suppose anything is possible if you make up a suitable buzzword-heavy "explanation". Why are you describing dark matter in a dark energy thread? Why not explain it here?

But the energy transfer could warm the material of the box, rather than just moving it back and forth. Maybe.

Which doesn't support your claim that a rock would lose gravity over time. Not really. You need to explain why there is this extra gravity and why it is distributed in such a way to produce the effects we see. (Dark matter explains both of these.)

That occurred me afterwards, as well. Does that mean that with ideal mirrors, the light would get progressively red shifted?

You seem to think that GR and SR are separate things. Citation needed. Most stars do have such a bow shock. (It just happens that ours is moving too slowly.) So this is not support for your idea. You are just making stuff up. It is not based on GR at all.

I doubt very much that the printer supports network access using an external Wi-Fi dongle. I would put money on it. Check the specs/user manual of the printer.

It is also trivial to find photos taken on Earth where shadows are not parallel. There is a thing called "perspective" that the OP (or wherever he copied the text from) seems not to know about. Or maybe it means that the Earth is a hoax.

Particles (not space) are made of strings.Different particles are represented by different vibrational modes of the strings.

This is getting surreal. You are just grasping at random straws. Why will the mass of a cold lump of rock decrease. You are just making stuff up now.

Huh? While obviously true, I don't know what the relevance of that is. Not wrong, necessarily. Just incomplete. Black holes don't disintegrate. Does it? Can you provide a reference? But if it does, then it will answer your previous question, in which case I don't know why you asked.

The extra matter is needed because the gravity is not accounted for by the visible mass. If you are not creating more gravity then is predicted by the visible mass (as needed to change the orbital speeds) then you are not solving the problem. It sounds a bit like you are saying: there is more gravity in the system than we can account for from the mass; it comes from nowhere but just happens to be the right amount to match what we see. That sounds like magic to me. What!? That is not the same thing at all. The sun is losing mass and hence (because gravity is caused by mass) its gravity is weakening. If it were a cold lump of rock, then its gravity would not change over time.

So you are not creating more gravity, just redistributing it (if that makes any sense as a concept) so I don't see how it solves the dark matter problem. Also, if gravity were to create matter, it would have to create an equal amount of anti-matter, which would be detectable. Are you saying that gravity would "wear out" over time? Any source for that claim?

That is not evidence of black holes being formed from gravitational waves. It is a theoretical possibility. Like wormholes or whole holes. Also, it is important to note that this is not creating any new mass or gravity. It is just the gravity that was already there. And that is the same for your claims of matter created by gravity: the mass of the matter would have to come from the energy of the gravitational field. The total mass-energy would not change. So you aren't magically creating more gravity this way.

Two things: 1. As fiveworlds says, you need to check that the printer is designed to work with an external Wi-Fi adapter. 2. If it is, then you need to set the connection up as an ad-hoc network (i.e. not using a router). This may mean changing the settings on both the printer and the PC.

Interesting. I would like to see a bit more detail on that. I doubt it is something that can actually happen in reality. I have given you evidence that mass gives rise to gravity. Here, again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2015/11/28/classical-tests-general-relativity/ http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/rosalba/astro2030/GeneralRelativity_tests.pdf (I'm not sure what you mean by the "primacy of matter before gravity". You may be asking for evidence of something that doesn't exist.) The idea that fields (not waves) are fundamental is pretty standard. I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion. But matter doesn't arise from the Higgs field. It arises from the electron field and the quark-related fields. Not all of them. Not just "any old field gives rise to matter". So you have still provided no evidence that gravitational fields give rise to matter. Well of course it does because the photon s the quantum of the EM field. The analogy would be that the gravitational field can give rise to gravitons, not matter particles.

Where did you copy it from? Why does it start from equation 111? Why do you have the wrong value for the diameter of the Earth's orbit? So it is a choice between thousands of scientists, engineers and others being involved in some pointless conspiracy or you do not understand physics. Given your posts here, it is pretty obvious which it is. Wrong on two counts: 1. As noted your baseline is out by a factor of 20. (Your were told this before and you haven't corrected it.) 2. The resolution of Hubble is much greater than that: "The Hubble telescope WFC3 now has the potential to provide a precision of 20 to 40 microarcseconds" (The Hubble telescope WFC3 now has the potential to provide a precision of 20 to 40 microarcseconds). You have been told this before as well.