I don’t think so, it was pretty specific. And it matches the answer given in the NRAO link I gave above.

Of course, I could be wrong!

Edit: is it possible that the physics can be interpreted in a bunch of different ways, and some will describe as I have, and some as you’ve done? Perhaps it’s just different conventions in Cosmology vs straight physics?

It’s not just random blogs that say this though; I’m doing the online ANU EDX astrophysics course at the minute, and it was exactly the explanation they gave (one of the presenters is a Nobel prize winner, so I feel like it’s reasonably trustworthy!). And there are many places that give the same description.

Of course, I appreciate it may not necessarily be the full story, but it at least seems to be more than a daft idea!

>Nothing is intrinsically happening to the energy of the photon.

I think that's my point: the energy of the photon really is reducing (in the case of a cosmological redshift, not a doppler one).

From here :

>Question:.... If light is redshifted in an expanding universe, and this results in photons losing energy, where does that energy go to?

​

>Answer:
..... The short answer, though, is that light loses energy as the Universe expands, and that energy goes into the expansion of the Universe itself, in the form of work.

To be fair, if it’s a mistake, it’s a pretty common one - for example, from here:

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/cosmological+redshift

​

>In cosmological redshift, the wavelength at which the radiation is originally emitted is lengthened as it travels through (expanding) space. Cosmological redshift results from the expansion of space itself and not from the motion of an individual body.

There is a redshift due to the expansion of space as the photon is travelling; this will keep happening and is continuous.

We might want to start by figuring out how to terraform earth, let’s start with the easy stuff!

It’s alright, it’s a quantum title.

>or land in Scotland to become a laird.

If they really want a title of some kind, I’d suggest people simply choose to give themselves the title “Lord of the Universe”. It has exactly the same legitimacy as ”Laird”, is completely free, and people won’t think you are such a big arsehole ;)

I suppose there might be a connection with Major Tom floating in a most peculiar way ;)

Although, if you’d figured out how to instantly transport a telescope millions of light years, you could probably also figure out how to get the pics back quickly too ;)

From what I understood (could be very wrong!), if a chimp is bearing their teeth like that, it’s probably time to run away rather than sit around and have a bit of a giggle with them ;)

No, not thinking of hang glider wings in this case (or specifically what we call Rogallo wings now)! Francis Rogallo had a number of different ideas, and some were closer to what we think of now as paragliders, and were the thing that later inspired proper paragliders. Have a look at the pic of Francis half way down the page here, and the model on the right of the pic:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/paraglider-nasa-almost-could-have-used-didnt-bring-astronauts-back-earth-180972106/

I think it was closer to a steerable parachute than a modern paraglider though.

(My only solo flying experience is doing my UK paraglider “elementary pilot” qualification in Spain a few years back, maybe at some point I progress to CP ;) )

Yep, in fact the modern paraglider was also derived from a Rogallo concept too! So, this is not a new idea, quite the opposite!

Just to be needlessly pedantic (because I’m bored!), from what I understand photons couldn’t start travelling through the universe until about 400,000 years or so after the Big Bang (maybe a bit less, depends what you read!), since it was opaque until then.

So, the CMB from that time is as far back as we can get with a telescope.

The question “is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?” is not really a valid one anyway - the speed that two points in space appear to be moving away from each other depend on how far apart they are at the time of measurement.

Well, by far the easiest way to time travel to the future is just to go very very fast, then relativity will put you there without the need for wormholes, black holes and so on.

Of course, that's not reversible though, going very very fast backwards won't help.

Dunno about the black hole / wormhole approach, I'd thought there was no way of transmitting information across a black hole event horizon.

Worm holes might be another matter though.

>We would be better off traveling into the future, to see what’s happening there, so we can better prepare for it. Or perhaps make changes in the present, that can positively benefit our future.

But then you'd have to travel back into the past again so you can let everyone know what's going to happen ;)

>So in retrospect.. Time travel into the future?

Yep, astronauts do it all the time, although not by very much, obviously!