Genady

A cosmological redshift of these distant galaxies has a magnitude of about 10. My back of the envelope estimate of gravitational redshift caused by a galaxy has a magnitude of about 10-6. The latter cannot significantly affect calculations based on the former.

It is quite straightforward to see why there is no area in this formula. Start with some area, weight, and frictional force. Now, make the area twice larger. The weight per square cm becomes twice smaller. But there are twice as many square cm. So, the frictional force per square cm becomes twice smaller but there are twice as many square cm. Thus, the total frictional force remains the same.

You are wrong. For example, the interval between any two events on null geodesic is 0. In physics. No, none of them equals infinity. Divergence is a feature of some integrals. 1/0 is a mistake.

No, nowhere in physics division by 0 is allowed. Regularization works with infinities that appear in divergent integrals, NOT in dividing by 0. Division by 0 is wrong in physics and mathematics alike.

You cannot divide by 0. It is an arithmetical mistake.

You are wrong. i is imaginary number. Both real and imaginary numbers are complex numbers. In 1+i you add two complex numbers.

By making arithmetical mistakes one can arrive to any conclusion one desires.

In QFT infinite energy comes out of equations in a different way and thus needs to be dealt with. In relativity, it does not come out of any equation. What comes out of the equation in relativity is, that any finite amount of energy can accelerate a massive body only to a speed less than speed of light.

Needing infinite amount of energy is a phrase which means that no finite amount of energy will do it. Say this: "A massive body cannot reach speed of light using a finite amount of energy." There is no "infinite" in this statement. This is what relativity says.

We don't do it in relativity. We just say that you cannot reach speed of light with a finite amount of energy. No infinite energy is used anywhere in relativity.

Yes, we can. This energy being infinite means that any finite amount of energy is not sufficient to accelerate a massive body to the speed of light.

You cannot subtract a dimensionless value from a value which has a dimension. Fail.

No, it is not considered infinite. No, you do not have such a thing.

Do you mean "sweeping parallels"? Meridians are lines which connect the poles,

c=1 ft/ns soit c-1=0 ft/ns

c = 3*10^8 m/s = 1 ft/ns, and c-1 = (1-1) ft/ns = 0 ft/ns

Why do we need a ref bot? Can't two bots discuss, and a human be the referee? I think I've lost what is a point of the exercise. (Maybe because I don't watch TV for many years now.)

If they were missing BEFORE the impact, then they transformed BEFORE reaching speed of light. Then, they transformed while being at rest. We don't need to accelerate them to refute this.

I don't think so. Spherical wave radiates from a center out. Rather, a circular wave on a spherical surface.

If some particles are transformed before reaching the speed of light, then in some reference frame they are transformed while being at rest. Physics is the same in all reference frames. We don't even need to accelerate particles. Just to observe if particles get spontaneously transformed sometimes. Which of course have never been observed. The result of the experiment is negative. Done.

Do they transform before or after reaching c?

I doubt. Geodesic on a sphere is a great circle.

I can start three separate conversations to simulate three bots and copy output of one into input of another.

Like consecutive circles of latitude? (btw, the link works for me, strange...)

Spherical spiral? Project.pdf (redwoods.edu)