Consider the lowly photon ...

Hi Jim.

You said:

>> What compels you to believe a photon looses energy?

If it didn't the sky would be aglow 24/7 due to the photons continuing to circulate throughout the universe, their paths deflected by gravity from large masses, forever.

We don't see this happening, so I conclude that EM radiation does NOT go on forever.

Since the photons (or wave trains) are compelled to travel at 'c' the frequency for the wave train must drop to zero. Since energy cannot be created or annihilated, it must still exist, absorbed into the LCM, probably raising the 'temperature' of the LCM to that which is observed for 'empty' space.

Hope I answered your question.

Shando, Why can't photons simply recycle rather than do as you believe? If photons come from somewhere why can't they return there? IMO, photons recycle and your concern about a glowing sky is unfounded in fact.

>> IMO, photons recycle and your concern about a glowing sky is unfounded in fact.

Interesting opinion. My evidence is that the sky is not glowing 24/7.

I infer that you are suggesting that the sky is not glowing because photons return to their source.

I am wondering what you think the cause and/or mechanism making that happen, is.

Hi Shando, They don't return; they recycle. I'm sure you will agree photons come from stars and digging a bit deeper they are emitted by atoms. This process is really not very well understood and you might also agree with that. Anyway, it is quite clear to me photons need a way to return to atoms sometime after they are born. And since there is nothing in our current state of art even attempting to understand how a photon is produced why would suppose I might know how these things work? All I can say for sure is IMO this is true. You want to say this is false and I am asking you why?

>> I'm sure you will agree photons come from stars and digging a bit deeper they are emitted by atoms.

I agree that this is the preferred theory.

>> This process is really not very well understood ...

Agreed

>> Anyway, it is quite clear to me photons need a way to return to atoms sometime after they are born.

It is not at all clear to me why this might be so. Please enlighten me.

>> And since there is nothing in our current state of art even attempting to understand how a photon is produced why would [you] suppose I might know how these things work?

Hmmm ... yet "it is clear to" you "that photons need a way to return to" their source, like salmon to the river of their hatching.

>> All I can say for sure is IMO this is true.

OK, I cannot argue with that.

>> You want to say this is false and I am asking you why?

I am not saying that this is false - I just don't see any evidence that suggests this happens.
If it did then, when driving a car at night, wouldn't the driver would be blinded by the photons returning toward the headlights?

Shando, You need to see recycling as a different process than salmon returning to the place of their birth. Clearly photons move in one direction and never return so don't make dumb connections with things having nothing in common with recycling. You agree the photon in emitted from an atom so we have as a given now-right? They have energy and energy is equal to mass-right? So, lets use the mass radiated from a star and attempt to explain how that mass can be accounted for. The current belief is helium has less mass than four protons. Have you even done the math to determine if that adds up? IMO, we don't have a clue as to how to account for the emitted mass from a star. At the same time we don't have a clue as to how photons transform to protons. But, photons flow from atoms and transform into protons.This simple fact may never be discovered by our science given internal shortcomings that have developed over the years.