Thanks, Neverfly, I'll try to do just this if Chris Hillman fails to respond to the direct question that I put for him to consider. Or if he prefers Baez (mainstream) over Feynman (ATM).

Since I don't understand the mainsteam point of view (I don't understand the mechanism of converting the momentum into the energy) I am doomed to asking this until I find someone who understands the problem and explains it to me. Of course, as Landau once said, "those who don't understand the problem might have problems with explaining it". And I can't blame anyone for not understanding how momentum is converted into energy while I don't understand it myself. I just know that it is the mainstream opinion and Jonh Baez believes it is possible, he just doesn't want to bother with the explanation ("too repetitive" he told me when he baned me from sci.physics.reseach forum for asking such questions long time ago).

I hope that in this forum someone will be able to explain this problem of conversion of momentum into energy, depite that it is contrary to Feynman's opinion, documented by his texts, where he states explicitly that energy and momentum are conserved separately (and I don't think anyone can accuse Feynman of not understanding physics as good as John Baez). Why the astronomers subscribe to the non conservation of energy and agree only on conservation of the whole 4-momentum (i.e. whatever is missed in non conserved energy is taken from necessarily non conserved momentum since there is nothing else to make for conservation of 4-momentum)? That's why I keep asking the mainstream theorists what is the mechanism of this conversion that apparently Feynman missed.