On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 9:32:15 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 7:05:07 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 5:33:53 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:02 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 4:24:36 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:11 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, May 8, 2020 at 2:56:50 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 6:00 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If it's not conserved, as seems implied by the red shift due to >>>>>>>> expansion, where does it go? TIA, AG >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Silly question. If it is not conserved, it does't have to go >>>>>>> anywhere -- it just vanishes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bruce >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When an expanding gas cools, doesn't the energy go into work done to >>>>>> cause the expansion? Is it your opinion then, that something cannot come >>>>>> from nothing, but something can become nothing? AG >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That's what non-conservation means -- something can come from nothing >>>>> and go to nothing. >>>>> >>>>> Bruce >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you believe in what's called "evidence", and extrapolating from it >>>> to create a hypothetical physical theory, can you give a single example of >>>> something coming from nothing? AG >>>> >>> >>> Two examples. The universe; Dark energy. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> We have no clue how the universe began, or even IF it began; and we have >> zero understanding of dark energy, other than it probably exists and >> gravitationally interacts with ordinary matter. Where's the rigor? AG >> > > In my reply above, I was really referring to dark matter. However, the > same argument (wrt origin) can be said of dark energy (except that it seems > to have the opposite sign (repulsive) of the gravity we're familiar with). > More important though for this discussion, is that its *origin* is > completely unknown, as is the case for ordinary matter and dark matter. We > just can't assert they arose from nothing. So what would non-conservation > of energy mean? Maybe, the apparent loss of energy as the universe expands, > causes it to expand. IOW, not a real loss but a lower energy density spread > over larger volumes of space, keeping the total energy unchanged. AG >
Another hypothetical possibility is that the energy lost by photons, and observed by the cosmological red shift, is gained by the Cosmological Constant. AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/108c64b5-9c55-4897-a692-0f146eeac8f9%40googlegroups.com.
