On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 8:54:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 2:38:06 PM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 10:34 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> *> On the energy issue, what really bothers me about your stance on this >>> issue, is NOT that you can't offer a possible model or explanation for >>> where the energy comes from to create those other worlds, but that you >>> don't even recognize that such an issue exists. Others in this MWI cult >>> behave similarly. AG * >> >> >> There is no energy issue, we've known from General Relativity as far back >> as 1915 that the conservation of energy does not hold on the cosmic level, >> not if completely empty space retains some residual energy and General >> Relativity allows for this. The gravitational potential energy of a sphere >> of particles of matter like sand is alway negative, this is true in >> Newtonian Physics and remains true in General Relativity, so the >> gravitational potential energy of a sphere of particles of mass-energy M >> and radius R is PE= (-G*M^2)/R where G is the gravitational constant. It’s >> important to note that this is negative energy so the larger R gets the >> closer the potential energy gets to zero, and if it was at infinity it >> would be precisely zero. if the sphere expands and is made of sand which is >> normal matter then M stays the same but R increases so the gravitational >> potential energy becomes less negative and more positive, and that means >> it's uphill; It would take an external expenditure of work to do that, so >> if you let the sphere go to rest it would fall inward as you'd expect. >> >> However if the sphere is primarily made of empty space and empty space >> contains energy then things would be different because unlike an >> expanding sphere made of sand the density of mass /energy inside an >> expanding sphere of empty space would not decrease with expansion, so when >> the sphere expands although R increases M^2 increases even more, so the >> overall gravitational potential energy becomes larger and thus more >> negative. So if the vacuum contains negative energy as this sphere increases >> in size it becomes more negative and that means expansion is downhill, >> and thus no work is used but instead work is produced. So in any >> universe in which vacuum energy dominates it will expand, it will fall >> outward and accelerate. Regardless of if there are many worlds or only >> one, most think vacuum energy is what makes our universe accelerate. You >> might ask if the sphere gets larger what makes it get larger, where did >> that mass/energy come from? The answer is It comes from the gravitational >> energy released as the sphere of vacuum energy falls outward. So at any >> point in this process if you add up all the positive kinetic energy and >> energy locked up in matter (remember E=MC^2) of the universe and all the >> negative potential gravitational energy of the universe you always get >> precisely zero. >> >> John K Clark >> > > *First, thank you for taking my question seriously. Concerning your last > sentence above, is your conclusion a matter of fact or faith? E.g., in the > case of the Solar System, we know the masses and velocities of the planets, > as well as their kinetic energies, inclusive of the kinetic energy of the > SS as it travels around the Milky Way, all with pretty good accuracies. > Have you done the calculation, and do you get "precisely zero" in total > energy when the negative gravitational potential energy is accounted for? > Personally, I strongly doubt it. Also, of note, is that Bruce vehemently > denies your conclusion. I don't know Brent's position on this issue, but I > suspect it's the same as Bruce's. I cite Bruce, and possibly Brent, because > I regard them as most knowledgeable of physics on this MB. More later. AG* > *Of course you must include the rest energies of the Sun, the planets, and estimates of the contributions of the asteroid and Kuiper belts. I didn't mean to slight LC, who clearly has a good grasp of physics, and I would be interested in his take on the result of this calculation. 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/fe2675ec-a2a6-45c9-b9ae-61a807357f11n%40googlegroups.com.
