On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 7:52:13 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 8:46 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *> the negative gravitation potential energy is independent of rotation, * > > > That's true in Newtonian physics but not in general relativity, the > rotation of a mass will affect the gravitational field it produces, it's > called "frame dragging". For the Earth that affect is tiny (although it > was actually detected with the ultra sensitive "Gravity Probe B" satellite > a few years ago) but for something like a spinning Neutron Star or a Black > Hole frame dragging can be overwhelmingly powerful, > > *> but it does nevertheless contribute to total kinetic energy. Since >> there could be different rates of rotation, and hence kinetic energies, for >> fixed values of mass, and therefore fixed rest energy, * > > > Angular momentum is conserved, if something is enticed to rotate clockwise > then something else is also being enticed to rotate counterclockwise. And > scientist have looked closely at the cosmic microwave background radiation > and although small regions appear to rotate there is no evidence whatsoever > that the entire universe rotates. Incidentally, if the entire universe did > rotate Kurt Godel proved in 1948 that General Relativity would allow > "closed timelight curves", AKA time machines capable of traveling into the > past; but although general relativity allows for a rotating universe it > doesn't demand it, and observation has shown that a rotating universe is > not the universe we live in. However Godel did prove he was capable of > working on things other than formal logic. > > > *MOREOVER, if you want to take your inspiration from GR, you cannot >> dismiss the unstated postulate that universes evolves in time.* > > > The experimental evidence is overwhelming that the universe does evolve > in time, that's not a postulate that's a fact, or at least as close to > being a fact as science ever gets. > > *> They cannot, under GR, spontaneously expand * > > > Not true, if empty space contains residual energy, and general relativity > allows this, then the universe must not only expand but accelerate, and > thus evolve. > *I think you truncated my comment. I wrote, or should have written, that in GR universes evolve in time, but cannot instantaneously evolve faster than the SoL. In the MWI, worlds come into existence fully formed as it were, that is, replete with copies of observers. You want to have your cake and eat as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. AG * > > John K Clark > -- 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/9680ccf8-4c7b-488a-bf6e-05dd30ebea01n%40googlegroups.com.
