On Wednesday, February 3, 2021 at 8:05:53 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> 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 it as well; that is, appealing to GR, but inconsistently > instantaneously creating fully formed worlds, say like the one we live in. > AG * > *You definitely truncated my comment in your last reply. Please try to avoid doing that. AG * *If your claim that the net energy of the universe is zero is associated with the universe as a whole, not for some part of it, then it must be speculative. No calculation can be done to establish it. Correct? 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/7a4b5bdd-5db4-469d-9295-892966fd0c88n%40googlegroups.com.
