On Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 7:25 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A hydroelectric dam producing electricity and the accelerating expansion >> of the universe caused by the intrinsic energy of empty space, both >> convert negative gravitational potential energy into positive kinetic >> energy that can do work, in the first case by falling inward and in the >> second case by falling outward. And I explained previously to you exactly >> why that is so. And that is no BS. >> > > *> The flaw in your analysis is that the "negative" in PE is a convention, > not a law of physics.* > Without that "convention" there would be no law of conservation of energy at all. > *>There is no way to magically change negative energy (what the hell is > that?)* > I know a guy who can answer that question, ask Isaac Newton, he knew what negative gravitational potential energy was over 300 years ago. Albert Einstein could also answer your question. > > to positive energy. AG > And tell that to the engineers who make hydroelectric dams. > *> You're just reaching a conclusion which pleases you about total energy > of the universe being exactly zero.* > It's not just me, the idea that the total energy in the universe is zero also pleased people like Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman and Alan Guth who invented the idea of cosmic inflation. And the evidence is piling up that it's probably true. Zero-energy universe <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe> *> You're just assuming the dark energy fills the gap, after the total > energy of what we can observe is estimated. And I note that you never > referenced dark energy or matter in your original message.* > That is flat out untrue, and as far as this argument is concerned it makes no difference if the matter in the universe is composed of Dark Matter or normal everyday Baryonic Matter because gravity treats both of them exactly the same way; and that's why Dark Energy does not have the word "matter" in it, gravity treats it differently. When a cloud of Baryonic Matter expands it does not get more massive, but when a cloud of Dark Energy expands it does, assuming that a property of space is for it to have a residual energy, and it's looking increasingly likely that it does. > *> All I am really asserting is that we can just dispense with the idea > that a system can be in multiple different states simultaneously,* > Sure you can dispense with that, if you don't mind ignoring empirical evidence and abandoning the scientific method in general. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> . -- 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/CAJPayv2phy5Rd4qO1JgjogmN1LKyZWzj_29OEQWt%3DNACxLyt%2Bg%40mail.gmail.com.
