On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 4:13:38 AM UTC-7 [email protected] wrote:
> 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. > *Consider a system with two possible states with probabilities 30% and 70% before measurement. I would agree that the system is in both states simultaneously IF the probabilities were 100% for each. But that violates one of the postulates of frequentist probability. So which do you think is more logical; that in the 30%/70% case the system is in both states simultaneously, or in neither state? AG * *Concerning the convention for PE, if one moves a test mass from R1 to R2 in a central gravity field, where R1 < R2, aren't we calculating the work done against the field? Yes or No? We can call this work negative or positive. Do you agree the choice is just a convention? This cannot effect conservation of energy, which is an empirical result, or what works in hydroelectric facility. AG* > > 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/ec315ce0-6192-4c99-859a-bc00e053d7e6n%40googlegroups.com.
