On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:25:47 PM UTC-7 Brent wrote:
> > > On 2/8/2021 4:12 AM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 * > > > You don't seem to understand Hilbert space is just a special case of > vector spaces. If your state is having a momentum on a heading of 45deg, > then it's a superposition of |North>+|East>. "Superposition" is only > relative to some basis. We right things that way when we have instruments > that measure "North" and "East", but none that measure NE. > *I think you meant "write". In any event, can't we write a superposition of NE even if we can't measure in that direction? More important, I don't think your comment relates to what I wrote immediately above in RED -- which is consistent with Bohr's view that a system is NOT in any specific eigenstate before measurement, and defeats the illusion/delusion that systems before measurement are simultaneously in several eigenstates. AG* > > Brent > > > *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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ec315ce0-6192-4c99-859a-bc00e053d7e6n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > > -- 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/18c9d10b-59c4-43c5-977d-a02927551553n%40googlegroups.com.
