On Monday, February 8, 2021 at 1:40:47 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:
> 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* > *I think you're right. One can't write a superposition with "eigenstates" that can't be measured. But I think there could be situations where there are non-unique bases where all elements of the superposition CAN be measured, and therefore that the representation of the wf is not unique. 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/8e5e9bbd-b9b4-4ed3-8730-a6413445e022n%40googlegroups.com.
