On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 12:51:58 PM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 2:15 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Friday, April 29, 2022 at 11:54:42 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:42 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> *>>> You referenced Sean's blog, which I assume you affirm. He claims 
>>>>>> that on each split, each universe has half the energy of the prior 
>>>>>> split, 
>>>>>> where each has a probability of .5. So the total energy of anything 
>>>>>> within 
>>>>>> a split, including the record you want to keep, reduces on each split. 
>>>>>> Pretty soon it will be unreadable. AG  *
>>>>> *>> For Darwin's sake!! * I've already answered that criticism 
>>>>> several times, if you want to challenge what I said with a logical 
>>>>> argument 
>>>>> then fine, but don't just keep repeating the same damn thing over and 
>>>>> over 
>>>>> again like a parrot.
>>>> *> You made the claim that energy is not conserved in GR *
>>> *Yes.*
>>> *>  I definitely recall that. But what Sean says is something else as 
>>>> far as I can tell.  Do you dispute that? AG*
>>> *I'll be damned if I'm gonna rehash what I already said yet again! If 
>>> you have short-term memory loss, as you apparently do, then reread what I 
>>> already wrote and then quickly ask a specific question you think I did not 
>>> address properly before you forget what I wrote again.*
>> You don't have to rehash it. Just copy and paste it again,
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But g does NOT drop by 50% and I never said it did, I said the 
>>> gravitational potential energy drops by 50%, and that will happen if the 
>>> mass/energy of a gravitationally bound system drops by 50% even if g 
>>> remains constant. If yesterday I measured the mass/energy of a pendulum and 
>>> of the entire earth against an energy standard and I measure those things 
>>> again today against today's energy standard, and if the mass/energy of the 
>>> pendulum and the earth and today's energy standard have all decreased by 
>>> 50%, then I will get the same measured value that I got yesterday even if g 
>>> really is the same as it was yesterday.
>> *> If all mass were scaled down by the same factor the gravitational 
>> interactions, like orbits and pendulums, would seem unchanged.  But what 
>> about the natural frequency of spring-mass systems?  Halving the mass while 
>> the EM forces between molecules of the spring stay the same means the 
>> frequency will go up.   So must all interaction constants change to save 
>> the appearance?Brent*
> *If* the mass/energy at the end of the spring was reduced by 50% (and 
> thus its inertia also reduced by 50%), as it would if the universe had 
> split and energy is conserved, *then* the energy in the spring, and any 
> other form of energy, would also have to be reduced by 50%. So the spring 
> would move the same way it did before, and there would be no experimental 
> or observational way to determine that anything had changed. 
> Just as in the case of the gravitational constant g, the Coulomb electric 
> force constant in a vacuum ε0, and the magnetic constant μ0 (also called 
> the vacuum permeability of free space), would also produce the same value 
> today that it did yesterday when we find those numbers through experiment, 
> and for the same reason it did for the gravitational constant. The speed of 
> light c would be the same too because from Maxwell's Equations we know that 
> c = 1/√μ0εo. Thus physics textbooks would not have to be rewritten in any 
> universe.

You were answering Brent, not me, so so much for my alleged short term 
memory loss. I was asking a different question; namely, if the history book 
keeps shrinking in terms of energy on every split, won't the record of 
splits rapidly vanish? Moreover, that G will remain constant if the total 
energy decreases by 50% on a split if we apply Born's rule as Sean claims 
is consistent with the MWI, remains highly specululative IMO. It seems 
improbable. It seems that you have nothing more here than a handwaving 
argument. If m in f = ma, decreases by 50% on every single split, I'm 
pretty sure (but not certain) that planetary orbits would change, making 
life impossible on Earth. g might not change, but G likely will. And if G 
changes, the splits lose their identicality. AG

if it really supports what you claim. I also recall that Bruce, who's not a 
>> lightweight on this topic, strongly objected to Sean's claim, which is as I 
>> just posted; that there's no energy loss in the MWI; rather, energy already 
>> existing is split among the branches according to Born's rule. AG
>>> John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropol 
>>> <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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 

Reply via email to