On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 10:09 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:
> On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 6:03:51 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>> On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 12:42:03 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson
>>> wrote:
>>>
Thinking further about this, I
On Thursday, May 14, 2020 at 6:03:51 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 12:42:03 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Thinking further about this, I prefer my original hypothesis above, that
>>> the cosmologica
On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 12:42:03 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
>>
>> Thinking further about this, I prefer my original hypothesis above, that
>> the cosmological red-shift doesn't imply real loss of energy. It's just an
>> apparent effect
On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 12:42:03 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
>>
>> Thinking further about this, I prefer my original hypothesis above, that
>> the cosmological red-shift doesn't imply real loss of energy. It's just an
>> apparent effect
On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 6:45:12 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 10:51:09 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 10:51:09 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > *Haven't
On Monday, May 11, 2020 at 12:42:03 AM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
>>
>> Thinking further about this, I prefer my original hypothesis above, that
>> the cosmological red-shift doesn't imply real loss of energy. It's just an
>> apparent effect
On Mon, May 11, 2020 at 4:24 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
> Thinking further about this, I prefer my original hypothesis above, that
> the cosmological red-shift doesn't imply real loss of energy. It's just an
> apparent effect due to relative motion, the usual Doppler shift. AG
>
The cosmologist T
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 11:51:59 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > *Haven't
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 2:27:51 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
>> wrote:
>>
>> > *Haven't you heard? Energy has mass equivalence, so one can ask how
>>> the energy/mass
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 9:59:14 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> > *Haven't you heard? Energy has mass equivalence, so one can ask how
>> the energy/mass "vanished". AG*
>>
>
> And the answer you imbecile is that on the cosmological sc
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:59:14 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> > *Haven't you heard? Energy has mass equivalence, so one can ask how
>> the energy/mass "vanished". AG*
>>
>
> And the answer you imbecile is that on the cosmological
On 10-05-2020 16:46, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:40:29 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:30 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:
___All our experience indicates that energy is conserved,_
Your knowledge is 91 years out of date, all our experience does NOT
indica
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:46 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:
> *Haven't you heard? Energy has mass equivalence, so one can ask how the
> energy/mass "vanished". AG*
>
And the answer you imbecile is that on the cosmological scale energy/mass
is *NOT* conserved, so just like everything else that is *NOT*
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 8:40:29 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:30 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> > *All our experience indicates that energy is conserved,*
>
>
> Your knowledge is 91 years out of date, all our experience does *NOT*
> indicate energy is conserved. Ed
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 10:30 AM Alan Grayson
wrote:
> *All our experience indicates that energy is conserved,*
Your knowledge is 91 years out of date, all our experience does *NOT*
indicate energy is conserved. Edwin Hubble discovered the cosmological
redshift in 1929.
John K Clark
--
You r
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 6:56:35 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 7:42 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> > Of course, if I ask the question, it implies conservation of energy.
>
>
> Then why do you imply conservation of energy when we specifically said
> energy is not conse
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 6:56:35 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 7:42 AM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
> > Of course, if I ask the question, it implies conservation of energy.
>
>
> Then why do you imply conservation of energy when we specifically said
> energy is not conse
On Sun, May 10, 2020 at 7:42 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
> Of course, if I ask the question, it implies conservation of energy.
Then why do you imply conservation of energy when we specifically said
energy is not conserved? Nobody thinks Entropy is conserved so it would be
silly to ask where it came
gt; > there is then no general symmetry rule for energy conservation.
>
> General Relativity and Noether's theorem were both found in 1916, and so
> physicists knew that there was not a law of conservation of energy, so they
> must have known the distant past and distant future
On Sunday, May 10, 2020 at 4:54:12 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 10:31 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:
>
>
>> *> Now, assuming energy is not conserved, it's still a reasonable
>> question about where the lost energy goes,*
>>
>
> No, that is NOT a reasonable question, that is
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 10:31 PM Alan Grayson wrote:
> *> Now, assuming energy is not conserved, it's still a reasonable question
> about where the lost energy goes,*
>
No, that is NOT a reasonable question, that is not even close to being a
reasonable question! If the lost energy actually went
local translations of vectors
>>> etc, there is then no general symmetry rule for energy conservation.
>>
>>
>> General Relativity and Noether's theorem were both found in 1916, and so
>> physicists knew that there was not a law of conservation of energy,
servation.
>
>
> General Relativity and Noether's theorem were both found in 1916, and so
> physicists knew that there was not a law of conservation of energy, so they
> must have known the distant past and distant future must be very different
> from how things are now. So why didn
On Sat, May 9, 2020 at 7:49 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> since GR is a local principle, based on local translations of vectors
> etc, there is then no general symmetry rule for energy conservation.
General Relativity and Noether's theorem w
26 matches
Mail list logo