Does space bend In a pure vacuum ?
- Thread starter river
- Start date
- Status
Here and in later posts you and another poster are quite dogmatic on what amounts to the zero energy universe school of thought.
Then please point to exactly why Sean Carroll gets it 'totally wrong' here:
http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/
That contentious issue has been rehashed countless times at SF, but the lesson never sinks in for some.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
I am not purporting that.
I never suggested Sean Carroll gets anything wrong, let alone totally.
Maybe you should take this up with whomever you've been discussing it.
Yes you are. Same clear assertion in posts 54, 63, 72, 77. Evidently ignorant that zero energy universe is the only arguably self-consistent formulation that allows a time invariant total energy (0) for universe. Link to a credible source(s) showing otherwise. I say you won't be able to.
BS. You know very well it's his argument re 'energy of universe', flatly at odds with your position, that's the focus. Not the person who presented it. Stop futile deflecting to cover your backside.
I have, right here. You're in denial.
This is the third time I've caught you out spewing error this thread, with either no response (twice), or lying by deflection (here). Bad form.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
There is no hint of any reference to zero energy universe in anything I posted. I am merely addressing River's questions about the Big Bang.
I've never even heard of the guy.
Please, figure out who you're talking to. It's not me.
The reason you don't hear from me is because, as someone who has repeatedly shown they cannot behave like a grown up in civil discourse, you are on ignore. Any points you might have are lost because you have lost the privilege of my ear due to trollish behavior.
This is an example. You are inferring all sorts of things that literally have nothing to do with me. Er - get help?
Pathetic, and so predictable. Sigh.
Explain to me how an explosion loses energy.
Where does the lost energy go?
Why don't you explain why Sean Carroll gets it right, and the exact source of the problem you're trying to point out?
Can't follow my perfectly clear critique(s) of your loyal sidekick? I think rather you're just coming in to do some quid pro quo batting for him. It's what UFO debunker club members do for each other isn't it? Sean Carroll does a good job in that article I linked to - no need to regurgitate here. Insincerity abounds at SF and it gives me an unwanted bowel motion every so often.
I must have missed the perfectly clear critique. Oh well, never mind, if you have nothing to add.
(Sidekick?)
A fine job of what? That's the question I asked you.
That article title is almost sufficient of itself! In another thread you just suggested someone there was trolling. What imo you are in fact doing here.
Genuinely non compos mentis I severely doubt.
Okay, so lacking any assistance from you on whatever the point was that you were trying to make, I went off and read the article from Sean Carroll.
Having read it, I'm still no wiser as to what your objection was to DaveC's post.
But never mind. I'm sure you thought you had a good objection, whatever it was. I guess that's all that matters, if it keeps you happy.
I make an evidently wrong assumption when you post in a given thread, that you have read the relevant intervening posts there since you last looked.
OK, just one post of mine - #84 surely was already perused. Assuming so you had all the info/leads supplied there to understand perfectly well the main point of contention.
Okay. I'm going to take a guess. You're upset with Dave because you think that he is claiming that the energy of the universe is constant as it expands, whereas you say it increases over time. Is that it?
But Sean Carroll says in the article you linked that either view is acceptable. It just depends on whether you're counting the "gravitational potential energy" in your energy tally.
You refer to the "zero energy universe" in your objection. I can't tell whether you support that idea or reject it from what you've written. I'm going to guess that you reject it. I suppose that's because you don't want to count gravitational potential energy.
So, how did I go summarising your position? Did I guess right? Or do you want me to keep guessing?
In those posts I listed in #84, absolute pronouncements are made as to overall energy being conserved. Moreover, a non-zero amount is assumed, in accord with the 'tin of paint' analogy. It was done from ignorance of the situation in cosmologist/GR community.
Which is split into opposing camps. Sean Carroll btw ends that article with
"Energy isn’t conserved; it changes because spacetime does. See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?"
No ambiguity there. He made it clear the 'zero net energy' position 'was not very helpful' i.e. a delicate way of saying it was crap.
He's far from the only one championing that pov. Lubos Motl and Sascha Vongher are two others:
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/why-and-how-energy-is-not-conserved-in.html
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/dont_stop_presses_energy_conservation_law_questioned-71641
The other camp, that total energy is always conserved, has only one self-consistent version - zero energy universe. Lawrence Krauss and Philip Gibbs for instance:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books/review/a-universe-from-nothing-by-lawrence-m-krauss.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9701028
I consider the former camp more convincing, but currently have no hard and fast position.
The main lesson that should be learnt is to 'read widely' on such matters. Be aware of the overall scene, and not pretend to know more than you do.
Everywhere in space .
Until there is complete stillness in the entire Universe . Because the energy cools to zero movement ; by expansions very Nature .
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
So it's distributed in a larger volume.
Like painting a floor.
Tell me, if you paint the floor with a thin enough coat, does the paint actually disappear?
It loses colour , ( it fades ) loses energy .
- Status