On Sun, Aug 24, 2025 at 9:43 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
> *>>> One of my axioms is that Something cannot transform into Nothing, and > Nothing cannot transform into Something. Do you find this axiom completely > ridiculous* > > > *>> It's not ridiculous, it's just unnecessary because experimental > results can be explained without it, and General Relativity would need a > complete overhaul because as it is now "conservation of energy" doesn't > have a unique meaning because energy doesn't have a unique meaning in GR. > And you don't fix something if it's not broken, and as of today there is no > evidence that General Relativity is broken. * > > > *> It is broken, or let's say incomplete. When energy is lost in the > context of red shifting, it can't explain where the energy went (or came > from in the case of blue shifting), other than to rely on de facto magic.* > *General Relativity does NOT need to explain where the energy went because General Relativity says there's no such thing as a LAW of conservation of energy, it's not a LAW it's only an approximation that is pretty good for small volumes of space, like the size of a galaxy, but when you get to volumes much larger than that the approximation becomes lousy. You however DO need to explain where the energy went because you claim there is a law of conservation of energy and that law is sacred, and yet you are unable to do so. Your proposed new axiom not only can't help in answering any previously unanswered questions, it creates new questions that you don't have answers to. * * > It seems to me (ISTM) you've calculated and got the answers you want > (predicted by GR),* > *Not quite. We've made calculations using General Relativity to make predictions, and observations have confirmed those predictions; hell it even correctly predicted what the complicated waveform gravitational waves would have when two black holes collide, and it even enabled us to determine what the mass and the spin of those two black holes were. And General Relativity also predicted that space was expanding so photons would lose significant amounts of energy if they travel over cosmological distances. * *> What I don't get is why increasing entropy is necessary, or even related > to the arrow of time. AG * > *If you saw a film of somebody scrambling an egg, could you tell if that film was being run forward or backwards? Of course you could because a scrambled egg has a much higher entropy than an unscrambled egg. And the arrow of time is why watching a scrambled egg become unscrambled looks ridiculous even though both the forwards and backwards versions obey all the laws of classical, quantum, and relativistic physics. * * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 4vv -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3QUO8eApzHXjhWGdm4vZZWrkVF0a1d0_WK-HMKt%3DtitQ%40mail.gmail.com.
