@Alan. So you mean the theories that people invent are true ? How come ? What guarantees their truthfulness ?
On Sunday, 5 January 2025 at 23:29:51 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: > On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 2:25:42 PM UTC-7 Cosmin Visan wrote: > > @Alan you wouldn't ask such question if you would understand that energy > doesn't exist. "Energy" is just an idea in consciousness. All these > theories that people create are just random guesses. They work until they > don't. Wondering where the energy goes and so on is pointless, for the > trivial reason that you go beyond what that guess covered and you are back > to square 1 of making another guess. > > > *You're a stupid prick. AG * > > > On Sunday, 5 January 2025 at 23:03:50 UTC+2 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 2:00:46 PM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote: > > On Sunday, January 5, 2025 at 1:49:59 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 5, 2025 at 2:45 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > *> his answer to energy requirements for these new worlds seems weak, that > energy is somehow globally conserved while the energy in particular > branches can decrease,* > > > *It doesn't matter if Many Worlds is correct or not, we've known for a > century that in an expanding universe, like the one we live in, energy is > NOT conserved at the cosmological scale; photons of light gets stretched to > the red end of the spectrum and red photons have less energy than blue > photons. In fact, unlike classical physics or even special relativity, the > very concept of conservation of energy is not rigorously defined in General > Relativity. GR does have something called the "stress-energy > tensor" that includes contributions from all non-gravitational fields and > matter, but gravity is not included. If you're interested Sean Carroll > goes into much more detail here: * > > *Energy Is Not Conserved* > <https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/> > > * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > > How could gravity be included as if it's something different from > curvature of spacetime, which is caused by stress-energy tensor? I'm pretty > sure Carroll said energy is conserved in the MWI, making it superior to the > Copenhagan interpretations. AG > > > If photons are losing energy as the universe expands, where does the lost > energy go? AG > > -- 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/e831c345-443b-43a2-a7f8-ea7a8051390an%40googlegroups.com.
