Bruce fails to comprehend the basics of thermodynamical principals and applies pseudo logical rationale to make a misinterpreted point concerning General Relativity....
and easy error to make, and often found in secondary school Physics classes
nevertheless it must be exposed as quackery in public in the name of science, truth, justice and the American way
Just because the equivalence of the integral form of “energy conservation” in relativistic FLAT SPACETIME breaks down when one tries to generalise it to curved spacetimes (ie General Relativity) doesnt imply that the laws of conservation of mass and energy have been violated. This break down does not occur if one expresses the energy conservation as a differential equation. (perhaps Bruce can explain that mathematical lunacy)
There are of course definitions of “energy” in GR that relates to a closed universe – a Hamiltonian – and this energy nicely and always works out to be ZERO.
In the end it depends on how one defines "energy" and how one defines "conservation" - even Bruce would understand and concede this elementary linguistic imperative
Definitions, definitions and assumptions…..we can all hide our ignorance and intellectual patheticness behind these…
a couple of excellent references for this sort of deranged Physics:
The renaissance of general relativity, in
The New Physics (ed. Paul Davies)
Clifford Will.
Seventeen Simple Lectures on General Relativity Theory Lecture 15
H. A. Buchdahl,
(derives the energy-loss formula for the binary star, and criticizes the derivation)
classic Buchdahl, demonstrates the derivation and then critically dismantles its very essence - pity there arent many Scientists in the world today like Buchdahl - we mostly have puppets and circus clowns - scientific priests that read from their religious and dogmatic scriptures whilst wearing their pathetic lab coats and collecting their corporately owned state pay cheques.