Quote:
Originally Posted by Eratosthenes
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
 |
Your quote reminds of me of Benjamin Franklin's famous quote.
Quote:
|
“Tricks and treachery are the practice of fools that don't have brains enough to be honest.”
|
It is an exercise in word salad to create the impression of comprehension.
Its quite comical for you to invoke thermodynamics as a reason why energy cannot be lost because an effective argument as to why an expanding Universe does lose energy without going through the complications of GR is to use the first law of thermodynamics.
The first law states the energy change (dE) of a system is equal to the heat energy change minus the energy done by work on or by the system (-PdV).
dE = dQ -PdV
Where a system
is the observable Universe, heat energy is conserved hence dQ=0.
Ignoring the presence of dark energy, photon pressure (P) in the Universe is positive and given the Universe expands dV increases and is always positive.
Hence dE is negative and indicates energy is being lost.
Quote:
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). This break down does not occur if one expresses the energy conservation as a differential equation.
There are of course definitions of “energy” in GR that relate to a closed university – 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
|
Who are you trying to kid?
Given you are incapable of understanding the energy loss using a very simple thermodynamic argument, you are now trying to con your way by selectively cutting and pasting comments with some minor editing from this link.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...energy_gr.html
It is dishonest to cherry pick selected passages given in the article.
All you have done is to fish around for various sentences that might have some vague connections to your prejudices. Strange how you have ignored the references to static Universe.....
It illustrates the article is way beyond your comprehension
Quote:
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.
|
Cutting and pasting two of thirteen references from the link and "claiming" you are familiar with the works is highly suspicious.
Its up to you to show you are in fact familiar with Buchdahl and not just engaging in blatant lying.
There is no link I can find about Buchdahl's work, only a book is available.
Why don't you supply a scan of the book's cover since you have "obviously" read it.
. 
Well... that thread turned to sh!t... what have you started Gary? 
