The fact that two of biggest ideas in modern physics are logically incompatible just goes to show that despite what modern physicists claim they don't give a damn about logically inconsistency.
Harry On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > Wow. TYVM > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 12:37 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Energy is not conserved >> >> >> http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/energy-is-not-conserved/ >> >> quote >> >> <<I like to think that, if I were not a professional cosmologist, I would >> still find it hard to believe that hundreds of cosmologists around the >> world have latched on to an idea that violates a bedrock principle of >> physics, simply because they “forgot” it. If the idea of dark energy were >> in conflict with some other much more fundamental principle, I suspect the >> theory would be a lot less popular. >> >> But many people have just this reaction. It’s clear that cosmologists >> have not done a very good job of spreading the word about something that’s >> been well-understood since at least the 1920′s: energy is not conserved in >> general relativity. (With caveats to be explained below.) >> >> The point is pretty simple: back when you thought energy was conserved, >> there was areason why you thought that, namely time-translation invariance. >> A fancy way of saying “the background on which particles and forces evolve, >> as well as the dynamical rules governing their motions, are fixed, not >> changing with time.” But in general relativity that’s simply no longer >> true. Einstein tells us that space and time are dynamical, and in >> particular that they can evolve with time. *When the space through which >> particles move is changing, the total energy of those particles is not >> conserved*. >> >> >> >> Harry >> > >
