I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule

  • 67 Replies
  • 2482 Views
*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11684
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #30 on: April 15, 2019, 05:57:23 AM »
Where did I ever say that "conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond"?
I explicitly offered no opinion on that for the simple reason that neither you nor I can answer that question authoritatively.
Ok, so you have absolutely nothing to offer relevant to the OP. Got it. Why are you still rambling about claims no one made?

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #31 on: April 15, 2019, 06:23:55 AM »
Rab, YOU brought up dark energy. And the OP WOULD be disproving cosmic inflation. And while I may have used the wrong term when referring to the present expansion, it applies to inflation, expansion, and I'm sure even more areas. So how long to you want to keep up this little charade?
Why would the "OP WOULD be disproving cosmic inflation"?
And yes, you used the wrong term but I can only read the words that you write not what you might be thinking - sorry about that!
You meant the expansion of the universe and Dark energy is not required to explain the expansion of the universe.

But how can even the "expansion of the universe", accelerating or not, be used to justify Universal Acceleration? No one has really explained that yet.
There is no logic in claiming that a small "force", not even sufficient to pull a star loose from a galaxy, can be the energy source of UA - make a new topic on it if you dare!

Gravity at the outer edge of the massive M87 galaxy is only about 2.5 x 10-11 g and the "expansion of the universe" doesn't drag that away.

And I brought up dark energy because that is in the Wiki as an energy source of UA!
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Gravity, UNIVERSAL ACCELERATION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Rather than a downward pull due to the presence of mass, the theory of Universal Acceleration asserts that the roughly disk-shaped Earth is accelerating 'upward' at a constant rate of 1g (9.8m/sec^2). This produces the effect commonly referred to as "gravity".

There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches. The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.

The Universal Accelerator is simply a hypothesis with no explainable source of the energy - ie magic.
The Dark Energy explanation claims that "Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy" which is false.
Modern astrophysics offers dark Energy (a place holder for "we don't know") as the driver of the accelerating expansion of the universe.

And that is why I "brought up dark energy".

Now I have to ask you, "how long do you want to keep up this charade?"

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12976
  • You keep using that word.
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2019, 11:27:31 AM »
Rab seriously WTF?? Inflation from the early universe depends on a violation of conservation of energy. Casimir Effect does as well. As does the current expanding if the universe. YOU asserted that they don't. Are you refusing to defend that?

Either the OP's premise is wrong, or it isn't. I asserted that the premise is wrong, and you took the opposing position. Are you standing by that?
Time remaining until MafiaBird nightfall:

Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #33 on: April 15, 2019, 01:46:05 PM »
Rab seriously WTF?? Inflation from the early universe depends on a violation of conservation of energy. Casimir Effect does as well. As does the current expanding if the universe.
How does it?
I was under the impression that the expansion of the universe relied upon dark energy, without violating the conservation of energy.
As for the Casimir effect, the energy from that comes from the placement of the plates. The plates don't just magically exist there.

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12976
  • You keep using that word.
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #34 on: April 15, 2019, 01:56:18 PM »
It's exacting energy from the vacuum, which is presumably what UA would hinge upon as well. And according to rab, we can't talk about dark energy.

The crux of this is that if the vacuum is allowed to have energy that can be extracted, then UA need not violate conservation of energy. The OP suggests otherwise it seems. Again, according to anyone believing in UA and basically all of mainstream science, there is energy inherent to spacetime (or whatever). It's the magnitude that they differ on. That's been my position for this entire thread.
Time remaining until MafiaBird nightfall:

*

sokarul

  • 16104
  • Discount Chemist
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #36 on: April 15, 2019, 02:50:02 PM »
The crux of this is that if the vacuum is allowed to have energy that can be extracted, then UA need not violate conservation of energy.
The question is what effect that extraction would have. Dark energy acts on all objects, so would not produce the results of UA. The Casimir effect acts in all directions and again would not produce the results of UA (and again, needs energy input to function, from the initial placement).

You need to have something to magically extract the energy to produce a highly selective UA.

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #37 on: April 15, 2019, 02:53:43 PM »
Rab seriously WTF?? Inflation from the early universe depends on a violation of conservation of energy. Casimir Effect does as well.
The "cosmic inflation" period may have violated "conservation of energy" but the "laws of physics", as we know them, didn't exist then.
In any case "conservation of energy" only applies locally where spacetime can be regarded as essentially flat and even there it should be "conservation of mass-energy".
On a cosmic scale that has no meaning and it is the Energy-Momentum Tensor that is conserved.

Does the "Casimir Effect" violate conservation of energy? And even if it does there is no suggestion that it can extract more than a minute amount and magnitude does matter.

Quote from: boydster
As does the current expanding of the universe. YOU asserted that they don't. Are you refusing to defend that?
No, the "current expanding universe" does not violate "conservation of energy" any more than the fragments of an explosion in space flying apart violate it.
What those fragments do will depend on there initial velocities and the gravitational forces between them.
In the same way the universe might contract, stay the same or expand depending on certain assumptions. How the Big Crunch Theory Works, Gravity vs. Expansion.

The "accelerating expansion of the universe" might violate "conservation of energy" and that is a matter currently being debated by cosmologists.
Some suggest that more space is created containing "vacuum energy" so generating energy etc etc - way way above my pay grade!

Quote from: boydster
Either the OP's premise is wrong, or it isn't. I asserted that the premise is wrong, and you took the opposing position. Are you standing by that?

My beef all along has been with your first post:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
Whether you meant "cosmic inflation" or "expansion of the universe" is not really relevant.
Neither "cosmic inflation" (now irrelevant) nor the "expansion of the universe" provide any support for UA.

The Wiki suggests that the driving force for UA is
Quote
Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.
But "dark energy" is not a part of the "expansion of the universe" so that reasoning is invalid.

"Dark Energy" is one hypothesis for the acceleration of the "expansion of the universe" but even its energy density is far too low to be a feasible source of the driving force.

But you and the flat earth "theorists" can claim anything that you like but don't try to rely on the hypotheses of modern cosmology relevant only thousands of light years away for justification.

Now let this be an end to this silly business.

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12976
  • You keep using that word.
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #38 on: April 15, 2019, 02:59:01 PM »
Again, rab is the only one here talking about dark energy.

UA would postulate that the acceleration is due to an inherent property of otherwise empty space.

Modern physics predicts that other known effects are due to inherent properties of otherwise empty space.

It seems some would argue that "empty" space can't have the ability to cause anything to happen; that it is just a stage that things happen upon. If we are accepting that the vacuum may actually participate in physics instead of being a passive part of the background, the OP's initial statement isn't really justified. It becomes... Drum roll please... A matter of magnitude. 
Time remaining until MafiaBird nightfall:

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12976
  • You keep using that word.
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #39 on: April 15, 2019, 03:02:44 PM »
Rab, expansion is not just things flying apart as they would after an explosion! If that were the case, the expansion would either be constant or, more likely, decelerating to the point of contraction and eventual "big crunch." But it's accelerating. So, yeah, that takes some kind of force that would otherwise be considered magic because it doesn't really fit into a neat box of well-understood physics.

It's the distance between points in space growing apart.
Time remaining until MafiaBird nightfall:

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #40 on: April 15, 2019, 03:50:59 PM »
Rab, expansion is not just things flying apart as they would after an explosion!
Come on it's only a rough analogy!

Quote from: boydster
If that were the case, the expansion would either be constant or, more likely, decelerating to the point of contraction and eventual "big crunch."
More or less, but why "more likely, decelerating to the point of contraction and eventual big crunch" - ever heard of escape velocity?
That depends entirely on the initial conditions and the "matter density" in the case of the universe and that "matter density" is not at all easy to estimate..

Quote from: boydster
But it's accelerating.
Even that is not cut and dried:
       Astronomy Now, The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate or is it?
       IFLSCIENCE, Why is the Universe Accelerating?
       SCIENCEalert, No, The Universe Is Not Expanding at an Accelerated Rate, Say Physicists

Quote from: boydster
So, yeah, that takes some kind of force that would otherwise be considered magic because it doesn't really fit into a neat box of well-understood physics.
"Yeah, that takes some kind of force" if it is even needed and even if it needed it's of such an incredibly low energy density that it wouldn't accelerate the earth at a measurable rate, let alone at g.

Scale and magnitude matter!

Quote from: boydster
It's the distance between points in space growing apart.

But postulate what you like but don't try to justify it be inappropriately appealing to modern science that Flat Earthers insist on ridiculing anyway.

Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #41 on: April 15, 2019, 03:51:48 PM »
UA would postulate that the acceleration is due to an inherent property of otherwise empty space.
But it isn't just empty space, or you would have the same effect in all directions and not get the results of UA.

But I do understand that it is a different argument to conservation of energy.

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12976
  • You keep using that word.
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2019, 11:47:37 AM »
UA would postulate that the acceleration is due to an inherent property of otherwise empty space.
But it isn't just empty space, or you would have the same effect in all directions and not get the results of UA.

But I do understand that it is a different argument to conservation of energy.
Thanks for at least not being as unwilling to entertain an alternative explanation as rab. The whole point of this site is to explore how FE would/could work. I mean, it's right in the name.

I'd further submit that your reply is predicated on an assumption about space behaving like pressure. But things get non-intuitive in QM and cosmology so it isn't necessarily axiomatic that space act in all directions equally. By way of example, time has an apparent arrow.

Rab, expansion is not just things flying apart as they would after an explosion!
Come on it's only a rough analogy!
I thought words had meanings. Didn't you say that, in this very thread? But when it suits you, I guess they don't? Am I supposed to assume the best interpretation of your words, when you refuse to offer that same level of ethical discussion?

And to be clear, you are still dismissing that the universe is currently expanding, has ever expanded in the past, and remain staunch in your position that there are no effects whatsoever that draw energy from the vacuum, and you are thereby placating the OP's position?

I mean, it's a bad place to plant your flag, but I want to make sure you intend to plant it there as your posts would indicate before I just come out and call you a RE troll like you present yourself as, because that would be presumptuous.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2019, 11:50:04 AM by boydster »
Time remaining until MafiaBird nightfall:

Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2019, 02:13:58 PM »
I'd further submit that your reply is predicated on an assumption about space behaving like pressure. But things get non-intuitive in QM and cosmology so it isn't necessarily axiomatic that space act in all directions equally. By way of example, time has an apparent arrow.
I would say being isotropic rather than pressure.
I think a better example than time's arrow is parity violation. An experiment and it's mirror image, which should produce the same results if parity is conserved, didn't. This shows that there is some underlying anisotropy or the like in the universe.

And you're welcome.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18598
  • Backstage
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2019, 11:56:06 PM »
UA model is not a part of flat earth theory. Some people believe it but they are as minority as 5-10 people in 100s of millions of flat earthers. The thing makes it famous that so called admin of this website believes it.

The earth is flat, and stationary.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #45 on: April 17, 2019, 02:43:49 AM »
UA model is not a part of flat earth theory.
Incorrect!

The UA model is the preferred "explanation" for gravity of this society and its effects are far closer to gravity that your "atmosphere push" ideas.
No fluid can push in a way that replicates the acceleration due to gravity.

Go and read the Wiki on Universal Acceleration. You are not the one who decides the "flat earth theory" of this society!

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 18598
  • Backstage
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #46 on: April 17, 2019, 12:34:30 PM »
UA model is not a part of flat earth theory.
Incorrect!

The UA model is the preferred "explanation" for gravity of this society and its effects are far closer to gravity that your "atmosphere push" ideas.
No fluid can push in a way that replicates the acceleration due to gravity.

Go and read the Wiki on Universal Acceleration. You are not the one who decides the "flat earth theory" of this society!

You are incorrect man!

I am talking about flat earth theory which agreed by majority of the flat earth believers in whole earth. UA model isn't a part of it. It represents only John Davis and his fans like you; but not me or other "real" flat earthers.

You are a part of this conspiracy and I respect your efort. But you have to agree that this project is either failed or has to be include the real movement.

UA model was not a part of flat earth theory.

UA model currently isn't a part of Flat earth theory.

UA model will not a part of flat earth theory in soon or far next.

UA model will be keep stay in your, John Davis'es and some his follower's dreams.

The earth is flat and stationary, even you and other controlled opposition claims, can not change the fact.
The moment you are closest to victory is the moment you are most desperate. Take note of wise with you, not with them.



http://www.unz.com/article/the-moon-landing

Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #47 on: April 17, 2019, 01:04:32 PM »
UA model was not a part of flat earth theory.
UA model currently isn't a part of Flat earth theory.
UA model will not a part of flat earth theory in soon or far next.
Well you are right here, but not for the reason you think. There is no flat Earth theory. There are a bunch of models which contradict each other and contradict reality.
As Earth is round, there will never be a flat Earth theory for UA to be a part of.

The earth is flat and stationary, even you and other controlled opposition claims, can not change the fact.
No, we can't change the fact. And that means we can't change Earth from being round to being flat, or stop its motion.
The fact is Earth is round and moving.
This fact has been firmly established by loads of evidence which is yet to be refuted.

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #48 on: April 17, 2019, 03:38:58 PM »
UA model is not a part of flat earth theory.
Incorrect!

The UA model is the preferred "explanation" for gravity of this society and its effects are far closer to gravity that your "atmosphere push" ideas.
No fluid can push in a way that replicates the acceleration due to gravity.

Go and read the Wiki on Universal Acceleration. You are not the one who decides the "flat earth theory" of this society!

You are incorrect man!

I am talking about flat earth theory which agreed by majority of the flat earth believers in whole earth. UA model isn't a part of it. It represents only John Davis and his fans like you; but not me or other "real" flat earthers.
You are posting on this site where Universal Acceleration is the accepted explanation for Gravity. If you want to spout your own silly ideas go and do it somewhere else!

Bye bye.

Of course, as JackBlack says, Universal Acceleration cannot be part of any "Flat Earth Theory" because there is no "Flat Earth Theory" only a "Flat Earth Hypothesis" with little supporting evidence!

If there was evidence supporting this "Flat Earth Hypothesis" you would present it, but you don't!

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40003
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #49 on: April 17, 2019, 04:06:30 PM »
UA is not the official position of this society.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #50 on: April 17, 2019, 05:06:51 PM »
UA is not the official position of this society.
Why then is it given such a prominent place in the Wiki and why do Ski, Boydster and others defend it so vigorously.
If I search the "Wiki" for "gravity" I get:
Quote
Gravity
In the Flat Earth model, 'gravity', rather than being a force, is the upward acceleration of the Earth. The Earth always accelerates upward at 1g, which is equivalent to the gravitational acceleration in the Round Earth model. . . . . . . .

Astrophysics
Universal Acceleration In the Universal Acceleration model, all the celestial bodies including the earth are being accelerated in one uniform direction at roughly 9.81 m/s^2. The proposed method of propulsion is Dark Energy.  . . . . . . .

Equivalence Principle
Commonly known as the stepping-stone to the development of General Relativity, the Equivalence Principle is a theory developed by Albert Einstein detailing the relationship between gravitational and inertial mass. Einstein posited  . . . . . . .

Davis Model
The Terra, or Earth, is an slab, as well as all large bodies such as stars and other planets. Aether Aether causes space to bend due to mass. In a way it is space itself. It is why the heavenly bodies rotate. Thought Experiment  . . . . . . .

Infinite Flat Earth
The infinite flat earth theory has been talked about by writers such as Samuel Rowbotham, Voliva and Shenton. It is a stationary geocentric earth model. Gravitational Theory Gravity is caused by mass and creates a finite pull.
The Wiki seemd to claim that gravity is due to UA or Newtonian Gravitation (Infinite Flat Earth Hypothesis) and few, least of all wise accept the latter.

Then the "FAQ" has this on gravity:
Quote
What Is Gravity?
Gravity as a theory is false. Objects simply fall.

In the flat earth community there are several theories as to why this happens. Some attempt to explain this with use of mechanics like electromagnetism, density, or pressure. Others make use of traditional mathematics, such as the infinite plane model, and others a new look at the problem - such as the non-euclidean model.

What is certain is sphere earth gravity is not tenable in any way shape or form.

Is The Earth Accelerating Upwards?
No. This is popular theory among some small groups to explain gravity, but it is problematic at best. The Earth Is Stationary. We are not whizzing about in space at 67,000 miles/hour or at speeds accelerating towards the speed of light.

Can you blame anyone for being a little confused?

"Flat Earth Evidence" seems to reduce to:
               "The earth looks flat therefore the earth must be flat" but
                 then everything else reduces to "Nobody knows but it might be so and so".

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 40003
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #51 on: April 17, 2019, 05:30:52 PM »
It is the accepted explanation for some FE. We don't dictate which model anyone follows, they're all welcome here.

Also, boydster is not defending UA, he is trying to get you to admit that the OP made a bad argument.
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12976
  • You keep using that word.
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #52 on: April 17, 2019, 05:35:12 PM »
I'm the last person to defend UA. There are so many reasons I think it fails. Some of which both Ski and I discussed a while ago, since you're bring into the conversation for some reason. But the OP did not raise a good objection to UA. Plain and simple.
Time remaining until MafiaBird nightfall:

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #53 on: April 17, 2019, 06:31:14 PM »
I'm the last person to defend UA. There are so many reasons I think it fails. Some of which both Ski and I discussed a while ago, since you're bring into the conversation for some reason. But the OP did not raise a good objection to UA. Plain and simple.
Why should he? He wrote:
Well simple consideration. Whole Earth is accelerating at g = 9.81 ms-2 but what does it make accelerate??? And where does it take the energy to give Earth so big kinetic energy?? It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule. So I think that because of this UA model cannot work.
And claims that "It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule."
I haven't seen anyone post any real answer to that.
I know the Wiki claims "Dark Energy" but the "Dark Energy" of modern cosmology simply does not have the characteristics needed to do that.

Nothing you have written suggests otherwise.

Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #54 on: April 18, 2019, 12:42:07 AM »
i'd have to agree with boyd on this one.
if the big bang can accellerate the universe why can't some magical UA keep accelerating?

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #55 on: April 18, 2019, 05:16:57 AM »
i'd have to agree with boyd on this one.
if the big bang can accellerate the universe why can't some magical UA keep accelerating?
The short answer is that the big bang did not accelerate the universe after the initial "cosmic inflation" stage.
Quote
The inflationary epoch lasted from 10-36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10-33 and 10-32 seconds after the singularity. Following the inflationary period, the universe continues to expand, but at a less rapid rate.
.
And FEers can postulate "some magical UA that keeps accelerating" if they so choose but they can't make it "look respectable" by incorrectly appealing to modern Cosmology.

And the long answer is
The accelerating phase of the "big bang" supposedly ended about 13.6 billion years ago when matter and even the laws of physics did not exist.

You and others might read, Universe 101, Our Universe, What is the Universe Made Of? which contains:
Quote
WMAP determined that the universe is flat, from which it follows that the mean energy density in the universe is equal to the critical density (within a 0.5% margin of error). This is equivalent to a mass density of 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter.

The expansion apparently started to accelerate some 7.5 billion years ago and something like "dark energy" was introduced as a "place-holder" for the, as yet unknown, cause of this accelerated expansion.
There are plenty of candidates for this, ranging from Einstein's (rejected) "cosmological constant" to "vacuum energy" but so far none quite fit.

Now, of course, flat earthers can postulate some "magical UA keep accelerating" but the Wiki claims that "dark energy" is the "driving force".
Quote
Gravity
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
There are two Universal Acceleration models. The first model deals with the Universal Accelerator, which sits underneath the Earth and accelerates anything it touches. The second model deals with Dark Energy, which accelerates all celestial bodies, including the Earth, in the universe. Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy.
The "Universal Accelerator" could be your "magic UA".
The "second model" claims that "Modern astrophysics accounts that the expansion of the universe is due to Dark Energy" and that is simply not correct.
In modern cosmology, the "expansion of the Universe" is simply the result of the "big bang" and has nothing to do with "dark energy"
"Dark energy" was only introduced as a "place holder" for the apparently accelerated expansion.

But the energy density of this "dark energy" is so incredibly small that it could not apply the energy needed to accelerate a dense object like the earth.
Just look at the "equivalent . . .  mass density of 9.9 x 10-30 g/cm3, which is equivalent to only 5.9 protons per cubic meter".

Here's a bit on the topic, Dark Energy, Dark Matter

So Flat earthers are free to postulate what they like.
But there is no justification in trying to make their hypotheses look "more respectable" by inappropriately appealing to modern Cosmology and the like.

*

boydster

  • Brute Squad Support
  • Planar Moderator
  • 12976
  • You keep using that word.
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #56 on: April 18, 2019, 10:52:13 AM »
So which periods of universal history are acceptable to invoke magic space energy for, rab? Asking for a friend.

Also wow, you are still clinging to present expansion being somehow related to an explosion. Expansion is accelerating right now, whether you like it or not. But that's probably all lamestream media fake news from the liberals right? Observations be damned. Those scientists are just conspiring against... Oh wait... This is starting to sound like something...
Time remaining until MafiaBird nightfall:

*

sokarul

  • 16104
  • Discount Chemist
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #57 on: April 18, 2019, 10:53:41 AM »
So which periods of universal history are acceptable to invoke magic space energy for, rab? Asking for a friend.

Also wow, you are too still be clinging to present expansion being somehow related to an explosion. Expansion is accelerating right now, whether you like it or not. But that's probably all lamestream media fake news from the liberals right? Observations be damned. Those scientists are just conspiring against... Oh wait... This is starting to sound like something...

What does currently accepted theory state?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

*

rabinoz

  • 22555
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #58 on: April 18, 2019, 03:18:21 PM »
So which periods of universal history are acceptable to invoke magic space energy for, rab? Asking for a friend.
Not the first 10-32 seconds after the singularity. That was the cosmic inflationary period.

Quote from: boydster
Also wow, you are still clinging to present expansion being somehow related to an explosion.
It may not have been an explosion, and not even big or a "bang" but the end result was to set the universe expanding but after the initial cosmic inflationary period it was not an accelerated expansion.
If there was nothing else, depending on the mass density, the Universe could have slowly collapsed back again, expanded to a limit or kept expanding but at a slowing rate.

Einstein originally thought that the Universe was in a steady-state (no "Big Bang") so he introduced his "cosmological constant".

But, according to modern Cosmology, the accelerated expansion started about 7.5 billion years ago.

Quote from: boydster
Expansion is accelerating right now, whether you like it or not. But that's probably all lamestream media fake news from the liberals right? Observations be damned. Those scientists are just conspiring against... Oh wait... This is starting to sound like something...
I never denied that!
What I claimed was that the energy density (usually expressed as mass/unit volume) of dark energy or whatever is needed to explain the accelerated expansion is far too low the have the slightest effect on a dense body like the earth.

Are you going to claim that the energy equivalent of about 5 protons/cubic metre might explain the massive energy density needed to cause Universal Acceleration?
Size matters!

If you have any meaningful comment on that I'd like to see it. And I'd like to see something relevant to the OP:
Well simple consideration. Whole Earth is accelerating at g = 9.81 ms-2 but what does it make accelerate??? And where does it take the energy to give Earth so big kinetic energy?? It cannot accelerate just itself because it would violate the Conservation of energy rule. So I think that because of this UA model cannot work.

But this reminds me of Jane's EAT where light is electromagnetic radiation, therefore, electromagnetic fields must bend light and Totallackey weighs in.
It ended with:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now as to neither electric nor magnetic fields not bending light:
Electric or magnetic fields only affect charges and the photon has no charge. Charges can cover "magnets" as well because they are only moving charges.
There are extremely small relativistic quantum effects of extremely strong electric and magnetic fields on photons but they are so small as to be negligible here.
Wait, now you are stating electrical fields and magnetic fields can alter light.
How can you determine it is negligible in this discussion?
Light itself is a known product of electrical and magnetic force.

Sorry, I think that alone nullifies your position.
Duh!
I'm sorry, but, once again, the size of an effect matters.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 16998
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2019, 04:19:56 AM »

I know the Wiki claims "Dark Energy" but the "Dark Energy" of modern cosmology simply does not have the characteristics needed to do that.


Then I guess our Black Energy is better than your Black Energy.





RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.