I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule

  • 67 Replies
  • 1331 Views
*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11280
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2019, 05:26:09 AM »
The relevant answer to the OP would be that the force accelerating the Earth in the UA model is an inherent property of the universe. Not unlike the orthodox model in concept, but different in magnitude. Have you not read a single post?
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

rabinoz

  • 19895
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2019, 05:38:59 AM »
The relevant answer to the OP would be that the force accelerating the Earth in the UA model is an inherent property of the universe. Not unlike the orthodox model in concept, but different in magnitude. Have you not read a single post?
I've read every post and I agree "different in magnitude" but by a factor of something like 8.5 x 1022 and that is what I've been trying to get you to see all along.

You can't simply say it's a similar effect, therefore, it can be used to "explain" UA size matters.

It's far worse that, some flat earthers claim that refraction in air bends light (sure, but normally by no more than 0.5) therefore refraction in the air explains sunsets.

*

rabinoz

  • 19895
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2019, 05:47:31 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.
I guess I'll have to concede to your vastly superior Black Energy.

If my sums (and rough ideas) are anywhere within cooee of the right answer, your Black Energy is about 85,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times better than our dark energy.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11280
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2019, 05:55:09 AM »
Rab refraction has nothing to do with this, stop trying to introduce more things to muddy the waters. The simple fact remains that spacetime does seem to be non-inert, so to speak, and anyone subscribing to UA is probably going to suspect that the force causing acceleration is a natural property of the universe. They aren't appealing to magic. They are appealing to a perfectly possible mechanism. Namely, that "nothingness" can affect matter.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

rabinoz

  • 19895
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #64 on: April 19, 2019, 06:06:23 AM »
Rab refraction has nothing to do with this, stop trying to introduce more things to muddy the waters.
I used "refraction" simply as another example of where flat earthers grossly exaggerate some effect and claim that it explains something.

Quote from: boydster
The simple fact remains that spacetime does seem to be non-inert, so to speak, and anyone subscribing to UA is probably going to suspect that the force causing acceleration is a natural property of the universe. They aren't appealing to magic. They are appealing to a perfectly possible mechanism. Namely, that "nothingness" can affect matter.

But they cannot legitimately claim any support from modern Cosmology or physics to support that because there is no effect anywhere near the energy density needed.

I'm sticking to that position until you can do better than wave your hands around and claim things like "dark energy" is an unexplained "energy" therefore it explains the energy to drive UA - it does notl!

I'm off to bed far too late.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11280
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #65 on: April 19, 2019, 11:11:51 AM »
Neato. So you are claiming the cosmology ad-hoc way of explaining things is only fair when like-minded folks appeal to it. Cool.

"Galaxies spin too fast. I know! Magic!! But let's give it a name."

Just to be clear, that explanation above is ok with you, because it suits your worldview that you very loudly and aggressively advocate for hours upon hours every day on a Flat Earth website. Right? Or so you see the hypocrisy? Because cosmologists understand why it's a little contrived. But you seem resistant to that.

And further, you stepped in to defend the OP, remember, and how UA violates conservation of energy but other known phenomena in physics don't? Do you remember that?
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.

*

rabinoz

  • 19895
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #66 on: April 19, 2019, 02:39:47 PM »
Neato. So you are claiming the cosmology ad-hoc way of explaining things is only fair when like-minded folks appeal to it. Cool.
There's no "ad-hoc way of explaining things" just an admission that not everything is yet known.

Quote from: boydster
"Galaxies spin too fast. I know! Magic!! But let's give it a name."
No, just an admission that not everything is yet known.
"Dark Matter" is a place holder type name so that Cosmologists don't have to say "that unknown extra gravitation that makes some Galaxies seem to rotate too fast".

Quote from: boydster
Just to be clear, that explanation above is ok with you, because it suits your worldview that you very loudly and aggressively advocate for hours upon hours every day on a Flat Earth website. Right?
Don't you claim to know what I think or what is OK with me!

You and this stupid "because it suits your worldview" idea! The "shape os the earth" has nothing to do with any "world view"!

But (too) much of my time is spent with pseudo-flat earthers like yourself and a little time back with a geocentrist who used to be a flat earther and convinced himself otherwise.

Quote from: boydster
Or so you see the hypocrisy? Because cosmologists understand why it's a little contrived. But you seem resistant to that.
What hypocrisy?

I don't see cosmologists claiming it's a little contrived. All I see is them accepting that not all is known about the Universe and it has never been any other way.
The shape of the Earth has been  "settled science" for many centuries and the solar system and local region is close enough to "settled science" though, of course, there's much more to learn even on Earth.
You talk about hypocrisy?
 I think it hypocrisy to ridicule just about every aspect of modern Cosmology as John Davis and most flat earthers seem to and then claim support from modern Cosmology for bits of Flat Earth "Theory".

But what I'm asserting it's inappropriate for you to claim that there is anything in modern Cosmology that remotely supports the energy required to explain the UA.
Besides no flat earther would have a bar of modern Cosmology!

Quote from: boydster
And further, you stepped in to defend the OP, remember, and how UA violates conservation of energy but other known phenomena in physics don't? Do you remember that?
No, I stepped in to claim that your first post was quite incorrect in a couple of ways.
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
  • "Cosmic inflation" was over some 13.6 billion years ago to which you replied:
    Are you now suggesting that accelerating inflation isn't happening right at this very moment?
    But I never said anything of the kind. Any current "accelerating inflation" is not what Cosmologists call "cosmic inflation".

  • And even if you meant "accelerating inflation", as I've vainly tried to get over, the energy density to explain that is a factor of something like 8.5 x 1022 less than that needed to cause earth to accelerate at g.

Look, "dark energy" and the theories and hypotheses about modern Cosmology are based almost entirely on Einstein's General Relativity which is a "Theory of Gravitation" and apart from some nebulous "celestial gravitation" few flat earthers accept gravitation in any shape or form.

"Dark Matter" is nothing more than "Unexplained Gravitation" that is mainly around most Galaxies'
"Dark Energy" can be looked on as  "Unexplained Negative Gravitation" and is spread through the whole Universe but its effects are not significant because its density is so minute.
That "Unexplained Negative Gravitation" possibility is one of the avenues under investigation as the cause of what is called "Dark Energy" - go ask a Cosmologist or read:
          Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 1: In voids)  by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org
          Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 2: In the quantum vacuum) by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org

This whole "Dark Matter, Dark Energy" question is one of gravitation, in other words, General Relativity, but you flat earth supporters seem so adept at cherry-picking little bits that prop up your hypotheses and rejecting the rest.

But, I give up! Have it your way and hypothesise what you like but it doesn't make the idea of a flat earth any more plausible.
 

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11280
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #67 on: April 20, 2019, 08:39:18 AM »
It is literally ad-hoc. I don't understand how you can say the things you say and seemingly be as serious as you are.

And you are bringing up energy density as if it's something you can just stick a probe out into space and measure. The number you are quoting is derived from the current model of the universe. In a UA universe, it would obviously be different.
Let me explain this in a way you can understand. What you just wrote sounds exactly like something that a gay rights Portuguese Samurai would write.