I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule

  • 67 Replies
  • 1920 Views
?

non-flatearther

  • 60
  • rational crtical thinking
I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« on: April 12, 2019, 10:20:06 AM »
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.
Before you can talk to me learn physics.

*

Bullwinkle

  • Flat Earth Curator
  • 15986
  • "Umm, WTF ???"
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #1 on: April 12, 2019, 06:46:00 PM »
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this.
What is the Conservation of energy rule?
RE can never win this argument.
FE can't be disproved.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11675
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #2 on: April 12, 2019, 07:08:06 PM »
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this.
What is the Conservation of energy rule?
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
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

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #3 on: April 13, 2019, 04:19:13 AM »
You have obviously put a lot of thought into this.
What is the Conservation of energy rule?
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
There is a massive difference here.
I assume that you are referring to the dark energy hypothesis which is only relevant almost 30 million light years from earth so when it comes to the flat vs Globe question, who cares?
But the flat earth UA hypothesis is needed in an attempt to explain away the need for gravity right here on earth and it very relevant to the here and now.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11675
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #4 on: April 13, 2019, 05:24:38 AM »
There's really not a massive difference. It's energy that is inherent to space. If someone is about to prove that such a thing can't exist, guess what that does for inflation?

How about just the vacuum zero point energy, rab? That's not 30 million light years away. Is it ok of we talk about how the Casimir Effect demonstrates that you can extract energy from quite literally empty space?

Or is it ok just for once to admit that the OP's premise is flawed, even though you think you are on the same team?
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

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #5 on: April 13, 2019, 05:51:24 AM »
There's really not a massive difference. It's energy that is inherent to space. If someone is about to prove that such a thing can't exist, guess what that does for inflation?

How about just the vacuum zero point energy, rab? That's not 30 million light years away. Is it ok of we talk about how the Casimir Effect demonstrates that you can extract energy from quite literally empty space?
It's funny how any old hypothesis will do to explain things away on the flat earth.
Sure "the Casimir Effect demonstrates that you can extract" tiny amounts of "energy from quite literally empty space" and what power is needed to accelerate the earth again?

Quote from: boydster
Or is it ok just for once to admit that the OP's premise is flawed, even though you think you are on the same team?
Why admit that they are flawed if they are not flawed? Where have you proven that it is flawed? All you've done is posted hypotheses.

And why can't you admit that the whole idea of a flat earth is completely flawed?
I could give a list of reasons why the real earth cannot be flat but I'll refrain because you'll claim that they were "off-topic".

So what about you simply answering 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.

?

non-flatearther

  • 60
  • rational crtical thinking
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #6 on: April 13, 2019, 06:25:14 AM »
I just have to quickly apologize - it is law not rule :D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
And this is the LAW i was talking about :) And also the main uestion is how does Earth accelerate and where does it take energy from.

« Last Edit: April 13, 2019, 06:31:37 AM by non-flatearther »
Before you can talk to me learn physics.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11675
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #7 on: April 13, 2019, 06:49:57 AM »
Why admit that they are flawed if they are not flawed? Where have you proven that it is flawed?
Mankind's current understanding of the cosmos demonstrates that the OP is flawed, because there is apparently a certain amount of energy that can make things like cosmic inflation work, and the Casimir Effect - things that violate the conversation of energy. You want to argue about the magnitude of this force. The OP suggests it can't even exist to begin with. Do you see the difference? You don't have to ass-pat every Round Earther that shows up and hamfists his keyboard.

Quote
And why can't you admit that the whole idea of a flat earth is completely flawed?
Go look at my post history. Not that it's relevant, because we're talking about whether space can accelerate something. Can it move matter? Can the vacuum exert a force? The OP says it can't. Do you agree? Because quantum physicists and astrophysicists alike seem to think the OP may be wrong, and they study how the universe behaves on the smallest and largest scales respectively.

Quote
So what about you simply answering 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.

It was baked into the statement that he'd also be disproving inflation. Energy can be an inherent property of space. It's understood to be true today. The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.
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

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #8 on: April 13, 2019, 10:29:40 PM »
So what about you simply answering 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.

It was baked into the statement that he'd also be disproving inflation. Energy can be an inherent property of space. It's understood to be true today. The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.
Let's look at your first post:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
For a start, what do you mean by "disprove cosmic inflation".
Are you seriously claiming that some hypothesis about the first 10−33 to 10−32 seconds after the "non-Big non-Bang" has any relevance to what is happening on the flat earth right now?

UA demands some source of acceleration equal to g and there is nothing in of these any modern theories (other than gravitation) that approaches that.
You say "The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about." Of course it is!

Gravity on the edge of one of the most massive galaxies, Messier 87 (that one) is a factor of about 1/(4 x 1010) less than g.
And dark energy (in case you suggest that) competes with far weaker fields than that.

All the other guesses you make are likewise exceedingly small. So, again the magnitude is important.
You claim is no better than flat earthers claiming that air refracts light, therefore refraction can explain sunsets on the flat earth ::).
Or getting "more (pseudo-)scientific", the atmosphere contains water (as vapour but they ignore that bit).
Water refracts light quite a lot, therefore the refraction of the water can explain sunsets on the flat earth ::).


So, yes the magnitude (and direction) here is vitally important.

From what I have seen one of the reasons many flat earthers insist that the earth must be flat is to avoid the "necessity" of believing in the "Big Bang".
That reasoning is totally false as is easily demonstrated.

But carry on if you must.


*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11675
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2019, 06:40:04 AM »
Are you now suggesting that accelerating inflation isn't happening right at this very moment?
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.

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11675
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2019, 06:47:54 AM »
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?

Let's refocus. Either the OP thinks there can be no violation of conservation of energy, in which case not only is UA broken but so is an inflationary universe, OR the OP selectively believes in the brand of energy conservation violation that he was taught in school while mindlessly dismissing the version that doesn't agree with his worldview. Neither of those is ideal. Yet you are here to twist yourself in knots to try and defend it. I'm pretty sure you know perfectly well that the rate distant objects are accelerating away from us in the universe is increasing. Yet you tried to paint my statement as if it was referring only to inflation from almost 14 billion years ago? Seems a bit dishonest.
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

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2019, 01:54:20 PM »
Are you now suggesting that accelerating inflation isn't happening right at this very moment?
Yes.
Quote
In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe.
Words matter but I expect that you mean simply what is termed the accelerating expansion of the universe.
Quote
The accelerating expansion of the universe is the observation that the expansion of the universe is such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time.
And no expansion, let alone accelerating expansion of the universe, is taking place within some 5 million light years of here.
So the expansion of the universe can be of no assistance to UA even if you could convince flat earthers of the reality of anything astronomers observe.

Even if the expansion were taking place within the solar, with the current Hubble constant being about 70 kilometres per second per megaparsec, Pluto would be receding from us at the rate of about 0.013   mm/sec or 0.00005 m/hr.
And numbers matter.

If you think any of that explains the "force" driving UA be my guest.

*

Legolas

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11087
  • What do my elf eyes see?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2019, 01:58:32 PM »
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?
He's about to point out that the rate of expansion within the RE Solar System is practically zero, despite the fact the properties of the RE Solar System specfically have no relevance here and that he accepts the force can indeed exist so it's a moot point regardless. I've been on this ride before, get off before it's too late and save yourself from the insanity.

*

Lonegranger

  • 3871
  • Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes Turn and face the strange
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2019, 02:26:51 PM »
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?
He's about to point out that the rate of expansion within the RE Solar System is practically zero, despite the fact the properties of the RE Solar System specfically have no relevance here and that he accepts the force can indeed exist so it's a moot point regardless. I've been on this ride before, get off before it's too late and save yourself from the insanity.

What source do you obtain your so called facts from? How on earth can you decide what is and what’s not relevant?
Zen and the art of turd polishing.

*

Lonegranger

  • 3871
  • Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes Turn and face the strange
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2019, 02:33:37 PM »
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?
He's about to point out that the rate of expansion within the RE Solar System is practically zero, despite the fact the properties of the RE Solar System specfically have no relevance here and that he accepts the force can indeed exist so it's a moot point regardless. I've been on this ride before, get off before it's too late and save yourself from the insanity.

How do you know what the rate of expansion is or if it exists? Please explain how were you able to determine its value?
Zen and the art of turd polishing.

*

Legolas

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11087
  • What do my elf eyes see?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2019, 02:37:08 PM »
What source do you obtain your so called facts from? How on earth can you decide what is and what’s not relevant?
Basic logic generally works. Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general.

How do you know what the rate of expansion is or if it exists? Please explain how were you able to determine its value?
Mankind's current understanding of the cosmos demonstrates that the OP is flawed, because there is apparently a certain amount of energy that can make things like cosmic inflation work, and the Casimir Effect - things that violate the conversation of energy. You want to argue about the magnitude of this force. The OP suggests it can't even exist to begin with. Do you see the difference? You don't have to ass-pat every Round Earther that shows up and hamfists his keyboard.
...The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.

*

rabinoz

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2019, 02:46:43 PM »
I'm beside myself. You really will take the side of any silly, terrible argument as long as the poster appears to be on your team, huh rab?
He's about to point out that the rate of expansion within the RE Solar System is practically zero, despite the fact the properties of the RE Solar System specfically have no relevance here and that he accepts the force can indeed exist so it's a moot point regardless. I've been on this ride before, get off before it's too late and save yourself from the insanity.
Please learn to read before you dive in and make a bigger fool of yourself. This all started with:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
But in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
So Boydster's "Cosmic Inflation" likewise had no relevance.

It would seem, however, that it's far too late for you to "save yourself from the insanity".

All along I have been trying to point out the utter hypocrisy of taking a bit of "modern science", that is often quite inapplicable, and using it to explain some massive flat earth fallacy.

And even using the "expansion of the universe", which is completely non-existent even within our whole local group, to explain the enormous force needed to drive UA is ridiculous in the extreme.

You might be more believable if you simply claimed it was magic.

Then:
What source do you obtain your so called facts from? How on earth can you decide what is and what’s not relevant?
Basic logic generally works. Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general.
Pray tell how "basic logic" leads you to decide "Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general" when cosmologists specifically state that it does not?

Exactly what are your qualifications in cosmology again ::)?

*

Legolas

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11087
  • What do my elf eyes see?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2019, 03:03:52 PM »
But in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
So, semantics.

Quote
And even using the "expansion of the universe", which is completely non-existent even within our whole local group, to explain the enormous force needed to drive UA is ridiculous in the extreme.
So, ignoring the actual contents of what Boydster said. Reminder:
Mankind's current understanding of the cosmos demonstrates that the OP is flawed, because there is apparently a certain amount of energy that can make things like cosmic inflation work, and the Casimir Effect - things that violate the conversation of energy. You want to argue about the magnitude of this force. The OP suggests it can't even exist to begin with. Do you see the difference? You don't have to ass-pat every Round Earther that shows up and hamfists his keyboard.
...The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.

Quote
Pray tell how "basic logic" leads you to decide "Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general" when cosmologists specifically state that it does not?
Is that supposed to make sense?

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11675
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2019, 03:05:58 PM »
Rab you are so incredibly pedantic.
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

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2019, 03:47:26 PM »
But in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
So, semantics.
Of course! Words have meanings and "in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".

Quote from: Jane
Quote
And even using the "expansion of the universe", which is completely non-existent even within our whole local group, to explain the enormous force needed to drive UA is ridiculous in the extreme.
So, ignoring the actual contents of what Boydster said. Reminder:
Mankind's current understanding of the cosmos demonstrates that the OP is flawed, because there is apparently a certain amount of energy that can make things like cosmic inflation work, and the Casimir Effect - things that violate the conversation of energy. You want to argue about the magnitude of this force. The OP suggests it can't even exist to begin with. Do you see the difference? You don't have to ass-pat every Round Earther that shows up and hamfists his keyboard.
...The magnitude is what UA FEers would disagree with mainstream science about.
Of course! The difference between nothing an an unimaginably large value is extremely significant,

Quote from: Jane
Quote
Pray tell how "basic logic" leads you to decide "Whether or not something can occur in one specific location is not relevant to whether something can occur in general" when cosmologists specifically state that it does not?
Is that supposed to make sense?
Yes!

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11675
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2019, 03:53:40 PM »
OP suggests nothing can violate conservation of energy. You are defending him, correct, as though that statement is true?
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.

*

Legolas

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11087
  • What do my elf eyes see?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2019, 03:59:27 PM »
Of course! Words have meanings and "in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
This is a webforum, not a scientific journal. It doesn't matter if he calls it inflation, expansion, the embiggening, or just That Thing. He could call it Cheryl for all it actually matters when it is palpably clear what it is he's referring to.

Quote
Of course! The difference between nothing an an unimaginably large value is extremely significant,
So you're still saying it's nothing, when you've already conceded it does happen, if not in the RE local group?
Take a good long look at what Boydster is actually saying Rab, seriously.
The OP is saying that any kind of expansion here is impossible because it violates conservation of energy. Do you agree with him? Yes or no?

*

rabinoz

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2019, 04:03:23 PM »
Of course! Words have meanings and "in cosmology "cosmic inflation" does not refer to the current "expansion of the universe".
This is a webforum, not a scientific journal. It doesn't matter if he calls it inflation, expansion, the embiggening, or just That Thing. He could call it Cheryl for all it actually matters when it is palpably clear what it is he's referring to.

If you are going to incorrectly drag modern cosmological material into the discussions you are the one making it a "a scientific journal" not I.


*

Legolas

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11087
  • What do my elf eyes see?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2019, 04:05:58 PM »
If you are going to incorrectly drag modern cosmological material into the discussions you are the one making it a "a scientific journal" not I.
Oh, I see, it is impossible to talk about anything relating to physics outside of a formal scientific journal, my apologies. We should shut all popular science sites and forums down immediately.

Could you answer the question you were directly asked now? It's literally just yes or no.

*

rabinoz

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2019, 04:37:23 PM »
If you are going to incorrectly drag modern cosmological material into the discussions you are the one making it a "a scientific journal" not I.
Oh, I see, it is impossible to talk about anything relating to physics outside of a formal scientific journal, my apologies. We should shut all popular science sites and forums down immediately.
I neither said nor implied any such thing.

All I am trying to get over is that it is a fallacy to to generalise something and pretend it can apply everywhere.

In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch!
So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless.

*

Legolas

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11087
  • What do my elf eyes see?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #25 on: April 14, 2019, 04:39:16 PM »
All I am trying to get over is that it is a fallacy to to generalise something and pretend it can apply everywhere.
So now you're just going to pretend your semantic diversion never happened. Sure. Better for everyone.

Quote
In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch!
So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless.
So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?

*

rabinoz

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #26 on: April 14, 2019, 08:46:23 PM »
All I am trying to get over is that it is a fallacy to to generalise something and pretend it can apply everywhere.
So now you're just going to pretend your semantic diversion never happened. Sure. Better for everyone.
There was never any "semantic diversion". This all started as a reply to:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
In cosmology "cosmic inflation" has a very specific meaning quite unrelated to "dark energy" and the "accelerating expansion of the universe".

Quote from: Jane
Quote
In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch!
So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless.
So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?
How do you make the massive leap
from  "In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch! So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless."
      to "So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?"

My statement is simply from what cosmologists write. On you question I offer no opinion.
Go and ask an astrophysicist or cosmologist.
Or search for "If the universe is expanding why is Andromeda approaching the Milky Way?" and see what cosmologists write.


*

Legolas

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 11087
  • What do my elf eyes see?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2019, 03:52:10 AM »
How do you make the massive leap
from  "In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch! So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless."
      to "So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?"
Because we are talking in this thread where you offered an opinion to defend the OP. I and Boydster have been asking you this for way too long. Yes or no Rab? Tell you what, Y or N? Instead all this ignorant, timewasting rambling you could actually answer with just a single letter. Do so already.
So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?


Quote
In cosmology "cosmic inflation" has a very specific meaning quite unrelated to "dark energy" and the "accelerating expansion of the universe".
This is a webforum, not a scientific journal. It doesn't matter if he calls it inflation, expansion, the embiggening, or just That Thing. He could call it Cheryl for all it actually matters when it is palpably clear what it is he's referring to.

For once in your life Rab could you make a post not predicated on ignoring the entire contents of a thread?

*

boydster

  • Illegal Alien
  • Planar Moderator
  • 11675
  • May I have 55 words with you?
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2019, 04:25:59 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?
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

  • 20596
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I think that UA model breaks Conservation of energy rule
« Reply #29 on: April 15, 2019, 05:52:57 AM »
How do you make the massive leap
from  "In particular there is no "expansion of the universe" within our galaxy. None, zilch! So trying to use it to support UA is meaningless."
      to "So you agree that conservation of energy makes expansion of the universe completely impossible in our galaxy and beyond?"
Because we are talking in this thread where you offered an opinion to defend the OP. I and Boydster have been asking you this for way too long. Yes or no Rab? Tell you what, Y or N? Instead all this ignorant, timewasting rambling you could actually answer with just a single letter. Do so already.
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.

Hence I will not "answer Y or N" - get used to it!

My first relevant post on the topic was:
I'm excited. I think he's about to disprove cosmic inflation and UA at the same time!
There is a massive difference here.
I assume that you are referring to the dark energy hypothesis which is only relevant almost 30 million light years from earth so when it comes to the flat vs Globe question, who cares?
But the flat earth UA hypothesis is needed in an attempt to explain away the need for gravity right here on earth and it very relevant to the here and now.
If you bother to study the "expansion of the universe" you might learn how slow it really is at such a distance and modern measurements are not consistent:
Quote
The current best direct measurement of the Hubble constant is 73.8 km/sec/Mpc (give or take 2.4 km/sec/Mpc including, both random and systematic errors), corresponding to a 3% uncertainty. Using only WMAP data, the Hubble constant is estimated to be 70.0 km/sec/Mpc (give or take 2.2 km/sec/Mpc), also a 3% measurement

I still stand by what I said that taking a hypothesis about what is happening "almost 30 million light years from earth" and using that to justify a far more massive "force" travelling at a vastly higher velocity (approaching 2,99,792,458 metres per second) if quite ridiculous and quite unjustified.

At the very least you logic is a classic example of an unwarranted generalisation.

Now run off and study a bit of cosmology.