Summations Only

You wrap it round the axle of the generator. The linear motion of the rope is converted into rotary motion of the axle is converted into electricity. The force of gravity converts the potential energy of the parts of the shell into kinetic energy.

As a starting point to appreciating cavediver's comment, let me suggest the wikipedia article on "Exact solutions in general relativity".Exact solutions in general relativity - WikipediaThe short answer is that the vacuum solutions are those solutions where the Tab tensor consists of all zeros. The solutions include gravitational fields despite the absence of matter and of energy other than that associated with the gravitational fields.

I still have not gotten my hands on the original paper published in 1962 or 1963 by Richard Feynman on zero net energy. Business has kept me away from the local university library (shorter hours during the Christmas vacation).However, I did come across an interesting description/analysis/report of Feynman's calculations attributed to Arthur C Clarke. See The universe‘s storehouse of energyThat some energy is stored is empty space is a reasonable, even inevitable, conclusion. But to say empty space has more energy than U-238... well, that seems a bit much to me.If Feynman believed empty space stored that much energy, how could he hold to a net zero energy universe? Or, did Feynman later reject the idea of a zero energy universe?

You know, this site does have code that allows you to work out proper math function if that is what is holding you back from showing your work. I mean, you've some nerve to call Feynman, Richard Fucking Feynman!, into question without so much as linking to some math proof that you've worked out elsewhere, let alone showing us directly. You've spent this whole thread calling numerous great minds into question and you've not even written up 2+2.

I happen to be a big fan of Feynman, but that does not mean I think he is infallible. There is another possibility of course... that Clarke has misunderstood Feynman or that Cano has misunderstood Clarke.I linked the website because I thought other inquiring minds here might be interested in it. If you are not interested, don't read it.

I think Hooah is referring to the latex dBCode. For example, this: Will produce this: --Percy

I am not claiming to have digested these papers yet, but I thought others here might be interested in how they might inform our discussion.http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0207347http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0603057http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0406/0406504v2.pdfThe first two papers are highly cited and provide some interesting background to the topic. The third is not highly cited; it simply proposes research but is interesting in its own way.

This article discusses the possibility GR may need to be modified or replaced since the discovery of dark energy.http://arxiv.org/pdf/0803.0982I particularly like this comment from the paper:

What relevance do you think the comment has?As I see it, the sentence simply suggests that one possible model for dark energy isn't working out to well. How is it helpful to reaching your conclusion regarding the net energy of the universe?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I haven't read the whole article yet. I only read the abstract and skimmed through some of the Open Issues and Challenges.For one thing, it peeves me to see dark energy referred to as the Cosmological Constant. In Einstein's mind the lambda was all about maintaining a static state universe. Dark energy does not do that. Second, it appears "all attempts" to compute it have failed spectacularly. This tells me we do not know enough about the nature of dark energy. Do you think I'm wrong on that point?Also from the abstract This tells me, contrary to your earlier claims, the failure to compute dark energy properly is calling GR into question.When you add these facts up, it seems ridiculous to me that people are still claiming we have a net zero energy universe.

Since you seem to not have understood what I thought to be a fairly simplistic accusation, I'll put it in even simpler terms (I hope): you are attempting to re-write portions of physics and are disagreeing with some of the best and brightest physicists of our time and of time past. You are simply quoting bits and pieces and saying "I don't agree with this" or "this doesn't seem to be correct" and all the while you have yet to actually show your work. The models of cosmology you are dismissing have the maths to back them up and it would seem to me, a layperson to the extreme, that it would be wise of you to do the same in your attempted refutation. Now, don't take this as a hand wave away, because you very well could be on to something, but when proven members such as cavediver, son goku and NoNukes who have already shown their work, disagree with you, I am inclined to err on the side of caution and trust their judgment.It's a simple request: show your work. This does not mean link to some papers and say that you "haven't had time to digest them", but use the code this site has and show your actual work. Unless, of course, my initial preconceived notion of your being just an IDer trying to bastardize science to garner proof for a designer is true and you've no intent on actually doing the science. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now, though.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I think you are wrong about some things. But I think the cause of your peeving is not finding the support for your ideas that you expect to find.For one thing, simply adding a cosmological constant doesn't have to lead to a static universe solution. The equations have many solutions. You are thinking of Einstein's Field Equations as though they were simple algebra rather than a set of inter-related differential equations. Some of the papers do talk about that a bit, but it might be helpful to at least look at Wikipedia before you wade into papers full of math that you aren't likely to be able to follow. I cannot follow all that much of the math.We don't know all that much about dark matter. That much is true, but it is the attempt to model it as vacuum energy that has resulted in those discouraging calculations. The failure does not mean that gravitational theory is wrong.Take a look at the summary in section 5.4 of the paper. I believe that gives the authors' assessment of the state of things known and unknown. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

* sighs *The cosmological constant has different effects depending on its value.Einstein chose the value (c/√4πGρ)² (where c is the speed of light, G is Newton's constant, and ρ is the energy density of the universe). This results in a static universe (although, as was later shown, an unstable one).If you choose a different value for the cosmological constant you get a different universe with different properties.The cosmological constant is not defined by what Einstein wanted it to do, but by the role it plays in the equations of GR. Well that was a complete non sequitur, wasn't it? Your inability to understand the cosmological constant doesn't even relate to the energy of the universe.

Thank you. The "peeves" comment had completely drained any enthusiasm whatsoever to continue replying to this nonsense. I'm glad that someone still has the stomach for it.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

One day, a man pushed his car into a mechanic's workshop, and told the mechanic that he couldn't get the car to start.The man was intelligent and well educated, and knew that cars worked using an internal combustion engine, to ignite a mixture of petrol and air, driving pistons in the engine to turn an axle and then the wheels of the car.He watched the mechanic at work on his car, interested to see him dismantling pieces of it and examining them in some detail.After a time, the mechanic came to the man and said that he was afraid that the throttle valve in the carburetor had cracked, and that he would need to order some new parts to fix his car.The man was worried about this, because although he had heard about a carburetor, he didn't fully understand what it did - and he had certainly never heard of a throttle valve. He was suspicious that the mechanic was trying to rip him off, because as far as he was concerned, the internal combustion engine simply mixed fuel and air, ignited them, drove pistons and turned an axle and wheels, and this didn't sound complicated. Certainly his understanding did not include carburetors and throttle valves.The mechanic explained that he had been trained very well in the rather more complex intracacies of how an internal combustion engine worked, and had many years' experience in how they functioned and how they could be fixed.But the man was an intelligent man, and told the mechanic that his explanation was wrong and that it must be the case that something was preventing the fuel and air mixing, igniting, driving the pistons and turning the axle and wheels.The mechanic patiently explained that yes, this was the case, due to the cracked throttle valve in the carburetor, but because the man did not know what a throttle valve was (and had only an outline of an idea of what a carburetor was), he continued to believe that the mechanic was trying to rip him off, and insisted that the mechanic was wrong and that it must be the case that something was preventing the fuel and air mixing, igniting, driving the pistons and turning the axle and wheels.This discussion continued for many fruitless hours, until eventually the mechanic gave up, and the man left the mechanic's workshop, satisfied that he had avoided being ripped off.And the moral of this story ? The mechanic (and the rest of his intelligent customers, who knew very little of carburetors and throttle valves, but who trusted the mechanic that he did) drove away that evening and went to many interesting and entertaining places. The man and his car, though, remained stuck in the workshop, feeling happy that they hadn't been ripped off, but going nowhere.