Summations Only

It might be interesting to discuss this "paper". Are you adopting the views in this paper as your own position?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I have to keep communication in mind. A proof of the conservation of four-momentum would be too involved for a forum post as I would first have to prove Noether's theorem. Before I deal with the rest of your post, could you tell me how a "lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe"?Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Just to be clear here - It is your contention that the Big Bang theory accepted by physicists obviously violates a fundamental law of physics as described by physicists - But that no actual physicist has noticed this blatant contradiction.Is this your position here?Without going into the technical details here - Don't you think this a rather unlikely oversight on the part of physicists?Are you suggesting physicists are idiots or engaged in some sort of wild cover-up conspiracy type thing?

It's always my pleasure to post this stuff, I hope it's useful for others. Indeed and a wee bit of Poitn, I don't even follow football, but my Dad and my wife insisted!Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Son my friendIndeed, I would not want to delve into the deeper mathematics, even if I could. We must rely on other individuals work in this area. Remember you are one who wished to produce a conservation of momentum in FLRW in a few paragraphs. I found that offer rather astounding considering the complicated proofs needed. Here is a commentary on some of the principles I wish to cover, even this paper requires some of that deeper understanding of mathematics, I can follow the arguments up to the point of these mathematical details.Is Energy Conserved in General Relativity?I do appreciate the effort thou and your courage in that regard. But find the explanation too basic. My statement rests on the notion that the materialist must provide a complete description of a creation apart from God; even though these mechanisms are often ad-hoc and resemble philosophy to the point of being a religion. As a Christian, I believe that God is very much in the totality of the universe description, but also admit that the human mind is probably incapable of attaining such a holistic description of the universe as to be complete.The materialist makes no such admissions and pushes on with the pretense of scientific truths that are often not scientific at all; they are at best philosophical. As a Christian, I trust the real science and especially promote the reproducible and the provable.Personally, I accept that Einstein’s General relativity theory has met a very high standard of scientific proofs and contains very fundamental truths of nature even though it is not by definition holistic. Please do not be offended by me stating that quantum mechanics is a theory of fundamental compromise although it also has recognizable achievements (a view held by Einstein).To sum this denunciation up, FLRW is a unworthy trophy to the holistic description of the universe apart from God.

Which ensures that you can ignore anything that contradicts your own personal opinions.Just sayin'.

Panda has already said this, but this isn't really sensible. You don't want the proper mathematics, but you don't want explanations which are too basic. What do you want? Should I explain exactly what Energy is in General Relativity and then explain why you can say that it both is and isn't conserved. This seems to be about holistic worldviews. I asked a specific question however, namely:
How a lack of energy conservation defies the materialistic rationalist view of the universe?I only want to know about this.Edited by Son Goku, : Edit: Panda said it!

Son my friend Then provide the proper mathematics, if you must, because a Newtonian treatment is simply insufficient. If you are truly a rationalist, you cannot embrace a philosophical principle. Any accepted principle that violates basic laws of physics is not scientific and must be considered philosophical (if not religious). Cosmology of the Big Bang lacks the well-known basics of the conservation of energy so it is not materialistic.Let us reason on the followingConsider:Dark energy must be a quantum effect yet by all calculations the observed dark energy is vastly smaller than that predicted by quantum fluxuations; dark energy has not been explained by quantum theory. Furthermore the acceleration of distant galaxies is an anomaly in that, Dark energy does not increase the Relativistic mass of the galaxies in question; this I claim is dark acceleration.In the FLRW model which galaxies are accelerated, is it the Milky Way or distant galaxies? Is it the relative speed between the galaxies? If it is the relative speed between galaxies, then when the speed exceeds the speed of light Special Relativity is violated (speed between observers cannot exceed the speed of light). See superluminal violations to Special Relativity.Furthermore, the observed cosmological red-shifting in the CMB is another violation of the conservation of energy (as in a prior citation). Efforts to conform energy conservation to the models of cosmology fall short.(Note) Special Geometries (ADM energy treatments) are not a plausible explanation for the conservation of energy.Also consider...

quote:

---

According to general relativity, the conservation law for the total energy does not hold in more general, time-dependent backgrounds - for example, it is completely violated in physical cosmology. Cosmic inflation in particular is able to produce energy (and mass) from "nothing" because the vacuum energy density is roughly constant, but the volume of the Universe grows exponentially.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

My statement has nothing to do with holistic worldviews it has to do with scienceI view all science as belonging to God as demonstrated in Romans 1:20. Provable and reproducible by the very definition of being scientific, yet all of creation by a universally brilliant mind. The Materialist regards the creation in a very nave way threw conception by natural laws. This to me is a contradiction in itself because I can recognize God in the very laws that govern the universe. The contradiction to the materialist is that the science does not support his cosmology.

Physics Community Afire With Rumors of Higgs Boson Discovery | WIRED

Isn't it time that you admitted to yourself that you are too fucking stupid to understand not only the content but also the nature of the things that are posted here, and take up some hobby more suitable to your intellectual capacity, such as basket-weaving?You make me want to puke. You go about throwing out technical terms that you hope will make you look smart --- God help you, perhaps you're so stupid you think that you really are smart --- and you're such a drooling moron that you don't have the faintest idea what these terms mean. If you can't tell Newton from Einstein or Emmy Noether from a hole in the ground, then isn't it about time you shut the fuck up? Does not decency, honesty, integrity demand this?If I had not already encountered creationists, I would find it unbelievable that anyone should dare to pose and prate and posture and prance around as you do without the slightest knowledge of what you're talking about. As it is, I find it par for the course. This is creationism. And may God have mercy on your soul.

Someone needs a Hug.

— – Loan Portal28Try this site it should provide a simple enough to make you understand why the big bang does not violate conservation of energy.Basicly if you add everything up there is no energy, it all adds up to 0. So no violation of conservation of energy because no energy was created or destroyed, nothing was just split in to its positive and negative counterparts but if you add them up its still nothing. Edited by frako, : No reason given.

(frako) my friend

quote:

---

But what made the universe and all its mass come into being at all? The suggestion is that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum. It used to be thought that the vacuum was truly nothing, simply inert space. But we now know that it is actually a hive of activity with particle-antiparticle pairs being repeatedly produced out of the vacuum and almost immediately annihilating themselves into nothingness again. The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. This phenomenon has observable and measurable consequences, which have been tested and confirmed. (The Inflationary Universe, Alan Guth, 1997, p. 272)

---

— – Loan Portal28I read the article and concede the explanation sounds reasonable except that the magnitude of energy from quantum fluctuation is greater than the dark energy proposal. As we understand it, quantum fluctuations are not a reasonable explanation for the vacuum energy. Account for that vacuum energy in real numbers by established quantum predictions and your nomination for the next Nobel Prize in physics is assured.Total energy conservation in the Big Bang is a myth.

Not really what we're looking for, but of course you knew that. I prefer that suspensions be preceded by warnings, and now that prerequisite is satisfied.

Speed? It's neither one. And the question, the way you ask it, makes no sense and shows you understand very little about the subject that you're trying to fake your way through...my friend.- Oni