• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Unlike GR theory, the LCDM model grossly violates the conservation of energy laws of physics.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Nov 15, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    LCDM grossly violates the conservation of energy laws, whereas GR theory by itself doesn't necessarily do so. It all depends on how one tries to use/abuse GR theory.

    Dark energy for instance isn't a "requirement" of GR theory, rather it's an ad-hoc "add-on" within the LCDM model. It grossly violates the conservation of energy laws because "supposedly" dark energy remains at a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume. Essentially new/more "dark energy" must be constantly created and must "fill in" the new "space" caused by "space expansion" (another optional element of GR).

    The concept of "space expansion" is also another of those optional elements of GR that isn't 'required', but is added to LCDM, and it also violates the conservation of energy laws, whereas the movement of objects in GR isn't necessarily a violation of conservation laws.

    As we saw from the last thread, LCDM proponents not only require inflation to supposedly 'explain' expansion, but the LCDM model also requires some kind of supernatural event to take place to allow 'space' to expand between objects of mass which are so densely packed together. It requires supernatural processes to keep the whole thing from imploding instantly.

    What good is a cosmology theory that violates laws of physics, and that can't really "explain" anything from the very first second of the events in question? It's made worse by the fact that 95 percent of the LCDM model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance to start with.

    I really don't understand the absurd fascination with a cosmology model that violates known laws of physics and which creates more problems than it solves from the first second of creation.

    Even Alfven's "bang" theory was far more preferable to the LCDM model since the universe didn't need to start with an object that is condensed to fit within it's own event horizon in Alfven's model. IMO LCDM is just a goofy and ridiculous model from start to finish, and it creates more problems/questions than it actually solves.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Halbhh

    Halbhh Everything You say is Life to me Supporter

    +5,305
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hey Michael, I keep trying to write a few brief sentences as I think on it more each day to suggest why it isn't such a problem that the early Universe has the mass/energy density that would make it a black hole if it were static.

    That's not a problem -- the Universe/black hole problem. Due to speed.

    Did I finally write a clear explanation why today in the other thread? Not saying it's all tied down though!

    Conservation of energy -- an interesting question. Does the total energy of the Universe increase if it has vacuum energy and the volume increases?

    I see if you search on a question like that, it has been asked. For instance (and this is only the first search result at the top of the heap):
    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-energy...-increased-with-the-expansion-of-the-universe
     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    I'll let you respond to my rebuttal in the other thread. Suffice to say, some form of mass/energy predates the inflation phase, meaning spacetime existed in some 'form' or another, and according to inflaton theory, gravity had a head start.

    The problem is that LCDM proponents are insisting that the conservation of energy law is being violated on a continuous basis, without any *previous* experimental evidence to demonstrate that it's even possible for that to occur. In other words, many cosmology theories might not require the laws of physics to be violated in that way, and the one hypothetical cosmology model that requires the violation of physical laws, cannot really justify the claim of an exception for dark energy, nor can it even explain the source of dark energy. It's a bad case of special pleading at best case.
     
  4. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +4,668
    Atheist
    The standard explanation is: Firstly, conservation of energy applies to static (Newtonian) spacetime; under GR, space & time are dynamic, so energy isn't conserved - unless you also include the energy of the gravitational field, which has a negative sign. If you include the gravitational contribution, when summed, the total energy is always zero.

    Secondly, the gravitational contribution explains why constant dark energy per unit volume isn't a conservation of energy problem - as the volume of space increases, the (negative) gravitational energy increases proportionally, and the total energy remains zero.
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Unless you're claiming that GR doesn't apply here on Earth, and we live in a Newtonian environment here on Earth, I don't see how you can justify that claim because the 'law' works just fine here on Earth right now as does time dilation. If speed had something to do with it, you should be able to demonstrate an example of the conservation law failing in a real experiment here on Earth using a particle collider and high speed collisions.


    Er, no. Under *LCDM* theory, space (expansion/contraction) can be considered dynamic, but that's actually an optional "add-on" in GR theory. You're right that it's not conserved in LCDM, but only because LCDM proponents started tossing in *optional* elements into LCMD like space expansion and dark energy, not because they are *required* in GR. GR works to describe high speed particle interactions here on Earth, and energy is conserved here on Earth.

    This is just wrong on so many levels. First of all, gravity isn't a form of "energy" in GR as might be the case in Newtonian definitions of gravity. Gravity is simply a geometric curvature in GR, like a hill, or a valley, not a form of 'energy'. It's not acceptable to call gravity a form of "energy" in GR.

    Secondly the sign is actually *optional*, it's just easier to work with a negative sign for most problems. If I take two bodies and separate them by some distance X, the distance and mass of the bodies equate to a positive amount of *potential* energy that will/can be converted into positive kinetic energy at the impact location. The sign is usually set as a negative by convention, because it's easier to start at the center (or surface) of the Earth than it is to somewhere out in space. It takes a positive amount of energy to lift objects off Earth, and that results in a positive amount of kinetic energy when the object hits the Earth again. A pendulum will demonstrate that conversion of kinetic to potential energy for you quite nicely.

    Besides the fact that such a definition simply ignores the use of energy over time, and the conversion of mass to energy, you're again ignoring how GR treats gravity, specifically as a geometric feature of spacetime, not as a form of 'energy'. You're trying to have your GR cake, and eat your Newtonian gravity too. :)

    It's not logical to even claim that the universe contains no net energy because you'd have to simply ignore the use of energy over time which simply makes no sense. Fusion can convert mass into photon kinetic energy, which can be used to produce electricity here on Earth. As long as you treat the universe as being full of a positive amount of energy, the whole thing makes perfect sense, including the use of energy over time. If you don't treat it that way, logistical problems rear their ugly head the first time someone uses energy.

    That's another one of those logical inconsistencies used by LCMD proponents. GR does *not* treat gravity as a form of energy. Period. The LCDM model is based on GR definitions of gravity, not Newtonian definitions of gravity.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017
  6. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    You are correct in fact energy is not even conserved for curved spacetime under static conditions.

    From a mathematical view point:
    The Einstein Field Equations are defined as:

    [​IMG]

    The two important terms for energy conservation (or the lack of it) are the g(uv) and T(uv) terms in the equations.
    g(uv) are the coefficients of the metric tensor that define the geometry of spacetime.
    For example in the metric that defines flat spacetime ds²=c²dt²- dx²- dy²- dz², the coefficients of g(uv) are g(00)=1, g(11)=g(22)=g(33)=-1

    The T(uv) tensor term in the right hand side of the equation defines the energy matter tensor.
    If energy is conserved then its partial derivative with respect to time is zero.

    Here lies the problem in 2D flat space (which can be generalised to higher dimensions) using Cartesian coordinates the partial derivative is defined by:

    [​IMG]

    In this case the direction of the projection vector as h approaches zero is unchanging hence we can define the partial derivative.

    In curved space however the definition does not work as the projection vector does change direction.
    This can be illustrated by the change of a projection vector as it moves along the arcs on the surface of a sphere.

    [​IMG]

    The concept of the derivative in curved space needs to be redefined which factors in the changes in the projection vectors.
    In this case we need to calculate the partial derivatives of the metric tensor components which define the geometry of the spacetime in which the projection vectors change.

    Without going in specific details which would require a detailed knowledge of tensor analysis the derivative of a tensor known as the covariant derivative is defined as:

    [​IMG]

    The left hand side of the equation is the covariant operator applied to a vector v.
    The first term on the right hand side is the normal partial derivative of the vector, the next term contains information how the metric tensor components g(uv) change by calculating their partial derivatives which impacts on changes to the projection vector.

    The operator in the second term is known as a Christoffel symbol and is defined as

    [​IMG]

    When the covariant operator is applied to the energy matter tensor T(uv) and assuming the covariant derivative is zero we obtain the following result.

    [​IMG]

    Now we have a “problem”.
    As shown previously the conservation law applies when the partial derivative (the first term) equals zero.
    This is not an issue with flat static space since all the g(uv) coefficients are constant and their partial derivatives vanish, in which case the second term is zero.
    The second term doesn’t vanish for curved spacetime nor for expanding spacetime even when flat since the g(uv) coefficients are now time dependant and have non vanishing terms with respect to the time derivative.

    There is a physical reason why energy is not conserved under these conditions.
    Since GR is a non linear theory for gravity unlike Newtonian gravity, not only does mass contribute to the mass energy but as you pointed out so does the gravitational field.
    Energy is not conserved as energy can be exchanged between mass and the corresponding gravitational fields.

    This was recognized by Einstein and Hilbert well before the advent of Big Bang cosmology.
     
    • Informative Informative x 3
    • Like Like x 2
    • List
  7. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    And so, yet again another 'Michael rant thread' is based upon his muddled understanding of GR and what he actually wants to rant about! :confused:
     
  8. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    True, but as you noted it is conserved in flat static conditions, our universe appears to be flat, and energy is conserved in all experiments performed to date. Whether our universe is static or not depends entirely upon one's subjective interpretation of photon redshift.

    Simply by embracing lab demonstrated examples of inelastic scattering in plasma, we have no need for space expansion or dark energy, let alone any need to violate any known "laws" of physics. That's all the more reason to embrace lab tested physical explanations for photon redshift.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2017
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    It's really amusing how your two are willing and eager to violate known "laws" of physics, use placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe 95 percent of the universe, and 5 percent "pseudoscience" to describe events in plasma, but somehow you think I'm "ranting" by embracing a purely empirical definition of GR theory and embracing circuit theory in space plasma. Go figure. :)

    History won't be kind to you two.

    You may understand the math related to GR theory, but your logic is horrifically flawed and your knowledge of plasma physics is utterly and completely atrocious as that conversation about "magnetic reconnection" at JREF so clearly demonstrated.
     
  10. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +4,668
    Atheist
    I'm not claiming anything, I'm giving you the standard explanation. If you don't see how the claim can be justified, educate yourself. If you don't like the explanation, take it up with Einstein - it's been known since the 1920s.
     
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Imagine yourself talking to dad, or any young Earth creationist and having them tell you the same thing about "educating yourself" as to the "standard explanation" about YEC. I'm afraid I just don't find it to be a compelling explanation because it *unnecessarily* violates known laws of physics. I'm sure dad finds YEC compelling, but that doesn't mean that I do.

    GR theory is fine by itself and Einstein's theory doesn't *require* that the known laws of physics must be violated. That's nothing but an old wives (astronomers) tale, that has absolutely no basis in empirical physics, and it never has had any basis in empirical physics. Einstein himself rejected half of their nonsense. In fact he called the introduction of a non-zero constant into GR his "greatest blunder", and based on how it's been abused ever since, I'd say he was right on the money.

    LCDM is the single *worst* theory of creation, even worse than YEC because it's sold to the public as "science" rather than metaphysical dogma or just bad religion, akin to scientology.

    Empirical physics always triumphs over metaphysical dogma, and cosmology will be no different. It's just taking longer because the mainstream keeps erroneously claiming to "know" things which they don't actually "know", starting with claiming to know that the laws of physics should be tossed aside in favor of their young universe nonsense.

    AFAIK the universe is infinite and eternal, and the same laws of physics have always applied everywhere. I see no reason to abandon empirical physics over some metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Even their entire collective Phd priesthood cannot name a single source of 'dark energy", explain where dark energy comes from, nor explain how it retains constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

    Every dark matter experiment and "prediction" they made about dark matter has blow up in their face for the past decade, three times in just the last 20 days in fact. They can't even explain something as simple as an electrical corona when it's staring them in the face! They don't have any great wisdom in the first place.

    I know darn well what the metaphysical dogma 'claims', I simply reject that irrational nonsense in favor of empirical physics.

    Keep in mind that their beloved and sacred "standard explanation" doesn't explain how or why the whole thing didn't implode instantly and most of it amounts to nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance. It's not falsifiable by any standard mechanism, and it's nothing but metaphysics on a stick!

    Yuck! Educate yourself to the alternatives and then you can lecture me about "education" in this arena.
     
  12. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    Wrong.
    Curved spacetime is a manifold.
    It is curved globally but locally it is flat.
    All experiments are performed locally hence one cannot infer the Universe is globally flat.
    Observations on the other hand indicate it is highly probable the Universe is flat.

    OK lets look at Comptom scattering in the lab.
    [​IMG]

    Here are the scattering results of 500 KeV photons by electrons.

    [​IMG]

    Tell me Michael is the scattering angle deterministic or probabilistic?
     
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Only in your cosmology model. That wouldn't be true in a infinite and eternal static and flat universe.

    That tends to be where your special pleading process begins and ends. It's how you try to justify your "law breaking" 'add-ons' to GR. It's not a strong argument IMO. The fact of the matter is that you cannot empirically demonstrate that any matter/energy interaction in controlled experimentation violates the conservation of energy laws, but you engage in special pleading anyway.

    Well, at least we agree on something.:)

    Why limit the conversation of the tired light paradigm to Compton scattering? I'm not personally suggesting that all photon redshift is caused by Compton scattering, and tired light proposals aren't limited to Compton scattering:

    viXra.org e-Print archive, Lyndon Ashmore
    A New Non-Doppler Redshift
     
  14. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +612
    Humanist
    Private
    Well ... ?????????????
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  15. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    That can actually depend on the specific conditions and the type of scattering.

    https://phys.org/news/2012-12-paths-photons-random.html

    It may have something to do with quantum entanglement of photons.
     
  16. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    So now it’s “law breaking add ons to GR” yet a few posts ago it was an acceptance that energy wasn’t conserved in GR. Let me remind you
    So which is the “correct” version or is this yet another example where you have totally confused yourself resulting in the all too common contradictions.

    You are the one making the ridiculous claim that an enlargement of an image of a distant galaxy is proof of blurring by scattering with an associated loss of photon energy, in which case the question about Compton scattering is perfectly valid.

    I ask the question again is the scattering angle deterministic or probabilistic?
    Don’t try changing the goalposts or burying the question under a heap of irrelevant links, answer the question.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  17. sjastro

    sjastro Newbie

    +873
    Christian
    Single
    You have got to be kidding.
    Are you that idiotic to think the Compton scattering angles of photons caused by electrons in plasmas is the same as the scattering of photons by photonic structures.

    Did you even to try to make the slightest effort to comprehend the article?
    From the paper:


    [​IMG]

    Take a close look at the picture, I’m sure even you would understand that this photonic structure in no way resembles a plasma and the scattering behaviour of the two is completely different.

    Now try answering the question is the scattering angle deterministic or probabilistic?
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  18. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Oh boloney. If energy conservation was impossible in GR, then you'd have some experimental evidence to show us where that energy loss happens in collider experiments or some other type of experiment here in our solar system. You've got nothing. All you might be able to claim is that in *some* variations it *might* happen, but you can't claim that it *must* happen in all variations of GR theory, or you could demonstrate that claim now from real experiments in the lab. You can't. All you can do it *claim* it could apply somewhere in a "mythical" universe that doesn't necessarily even exist. GR theory conforms so well to the conservation of energy laws in our solar system that we can tell when Voyager is being affected by temperature variations and photon emission differences on different sides of the spacecraft! That's how precisely energy is conserved in GR theory inside our solar system.

    We also both know full well that your main "offenders" to energy conservation are your dark energy faeries and your space expansion gnomes. They're apparently busy sprinkling more magical dark energy in all the "space expansion" regions to ensure that dark energy never "thins out" as volume increases like any *normal* field of energy. That's the real "add-on law breaker" and we both know it.

    I'm not confused by any lab results to date, nor any *non cosmological* application of GR to any real life conditions. GR conserves energy perfectly everywhere that humans have ever been. It's only when you get to cosmology theory where you start your special pleading nonsense, but you can't demonstrate that your model is correct in the first place!

    Which of those two papers is based on Compton scattering? Admittedly Compton scattering could have *some* effect and might cause some blurring to occur, but most tired light models are *not* based on ordinary Compton scattering. You were the ones claiming that distant galaxies were *not* blurred, therefore only "space expansion" could be the cause of photon redshift, but you're incapable of providing us with a high redshift, non-blurry image to support your bogus claims!

    You are the one who's moving the goal posts since tired light models are not typically based on Compton scattering to start with. There are *many* types of inelastic scattering, not just one, and none of the papers I've linked to are based on ordinary Compton scattering to start with!

    I also *love* how you folks insist that "reverse Compton scattering" has some effect on the CMB, but ordinary Compton scattering has *zero* effect apparently. What a riot.

    Like I said before, we both know darn well that your dark energy faeries are the real "law breakers" of your model but your model isn't based on the GR theory that Einstein taught to his students, it's based on metaphysical variation of *blunder* theory!
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2017
  19. FrumiousBandersnatch

    FrumiousBandersnatch Well-Known Member

    +4,668
    Atheist
    The second sentence of the article says that it is:
    That is wave-particle duality, not entanglement.
     
  20. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,160
    Christian
    Admittedly it may not have anything to do with entanglement. Either way however, the process isn't completely random and the path of a given photon is affected by other photons in the wave.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...