In article <oYednTNsGYJJOSXanZ2dnUVZ_qWtnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> George W Harris wrote:
>
> > Global conservation of mass/energy requires a
> > simply connected space-time topology.
>
> Actually, it's worse than that; even in a simply-connected spacetime
> topology, the concept of the total amount of mass, energy, momentum,
> angular momentum of the Universe is problematic in general relativity.
> You can talk about one, but those familiar with general relativity know
> that they're basically cheating.
>
> But more im****tantly, global conservation of energy is not in any
> meaningful sense true in general relativity. Indeed, our models of the
> Universe require that it be violated (namely, with cosmological red****ft
> -- photons traversing an expanding spacetime are losing energy, but the
> energy isn't going anywhere).
>
General relativity was published by Albert Einstein in 1915/16. Albert
Einstein only adopted the big bang theory long after trying several
other alternatives first.
Clearly Einstein never saw that concept of an expanding spacetime is
necessary for GR to be correct.
> In general relativity, one can only talk about _local_ (that is, in the
> vicinity of a point) conservation laws. There are no global
> conservation laws in our best theories that deal with the large-scale
> structure and evolution of the Universe, as strange as that sounds.
>
>
I don't see how that changes my argument whether local or global.
|
