Quote:
|
Originally Posted by worzel
That's completely circular as an argument for the strict conservation of energy alone. Is this an article of faith for you?
|
worzel, I think you hit it right on the nose. As far as I can tell, this is JimJast's argument against general relativity (and by extension, Big Bang cosmology):
Premise 1: Newtonian conservation of energy must hold for all theories
Premise 2: Newtonian conservation of energy does not hold in general relativity
Conclusion: Therefore, general relativity and anything based on it must be wrong
Except, of course, as has been pointed out to JimJast
repeatedly (this constitutes the 5th time, for me), premise 1 is flat out wrong, Newtonian conservation of energy is merely a special case of the more general conservation of energy-momentum in general relativity. I'm aware of no mainstream source that says anything like "Newtonian conservation of energy must hold for all theories". Even John Baez, whom JimJast enjoys citing so much, has apparently told JimJast that Newtonian conservation of energy does not hold in general relativity (according to an email from John Baez that JimJast reproduced in this thread, before being removed by the mods for privacy violation). But JimJast stubbornly clings to his misconception, no matter what anyone tells or shows him. For all intents and purposes, an "article of faith" is exactly what this is for him.
And then there's the matter of his math only working by assuming a density for the universe that is 230% off from what we observe. IMHO, that's the final nail in the coffin for his theory.