The Paradox

[David Levy]

Why can't you accept option C?

 

What is the meaning of option C?

Let's see again A. and B

A. The conservation of Energy/Mass holds for the Universe

B. The conservation of Energy/Mass doesn't hold for the Universe

 

So, A + B = 100%

However, you claim. Let's ignore the 100% options of the conservation of Energy/Mass and try to look outside.

Where outside?

It seems to me as someone had lost a key in the ocean, but he is looking for it at the beach because he doesn't know how to swim.

 

Never the less, let's assume that there is something outside like... - 101%

 

C: we do not have enough conclusive evidence to fully define conservation of energy on the scale of the Universe. More research is underway

 

What shall we understand from this message?

Can we understand that currently the science don't have enough information how to bypass the paradox? Therefore, more research is needed.

If so, than currently, the science has no real answer to the paradox.

Hence, the paradox is real!

It is a simple logic problem.

 

David you keep trying to force an answer on a question that cannot be conclusively answered.

That is correct.

That is the source of the paradox.

We have to take a decision based on what we know (not - on what we don't know).

Currently - based on what we know - there is a paradox.

You had confirmed it.

 

If a poster says a is correct another poster can argue b is correct.

 

That is also correct.

There are only two options

A or B.

A - There is paradox.

B - New Energy/mass creation

So simple.

It is clear that those two options are catastrophic to the Modern science.

Therefore, they try to bypass the problem and look outside the 100%.

But please - we can't ignore the reality.

 

So please try to understand their is no conclusive answer.

Yes, there is an answer!

Based on our current theories - We have a problem.

Why it is so difficult to admit that there is a problem in our current approach?

 

Let's try this minor thought experiment.

You have an object emitting a wavelength due to its blackbody temperature.

Observer a is moving toward the emitter so he measures a higher temperature.

Observer b is moving away from the emitter so sees a lower temperature.

However both measurements are dependent on the observer. According to the reference frame of the emitter the temperature hasn't changed.

Now here is the question....

1) What performs the work to cause a temperature change for observer a and b (Work must be performed to change the energy level)?

 

(The work is needed on the signal between emitter and observer)

 

Sorry. I don't see a correlation between this example and the paradox

Edited March 7, 2016 by David Levy

[Endy0816]

Mass/energy is decreasing.

[David Levy]

Mass/energy is decreasing.

 

How do we know that?

[Strange]

It is clear that those two options are catastrophic to the Modern science.

 

Nonsense. Why would either be "catastrophic"? How can anything be catastrophic to science? (Other than a cut in funding!) Science thrives on challenges, unanswered questions, finding new solutions, etc.

 

Your only problem is you have some sort emotional/[quasi-]religious dislike of the current best theories. Well, that's just too bad.

 

Why it is so difficult to admit that there is a problem in our current approach?

 

The current approach is called "science": look for evidence, try and model it, update theories, test the theories, look for new evidence, etc.

 

Your approach is called "making up stuff that makes sense to you, regardless of evidence or theory."

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

I don't see that any new ground is being covered here. Reiterating claims that are continually debunked, ignoring feedback and claiming to understand and have support when it's obvious to everyone else that this is not happening. Not a good combination.

 

If the pattern holds, this will be closed.

[Mordred]

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry. I don't see a correlation between this example and the paradox

 

Let's try this minor thought experiment.

 

You have an object emitting a wavelength due to its blackbody temperature.

 

Observer a is moving toward the emitter so he measures a higher temperature.

 

Observer b is moving away from the emitter so sees a lower temperature.

 

However both measurements are dependent on the observer. According to the reference frame of the emitter the temperature hasn't changed.

 

Now here is the question....

 

1) What performs the work to cause a temperature change for observer a and b (Work must be performed to change the energy level)?

 

(The work is needed on the signal between emitter and observer)

 

 

it does correlate. You might not see how but is does. Try to answer the puzzle and you may better understand one of the problems with defining conservation of energy in the universe scale

[Endy0816]

 

How do we know that?

 

We don't, though if you want a random assertion, that answer is as good as any other.