Conservation of energy

> Conservation of energy
> Expanding Universe
> Gravity
Pick two, Veeky Forums cuck.

I pick all three, and in fact all three are necessary to explain each other. For example, conservation of energy only works in an expanding universe due to the increasing dark energy being balanced by the loss of energy in the gravitational field.

One of these has absolutely nothing to do with the others

>local conservation of energy is the same as global conservation of energy
fuck you dude

Expanding universe and gravity. Life defies the conservation of energy.

Wait, is this really the reason. I am a biofag but was thinking about this earlier.

>Life defies the conservation of energy
You are going to have to explain and explain a lot user.

No, it's just a bunch of faggot pop Sci memers claiming gravitational energy is negative because of choice of coordinates.

At the end of the day, there is nothing other than empiricism to suggest energy must be conserved. In fact, we know that's not always the case even in closed systems.

Also, there is no such thing as absolute negative energy as it implies negative mass.

You forgot that gravity is the warping of space, you stupid frogposter.

the idea that the universe is expanding is pure bs

Add mysterious dark energy that cancels this out and preserves conservation laws.

> your formulas don't work with your observations, so you make up dark energy bullshit to explain it, which is so mysterious, that it is completely impossible to prove it's existence, without making a circular argument like: "it exists, because without it, my formula would be wrong."

That's exactly right. Dark energy is just a place holder value until the solution is figured out. Because the universe is expanding, it has been observed.

I pick conservation of energy and expanding universe.
gravity is a meme, there's probably some other crazy shit at work there desu

For me it looks like there is a god who just likes to troll science.
Same with the big-bang-theory, which forces scientists to believe that there was a point in time when time suddenly originated and you can't ask "What was before the big bang?", because that question would be wrong, because without time there is no "before".

>Because the universe is expanding, it has been observed.
it's not

If you look at all the mental gymnastics they have to make to somehow create a theory where gravity is part of the standard model, then i would would pick Conservation of Energy and the Expanding Universe, because it looks like Gravity is something special and just doesn't really want to fit in.

>No, it's just a bunch of faggot pop Sci memers claiming gravitational energy is negative because of choice of coordinates.
This is correct: giving gravitational energy and dark energy opposite signs is a choice you make, not an imperative fact.
Obviously conservation of energy is wrong -- we can't even define energy in a generic spacetime, much less force it to remain constant. It turns out our universe has a positive vacuum energy and is expanding, so the total energy of the universe is forever increasing.
Dark energy can be explained completely as the cosmological constant. The reason people think in terms of dark energy instead of this constant is that it allows the value to vary across spacetime and suggests the possibility of explaining expansion in terms of simpler interactions without a cosmological constant, but none of that is strictly needed to explain the vacuum energy.

I hope this is just an ironic meme from that earlier thread months ago

I think you meant iconic.

I think you meant ebonic