[Physicist]

So then you must disagree with Leonard Piekoff in the Ayn Rand lexicon where he discusses time and space because you believe in "space-time".

I haven't read the Ayn Rand Lexicon, but Peikoff's statements about physics in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand are pure comedy.

How do you reconcile the violation of conservation of energy in general relativity? One of the tests for "junk science" is to see if it violates conservation of energy by this metric GR is "junk science".

Energy conservation is not violated in general relativity. But I'm curious: why are you and Lenny so wedded to energy conservation? Do you know why energy is conserved? Can you state the necessary and sufficient conditions for energy non-conservation?

How much of physics have you accepted on faith - someone else's expertise because you cannot understand it yourself?

I take less of physics on faith than at least 99.999% of humanity, I estimate (placing myself for reasons of modesty at the bottom of my profession).

[Gary Boldwater]

Energy conservation is not violated in general relativity. But I'm curious: why are you and Lenny so wedded to energy conservation? Do you know why energy is conserved? Can you state the necessary and sufficient conditions for energy non-conservation?

>I can't speak for Lenny (I think he's a bit of a freak actually, but love it when he gets on Fox News and declares the world as our "mortal enemies"). I don't why energy is conserved. Probably because everything considered is in the same reference frame. Energy non conservation would be due to things like friction, radiation, mass increase, wavelength shifts, changing reference frame. But if you account for friction etc, shouldn't energy be conserved?