[yor_on]

Want a reason?

How about the game, and who would lose on it changing.

[yor_on]

It's like Burke once said  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

You're doing nothing

[yor_on]

Well, it is evil. You choose profits before your kids survival. Give me something worse and I'll add it.

[charles1948]

It's like Burke once said  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

You're doing nothing

Couldn't Burke's quote be reversed, like this:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of goodness, is for evil men to do nothing".

Isn't that why we lock up evil persons in prison, where they can do nothing.  While the rest of us carry on being good.

[yor_on]

Well, there is a problem to that. Good men are just as often lazy men :)
Small footprints to them. Evil takes no rest.

[yor_on]

"Modern cosmology has offered up new riddles in energy conservation. We now know that the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate—propelled by something scientists call dark energy. This is thought to be the intrinsic energy per cubic centimeter of empty space. But if the universe is a closed system with a finite amount of energy, how can it spawn more empty space, which must contain more intrinsic energy, without creating additional energy?
 
It turns out that in Einstein’s theory of general relativity, regions of space with positive energy actually push space outward. As space expands, it releases stored up gravitational potential energy, which converts into the intrinsic energy that fills the newly created volume. So even the expansion of the universe is controlled by the law of energy conservation."

I've been wondering about that one for some time now.

[yor_on]

Also about its connection to 'potential energy'. We say that things 'store' this energy by f.ex getting elevated in a gravitational system, potential, or whatever you want to call it. It should also have a connection whether a mass uniformly moving 'distort' space more if it moves 'faster' relative some other object of a same mass and shape, shouldn't it? And lastly, is that the way inflation works too?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/energy-can-neither-be-created-nor-destroyed/

[yor_on]

the answers to that? I'm still not sure. If we take the statement " As space expands, it releases stored up gravitational potential energy " it depends on how you look at it. Space do contain 'energy' according to general relativity, and by redistributing the mass you can gain a higher energy density, as tested by something moving in a gravitational acceleration. f.ex a apple falling and the acceleration you find it to have classically, measuring its speed towards the ground.

Gravitational accelerations btw, are not the same as a rocket accelerating. It's a uniform motion as proved by its locally defined 'weightlessness'. If you fall there is no weight to you, you can test it by trying to stand at a scale if you like, although it should be rather tricky to do it.

[yor_on]

But if you redistribute that mass you also transfer energy to that 'system' by your redistribution.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20900/storing-energy-as-mass

[yor_on]

And if we define it strictly locally there is no new energy stored in the apple falling. It's more of a reconfiguration of the 'curved space' it exist in. Just exchange the apple for a so called 'black box' and try to measure blue and redshifts inside it. And 'weights' of course.

[yor_on]

But it takes energy to reconfigure that space. And that energy should be 'stored' in some way.

[yor_on]

So does a expanding space release 'potential energy'?

[yor_on]

"   Not within general relativity.

Except in special circumstances, such as an asymptotically flat spacetime, there is no definable total energy in general relativity. The Friedmann–Roberston–Walker family of spacetimes that describe a homogeneous and isotropic universe are not an exception, although there's a separate argument that can be made for the case of spatially compact universes towards their total energy being exactly zero, no matter how they expand or contract.

For the matter distributions, gravitational potential can be useful in the weak-field limit of general relativity when the matter covers a finite region of space, but in general it's not present in general relativity. Or rather, the metric itself can be thought of as taking the role of a 'gravitational potential', but the way it does so is very different from the Newtonian theory."


https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/11393/is-expanding-universe-adding-potential-energy

[yor_on]

Let's add that willfully reconfiguring a space could be seen as a equivalence to a rocket accelerating. You 'do work on it' as I think Newton might have expressed it. That differs it from something uniformly moving, in a 'relative motion'.

[yor_on]

It may be questionable to say that there is no new 'energy' stored in the apple falling, but if we define it as nothing measurable by any experiments I know of then you should get the idea. That doesn't state that there couldn't be a experiment not known of by me, proving that it do 'store' some of that  'potential energy'. But if it does it should just be a 'part' of the whole energy distribution contained in your changed 'system' of 'gravity'.

[yor_on]

A closed space containing a defined amount of energy then? I define it as 'infinite'. If it is, how can it be 'closed'?

You could think of it this way.
If it is true that we're all inside it, everything being 'inside' it, then there is no 'outside' to it either.

[yor_on]

It becomes as 'closed' as it can be, without that 'outside'. And if you want a 'outside' you get to Russian dolls, stacking insides and outsides into each other for ever. No end to it.

[yor_on]

So a 'emergence', and no 'origin'.

[yor_on]

It's very abstract, but so are you. Quantum mechanically you don't exist.
I call that scales.

[yor_on]

Going down to that Planck scale, in where we still can 'probe', although we don't have that kind of instruments as far as I know, even though we might be able to use the universe as one testing the idea. You 'disappear', while macroscopically still existing.