Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,578 Year: 2,835/9,624 Month: 680/1,588 Week: 86/229 Day: 58/28 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 341 of 404 (698802)
05-09-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 340 by ringo
05-09-2013 4:06 PM


quote:
That isn't the question in this thread. The question is: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? Have your objections been sufficiently addressed?
But that IS the question. If you can't tell me or the OP what 99% of the universe is, then how can you even attempt to answer the OP's post? This would be like trying to tell you what diamonds are, while ignoring carbon in the answer. Completely and utterly worthless.
Then since you accept the BB hypothesis, then perhaps you can explain why plasma is not important when that very own theory says that plasma was the very first form of matter? Not just one of 4 fundemental states, but THE fundemental state of all matter, out of which all other matter such as liquids, solids and gasses condensed. Shall we show why such makes charge seperation in space a foregone conclussion? How the silly idea that plasma cant exsist in space because there is not enough energy in the universe to seperate one electron from each grain of salt in a teaspoon? Since you therefore accept the BB you must therefpre accept that plasma is THE fundemental state of all matter from which all other matter is formed, and that charge seperation MUST have existed from the very beginning. It is not important how much energy it takes to seperate atomic bonds, but how much energy it takes to form them that is.
So what was that again about plasma not being important in astrophysics??? Without energy your BB would never have banged, and since energy can not be destroyed according to science, it must still exist. E=mc^2, there is no such thing as no energy.
Have you given up on Dark Energy and an expanding universe that is accelerating? Supposedly this Dark Energy and Dark Matter make up 96% of the universe, about the same amount coincidently that you want to ignore.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 340 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 4:06 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-09-2013 5:21 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 343 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 5:25 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 344 of 404 (698807)
05-09-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by ringo
05-09-2013 5:25 PM


quote:
I'm not attempting to answer the OP. I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in your posts - such as the claim that flow disproves neutrality when flow is, in fact, caused by the tendency toward neutrality.
yet one must have non-neutrality for the term neutrality to have any meaning at all. One must have higher density for a substance to move towards lower density.
No one disputes the universe's natural tendency to balance forces. But since 99% of the universe is still plasma, apparently it isnt aware yet that you require it to be finished balancing. Since the BB is the cause of all the energy in existence, according to you, and energy can not be destroyed, then how could it ever sum to 0, when relativity demands that even the smallest speck of dust must contain it? E=mc^2, not one single spck of dust can be without it. And to use your anaology, the original height was 100%, it has dropped to 99%, it still has quite a long way to go to reach 0%. So in 14 billion years or so, 1% of plasma has been converted to normal matter, and this normal matter is what you base all your calculations on??????? no wonder it sums to 0 in your world, its a representation taken from 1% of the universe.
I'm wrong about many things, just not plasma, being I have actually studied it and read about it, not just taken what I was told and ran with it as it seems 99% of people do.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 5:25 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 345 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 5:58 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 346 of 404 (698818)
05-09-2013 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 345 by ringo
05-09-2013 5:58 PM


quote:
How is that plasma converted to "normal matter"?
By electric currents that run in plasma. Plasma is separated charges, only when the attractive aspect of the electric current takes over and atoms begin to bind, do the electric forces become balanced.
http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htm
quote:
Atoms like to have a balanced electrical charge.
This I agree with completely, and so should you. "Atoms" are the stable remnants of free neutrons and protons (made up of quarks - or any name you want to pick) - (electric charges), and electrons (only imaged as clouds - multiple quarks??) that have bonded electrically to stabilize the electric charge. This is why in your day to day life it takes energy added to create an electric current. The atom itself once it has formed wants to resist you, it wants to remain balanced so to speak.
But plasma is an excellent conductor. You talk of wind and bow shocks in space as if an atmosphere exists, or an ocean, yet deny any possibility of an aether. Fine, then quit thinking like it is. Yet the very movement of charges in relation to other charges creates current. Is not those winds and bow shocks indicative of just that, movement? It is that movement from the attraction and repulsion of the EM forces and the electric current and magnetic fields that then form that causes plasma to take on a filamentary aspect. When enough atoms have been bonded, normal matter forms and it becomes stabilized, its smaller components more in line and less random, and charges become balanced. This occurs through what is termed a Z-pinch, on a scale from micro to macro. In atoms (normal matter) the electrical force is muted, balanced, and so gravity does indeed become the dominating force acting upon it. Or if one may hypothesize, the electric and magnetic fields are more equal, to which force is fully described in relativity, and only partially described in Maxwell's equations, which describes better the more pure electrical component of a single charge or particle, an unbound (non-atom) form, plasma.
Z-pinch - Wikipedia
Everything I said might be wrong, but electric currents form magnetic fields and charged particles spiral in magnetic fields, and there is not one thing in the universe, down to the smallest quark, that is not spinning (spiraling - if one assumes relativity to be correct and as all must have forward movement. Falling as it is described. I am not against Relativity in the tiniest bit at all, it is an excellent theory within the bounds of our solar system, where atoms dominate, not free particles. But that is just my theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 345 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 5:58 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 7:10 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 348 of 404 (698824)
05-09-2013 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by ringo
05-09-2013 7:10 PM


Google Image Search of "galaxies"
Does this look like no energy? What about the background radiation you want to use as evidence of the big bang? Sum it to 0 and there goes your evidence, must be a glitch, everything is balanced, even though you still measure it. So ok, sum it to 0, now they gotta get a new theory as there goes that one.
Never mind, please sum it to 0, not to fond of that theory anyways.
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 7:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 7:29 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 350 of 404 (698828)
05-09-2013 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 349 by ringo
05-09-2013 7:29 PM


It can't be equal, or no movement would be possible, nothing would repel or attract. It would all be neutral. That's worse than the alternative. I know what you mean by sum, but does not the fact that the Big Bang banged, point to the fact that it could not be perfectly balanced? That an inequality existed? However minute that may be.
I don't know the answer to that, but I don't think the event occurred because all was perfectly balanced, so what we see can't be either, since it's the end result.
And maybe in a quadrillion billion years it'll try to equalize again and collapse upon itself, but because the inequality will still be there, bang we go again.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 7:29 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 7:42 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 352 of 404 (698833)
05-09-2013 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 351 by ringo
05-09-2013 7:42 PM


So then what moved in the 0 volume of the initial event, if the beginning energy was equal, all in one spot? Was I not told earlier that this was a valid thought experiment
Not that I am opposed to the idea of a singularity, as in singular - ity. schwarzschild's equation admits to that mathematical possibility, but only when it is alone in a universe devoid of all other matter. The equations for two or more such masses has never been solved in relativity. This is the ONLY reason the Big Bang theory could even hold any merit whatsoever. So if all of the universe was condensed into a zero-point volume mass, where all charges would balance each other, then there is no reason for the Big Bang to have occurred, since energy cannot be destroyed and all in existence is the same as it was initially. So yes, I quite disagree that it sums to 0. Or we can have it their way and no such event occurred, as I said, am not too fond of that theory anyways. But even though its not perfect, as I said, it's better than the alternative. My theory won't fall just because the universe may be eternal and overall unchanging, not small and expanding, the exact opposite of neutrality, as if all is balanced, why start expansion in the first place?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 351 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 7:42 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 7:08 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 354 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2013 10:04 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 357 by ringo, posted 05-10-2013 12:02 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 361 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2013 1:03 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 364 of 404 (698929)
05-10-2013 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 361 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2013 1:03 PM


Only gibberish when it goes against you? Others were using it to try to prove your point, you didn't seem to object then, so you have no valid objection now. Or are you saying they were incorrect too? it's not my theory of the Big Bang, it's theirs. Your astrophysicists are saying all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity. And just which part is "gibberish" lets see what the theory says about what you say is wrong?????
\Don't respond with a general denial, that's avoidance of the issue and no more than a blatant attempt to distract. Aware of all the games.
Teach me some physics then, what no references???
From all points? That's a good theory if you could prove it by observation, but since you have never been to another galaxy to observe this, or even outside our own, it is just shall we say opinion? Because if you are correct, and everything is reciprocal in Relativity, then if I am on a high redshift quasar looking at earth (our galaxy), then it would appear to me how? I'll let you answer that and teach me some physics.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : added definition in ()

This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2013 1:03 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 365 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2013 7:32 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 368 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 9:19 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 370 by AZPaul3, posted 05-10-2013 10:47 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 371 by AZPaul3, posted 05-10-2013 11:11 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 372 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2013 11:37 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 378 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2013 9:18 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 367 of 404 (698935)
05-10-2013 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 365 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2013 7:32 PM


All I have to say is this, you leave me speechless with your knowledge, yet say nothing.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 365 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2013 7:32 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2013 9:20 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 373 of 404 (698944)
05-10-2013 11:56 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Dr Adequate
05-10-2013 9:20 PM


I don't mind you talking, this is a forum isn't it, a place to debate theories? Just don't say the data says what it doesn't say. If you want to say we think it is this way, that's fine, but when data contradicts that theory it is then twisted so it can explain any situation.
Can't explain galaxy rotation? Add a pinch of Dark Matter, a dollop of Dark Energy and wham, there you go. And you are forbidden to think something we actually can measure can't be the cause. Only within the last few decades have we even had the technology to measure electric and magnetic fields in space, yet we know everything about it from theories that once said Kristen Birkeland was wrong. And know they are right back where they started. Measuring the electric fields and then ignoring them. Wondering why the data doesn't fit. They have a couple theories though, don't you worry - just keep the pocketbooks open, just not any that include electrical activity in plasma, the very thing they measure.
Newsroom | UCLA
But, since they ignore the very electrical currents they measure as having any effect, how can you trust them to tell you the sum of all the energy in the universe when they have never taken a course in plasma physics? If as those very same astrophysicists say 99.86% of the universe is plasma?
quote:
Apparently being speechless is something else you don't know how to do.
and then why are we here at all, if no one is going to say anything? Might as well sum it up now. I'll tell you my summation right now.
E=mc^2

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2013 9:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2013 12:05 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 375 by Percy, posted 05-11-2013 5:35 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 377 by ringo, posted 05-11-2013 12:05 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 379 of 404 (699044)
05-13-2013 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 368 by Percy
05-10-2013 9:19 PM


quote:
So cosmologists know better than to blindly apply the laws of general relativity all the way back to T=0. They understand that there wasn't really any singularity. A number of theories have been proposed to explain what really happens, but none has yet garnered enough evidence to win out over the others.
You don't really believe that do you? What does it matter what theory of Black Holes we think correct if none of them are real to begin with? Cosmologist almost weekly mention the physical Black Hole in the center's of galaxies they have no explanation for to explain the vast plasma jets ejecting from their centers, yet scoff at the idea that quasar's might be ejected from galactic cores. After all, almost every single ones lies within a 20 degree plane of an active galaxies axis, the others at the ends of spiral arms, the plasma connection quite obvious.
Just Google "black hole" and come back at tell me they talk about them as if they are not real. Got to NASA's web page and look it up. They use the impossible to explain what has been demonstrated over and over in the laboratory for over 100 years, plasma. And you want me to trust those telling me all about Black Holes?? They are the ones I am to believe, the ones that tell you 99% of the universe is plasma, then ignore it in every theory they have? Those experts? Shall we see what Stephen Hawkings thinks about the reality of Black Holes?
Are you mad????
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 368 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 9:19 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 381 by Panda, posted 05-13-2013 7:03 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 384 by Percy, posted 05-14-2013 7:19 AM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 386 by Son Goku, posted 05-15-2013 6:16 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 380 of 404 (699045)
05-13-2013 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by NoNukes
05-11-2013 9:18 PM


quote:
Einstein's equations are a set of inter-related differential equations that are extremely difficult to solve.
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia
quote:
The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress—energy tensor).
Similar to the way that electromagnetic fields are determined using charges and currents via Maxwell's equations,....Maxwell's equations are partial differential equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to each other and to the electric charges and currents. Often, the charges and currents are themselves dependent on the electric and magnetic fields via the Lorentz force equation and the constitutive relations. These all form a set of coupled partial differential equations, which are often very difficult to solve. In fact, the solutions of these equations encompass all the diverse phenomena in the entire field of classical electromagnetism. A thorough discussion is far beyond the scope of the article, but some general notes follow.
Which equations he derived from the work of Ampere, Weber and Gauss. Weber already had a relativistic formula for the working of the atom before the electron, proton or neutron had ever been discovered. Which Maxwell "simplified" with partial differential equations, and Einstein tried to put back into the non-linear form.
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia
quote:
The nonlinearity of the EFE distinguishes general relativity from many other fundamental physical theories. For example, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are linear in the electric and magnetic fields, and charge and current distributions (i.e. the sum of two solutions is also a solution); another example is Schrdinger's equation of quantum mechanics which is linear in the wavefunction.
So Maxwell messed Weber's theory up which he had almost completed before he died, and Einstein tried to get right back there, but had to use Maxwell's equations because they were "Standard" theory then.
quote:
Whatever theory the above quote is supposed to describe, it is not the Big Bang theory of reality, which does not involve a zero volume singularity. And what the heck is a "zero-point volume mass" anyway? Just more gibberish.
Free gibberish debunk. An electron has no size. An electron and a proton at the same point in space does not form a singularity. So what would such a combination be?
Big Bang Theory Astronomy
pick one, lets see
The Suppressed Electrodynamics Of Ampère-Gauss-Weber
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : added link
Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by NoNukes, posted 05-11-2013 9:18 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 382 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2013 8:12 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 383 by NoNukes, posted 05-13-2013 9:53 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 385 by Percy, posted 05-14-2013 7:54 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 387 of 404 (699252)
05-16-2013 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by Percy
05-14-2013 7:19 AM


quote:
In this view of singularities they are seen as artifacts of applying only general relativity instead of general relativity and quantum theory together. Scientists don't believe singularities exist in the real universe.
Doesn't seem to be anyones interpretation but yours. Funny how that seems to be the case everytime you all say they say one thing, when everytime you look it up they say just the opposite, why do you think that is? Maybe because you don't actually know what they say, just what you want to believe they say, so you can whitewash it???
Press Release: Black Hole Caught Red-Handed in a Stellar Homicide
Quite amazing that something not believed to exist can be tearing stars apart, since that is their official explanation for what is observed. get your story straight next time.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by Percy, posted 05-14-2013 7:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 388 by Panda, posted 05-16-2013 11:59 AM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 391 by Percy, posted 05-16-2013 12:23 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 392 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2013 12:50 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 389 of 404 (699257)
05-16-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 388 by Panda
05-16-2013 11:59 AM


quote:
Soooo.....you still can't tell the difference between a black hole and a singularity.
You aren't really doing very well, are you.
I would say you are the one that can't tell the difference, since according to your theorists, they are the exact same thing.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=55
Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia
And don't try to distract with that infintile reliance on quantum theory, it does not apply.
quote:
It must be stated that these come due to the breaking down of the classical theory. As yet, there is no theory of quantum gravity, but it is entirely possible that the singularities may be avoided with a theory of quantum gravity.
So whenever you devise a quantum gravity theory just let me know, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Panda, posted 05-16-2013 11:59 AM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by Panda, posted 05-16-2013 12:12 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 393 of 404 (699270)
05-16-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Panda
05-16-2013 12:12 PM


I could care less how well I am doing, as if the opinions of half the people on here matter. You claim there is a difference, then fine, point me to the article that explains this difference. Until then you are just stating your opinion. I notice that none of you ever include references when you say this is what they say, why is that?
Perhaps because you can't find any????
It would be nice if your quantum theory didn't rely on them, then conflict with itself over them.
Singularities and Black Holes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
quote:
As purely gravitational entities, black holes are at the heart of many attempts to formulate a theory of quantum gravity. Although they are regions of spacetime, black holes are also thermodynamical entities, with a temperature and an entropy; however, it is far from clear what statistical physics underlies these thermodynamical facts. The evolution of black holes is also apparently in conflict with standard quantum evolution, for such evolution rules out the sort of increase in entropy that seems to be required when black holes are present.
So you rely on them for trying to formulate quantum gravity, but your quantum theory rules them out. DOUBLETALK!!!!!!
And heres your Big Bang for you.
Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia
quote:
The two most important types of spacetime singularities are curvature singularities and conical singularities.[2] Singularities can also be divided according to whether they are covered by an event horizon or not (naked singularities).[3] According to general relativity, the initial state of the universe, at the beginning of the Big Bang, was a singularity.
Shibboleth Authentication Request
Like I said, get your story straight first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Panda, posted 05-16-2013 12:12 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by Panda, posted 05-16-2013 2:10 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 396 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-16-2013 5:19 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 397 by NoNukes, posted 05-16-2013 8:55 PM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 399 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-17-2013 2:58 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 400 by Percy, posted 05-17-2013 7:10 AM justatruthseeker has not replied
 Message 401 by Percy, posted 05-17-2013 12:07 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3160 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 402 of 404 (699398)
05-18-2013 4:18 PM


E=mc^2
You should actually call the matter beneath our feet "Strange Matter", being it makes up less then .13% of the universe. Then you wonder why cosmologists are always surprised when observations don't match what was expected after you ignore the other 99.86%. Then you require 96% of fairy dust you call Dark Matter and Dark Energy with a Black Hole in the center of every galaxy to explain the 99.86% you ignore. Don't know what causes it, must be Dark Matter or a Black Hole. Can't be a plasma phenomenon, even though plasma makes up 99.86% of the universe and is exactly what you observe being ejected in a z-pinch. Exactly matching laboratory experiments for over 100 years. Unless you got a mini black hole in a lab somewhere to validate your theory??? Your theory collapses at this imaginary event horizon, the math useless, showing that such is not a supported hypothesis. That even the math is against it. And as every single laboratory experiment has proven time after time, plasma behaves according to the electromagnetic formulas, and not gravitational. This is why you require 96% of dark matter to explain galactic rotation curves, and a super-massive black hole, maybe even a binary black hole or two to explain them, never-mind that's it's not "real", just because we need them to explain what we see because we ignore all 99.86% of the universe. But don't worry, your tax dollars are being well spent on the next imaginary fairy dust project.
Hows that 12 billion dollar project going for the search for gravitational waves? Oh, that's right, none were detected so you need a few billion more to continue to look.
No Elephants In My Carpet - More LIES from LIGO
A Neverending Story - Cosmologists Find The Nothing!!
Dark Matter/Energy?
LIGO Successfully finds nothing
Dark Inertia - Part One
Dark Inertia - Part Two
Hows your solar theory doing now that its thermal properties are 1% of that required to support your hypothesis? Oh that's right, you don't have an explanation now, just as voyager falsified your theory of the outer solar system. You have no theory at all to explain the sun, the nearest star, or our solar system, yet insist everything else is correct. That's a surefire belief if I ever saw one. You could never successfully explain galactic rotation curves before, now you don't even have a solar system or one for stars either.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...013/05/08/radio-elliptical-3
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/05/13/black-hunger-3/
http://www.thunderbolts.info/...anations-that-dont-explain-2
Why aren't those pesky stars taking thousands of years to move across the HR diagram as your theory requires?
Please, there is no evidence whatsoever that the overall energy of the universe is neutral, when 99.86% of the universe is still in plasma form 14 billion years after your Big Bang. And as all atomic research has shown it is when atomic bonds begin to form that matter becomes electrically neutral. So far only .13% of the universe has done so, and only partially, as the very lightning in the storms are plasma. The evidence suggest the universe is unbalanced, hence its expansion, not stability. E=mc^2.

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by Percy, posted 05-18-2013 5:25 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024