Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8782 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-22-2017 1:33 AM
93 online now:
PaulK, Pressie (2 members, 91 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,689 Year: 21,295/21,208 Month: 1,728/2,326 Week: 183/881 Day: 8/97 Hour: 2/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
252627Next
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 669 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-pinch

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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13467
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 347 of 404 (698821)
05-09-2013 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 346 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 6:55 PM


justatruthseeker writes:

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.


You're still talking about localizaed balances and imbalances. You haven't said anything about why the overall energy of the universe can't sum to zero.

Suppose we have some plasma: eleven positive ions over here and eleven negative ions over there. Yes, they need to "flow" to get together and form "normal matter" but the total charge of the system adds up to zero whether it's in the form of plasma or "normal matter".

Edited by ringo, : Speling.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 6:55 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 7:20 PM ringo has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 669 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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13467
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 349 of 404 (698827)
05-09-2013 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 7:20 PM


justatruthseeker writes:

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.


What part of "sum" do you not understand? Add up all of the energy in the universe, the positive and the negative. You're just saying, "Oh, there's some energy so the sum can't be zero." Are you confusing "some energy" with "sum energy"?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 7:20 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 350 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 7:34 PM ringo has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 669 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 responded

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

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13467
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 351 of 404 (698831)
05-09-2013 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 7:34 PM


justatruthseeker writes:

It can't be equal, or no movement would be possible, nothing would repel or attract.


Nonsense. Movement, attraction and repulsion are all local. There's no reason why a movement in one locality can't be balanced out - negated - by an opposite movement in another locality.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 7:34 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 8:06 PM ringo has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 669 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 responded

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

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15692
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 353 of 404 (698848)
05-10-2013 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 8:06 PM


Hi JustATruthSeeker,

Do you agree with the Wikipedia definition of a plasma where it says:

Wikipedia writes:

Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero).

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 8:06 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 355 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2013 11:09 AM Percy has responded
 Message 366 by Panda, posted 05-10-2013 8:42 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11666
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 354 of 404 (698865)
05-10-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 8:06 PM


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,

The Singularity is an asymptote... you don't ever actually "get there".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 8:06 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11666
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 355 of 404 (698877)
05-10-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Percy
05-10-2013 7:08 AM


Do you agree with the Wikipedia definition of a plasma where it says:

Wikipedia writes:

Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero).

Heh, so if 99% of the universe if plasma then 99% of the universe is neutral.

From that page I found this graph:

I think that helps show the source of my confusion from the statement "99% of the universe is plasma"...

The interstellar regions contain low densities of ionized particles that are relatively far apart. So while that still "counts" as plasma, saying it like "99% of the universe is plasma" isn't really painting the right picture, in my opinion, because there's an awful lot of "empty" space out there. Am I wrong to see it that way?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 7:08 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 11:56 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15692
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 356 of 404 (698889)
05-10-2013 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by New Cat's Eye
05-10-2013 11:09 AM


Catholic Scientist writes:

The interstellar regions contain low densities of ionized particles that are relatively far apart. So while that still "counts" as plasma, saying it like "99% of the universe is plasma" isn't really painting the right picture, in my opinion, because there's an awful lot of "empty" space out there. Am I wrong to see it that way?

I don't understand enough of how you see things to say whether it's right or wrong, but if you're saying that the fact that so much of the universe is plasma is unintuitive because so little of what we contact in daily life is plasma, then I certainly agree. The density of gas in the empty space between galaxies is better than the best vacuum we can produce on Earth, but there is such a huge volumn of this empty space that that's where most of the matter of the universe apparently resides. And most of this rarefied gas is apparently in plasma form, its high energy causing collisions that keep the hydrogen nuclei separated from their electons (Wikipedia article on intergalactic space).

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Grammar.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2013 11:09 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2013 12:32 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13467
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 357 of 404 (698890)
05-10-2013 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 8:06 PM


justatruthseeker writes:

So then what moved in the 0 volume of the initial event, if the beginning energy was equal, all in one spot?


As Catholic Scientist has suggested, it wasn't zero volume, just close to it. There also were no "things" in it - matter hadn't formed yet - so motion was really undefined.

justatruthseeker writes:

This is the ONLY reason the Big Bang theory could even hold any merit whatsoever.


Well, there's also a little matter of the observed fact that everything in the universe is moving outward from the same point. The fact that the Big Bang happened is not disputed even if the theory of how it happened isn't completely satisfying.

justatruthseeker writes:

My theory....


Your hypothesis. Do you understand the difference?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 8:06 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2013 1:01 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 362 by AZPaul3, posted 05-10-2013 1:20 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11666
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 358 of 404 (698898)
05-10-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Percy
05-10-2013 11:56 AM


I don't understand enough of how you see things to say whether it's right or wrong, but if you're saying that the fact that so much of universe is plasma is unintuitive because so little of what we contact in daily life is plasma, then I certainly agree.

I dont' mean that its unintuitive because of what we see in our daily life (well, it is, but that's not the point I was making). I see saying "99% of the universe is plasma" as analogous to saying that "99% of our solar system is the sun".... Sure, 99% of the mass of the solar system is the sun, but that doesn't paint the right picture of what the rest of the solar system looks like, which is very non-sun like.

Typically, when people picture plasma, they think of hot gas. So when someone hear's that 99% of the universe is plasma, I don't think that paints the picture of what is really happening in the interstellar regions of outer space. Sure, it technically counts as a plasma, but since the density is so low its not really what people are thinking when they picture it.

I think that's part of the point of saying it that way. Its supposed to be a "wowzer". The physics cranks seem to like to say things that appear false at face value, but tend to be technically correct. That way, they can build some doubt as if everything you think you know could be wrong, and therefore, all of physics could be wrong too. I don't find it to be a very honest approach.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 11:56 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 12:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15692
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 359 of 404 (698899)
05-10-2013 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 358 by New Cat's Eye
05-10-2013 12:32 PM


Catholic Scientist writes:

I think that's part of the point of saying it that way. Its supposed to be a "wowzer". The physics cranks seem to like to say things that appear false at face value, but tend to be technically correct. That way, they can build some doubt as if everything you think you know could be wrong, and therefore, all of physics could be wrong too. I don't find it to be a very honest approach.

Oh, okay, I think I see what you're saying. Yes, if the average person's visual image for a plasma is anything like mine (blazingly hot and dense flow of gas capable of destroying everything in it's path), then simply saying that 99% of the universe is a plasma paints the wrong image. All the incredibly hot plasma of a cubic mile of interstellar space probably wouldn't contain enough energy to reheat your coffee, or even noticeably change its temperature.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 358 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-10-2013 12:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15948
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 360 of 404 (698903)
05-10-2013 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 357 by ringo
05-10-2013 12:02 PM


Your hypothesis. Do you understand the difference?

It's not a hypothesis either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 357 by ringo, posted 05-10-2013 12:02 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
2223
24
252627Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017