Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
223 online now:
DrJones*, dwise1 (2 members, 221 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 46 of 404 (643756)
12-11-2011 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 12:23 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
quote:

There are several errors in the website argument. I don't think we need to go into all of them. Both Trixie and the website author are providing circular arguments

That is quite obviously false.

quote:

Trixie uses the word "if." The word "if" is required. She is assuming the two equations are equal. i deny this.

The website author does not use the word "if" but he makes the same assumption when he writes:


You are again, obviously incorrect. The website does not make that assumption, and Trixie is simply explaining things.

quote:

Do you see how he is assuming they are equal?

No, I see that he is NOT assuming any such thing, and he is doing no more than applying simple algebra in a way that is completely valid.

quote:

Since this is only about 8% difference, he is saying the answer is probably zero. The problem is his calculation for positive energy is nothing but the speed of light squared - it is velocity.

So what does this do to Einstein's equation? The author is saying that Einstein is wrong. E does not equal mc 2. Instead, E = c 2.

C'mon. Seriously? Do we have to spend any more time on this?


The author is saying no such thing. All he is doing is cancelling the numerical value of m on each side. What you are saying is complete nonsense.

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:23 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:41 PM PaulK has responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1032 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 47 of 404 (643757)
12-11-2011 12:39 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by cavediver
12-11-2011 8:04 AM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
Cavediver,

Thanks for the explanations. This is another of the times that I wish I had taken the GR course in grad school!

As far as I know, the experimental data is consistent with a flat universe (reference; see Fig 5).

Apparently, the claim of zero net energy is equivalent to the claim of perfect flatness to the universe? Can you explain this relationship to us a bit better?

(BTW, the claim that the universe arose from an initial "quantum fluctuation" has the same problems (but worse, IMO) as the claims that the universe "began to exist". A fluctuation is something that occurs in time; how can a "fluctuation" occur if time and space do not yet exist?)

Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.


"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

“I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously.” – Erwin Schroedinger


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 8:04 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 48 of 404 (643758)
12-11-2011 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by PaulK
12-11-2011 12:36 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
All he is doing is cancelling the numerical value of m on each side.

But both sides of the equation have to be equal for such an operation to be valid, correct?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:36 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:47 PM designtheorist has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 49 of 404 (643759)
12-11-2011 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 12:41 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
quote:

But both sides of the equation have to be equal for such an operation to be valid, correct?

No. If you're testing for equality the only restriction is that m can't be zero. That's basic algebra.

(If m were negative it would flip the sign, but that doesn't matter when you only care about whether they are equal and it won't be the case anyway)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:41 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 1:03 PM PaulK has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 50 of 404 (643760)
12-11-2011 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 12:23 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
E does not equal mc 2. Instead, E = c 2.

And this is why I questioned your understanding of basic algebra.

1.postive energy can be calculated from E=mc2
2.E=mc2 can be written as E/m=c2

3. Negative energy can be calculated from E=m Mu G / R u
4. which can then be written as E/m=Mu G / R u

5. because m is the same value in both equations we can run the numbers and see if Ep/m is indeed equal to En/m


God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:23 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 51 of 404 (643761)
12-11-2011 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by PaulK
12-11-2011 12:47 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
You're right. The author of the website is not assuming equivalency as I first thought. There are still problems with his equations.

He is saying velocity of the speed of light squared equals all of the positive energy of the universe. This is untrue. Even if everything he presented was true, this would only show the rest energy of all matter is the speed of light squared - which is a claim I could accept. The equation does not account for thermal energy, dark energy or kinetic energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 12:47 PM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2011 1:12 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 1:16 PM designtheorist has responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 52 of 404 (643762)
12-11-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 1:03 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
He is saying velocity of the speed of light squared equals all of the positive energy of the universe. This is untrue.

Again, no he's not. Please learn some basic algebra. What he is saying is:

Ep/m=c2


God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 1:03 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 1:36 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 53 of 404 (643763)
12-11-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 1:03 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
quote:

You're right. The author of the website is not assuming equivalency as I first thought. There are still problems with his equations.

I suggest you think very carefully about how you came to make such an obvious mistake, and how long it took you to notice.

quote:

He is saying velocity of the speed of light squared equals all of the positive energy of the universe

No, he's not. He is saying that the (positive) energy equivalent of the mass of a particle is about the same as the negative energy of the gravitational field relating to that particle.

quote:

The equation does not account for thermal energy, dark energy or kinetic energy.

Thermal and kinetic energy are essentially the same thing and even if we ignore relativity they are much, much smaller than the energy equivalent of the mass. That really leaves only Dark Energy, and given the questions about whether it exists or what it is if it does I think it is a little premature to point to it as a problem. (Especially as I think that the considerations offered by Cavediver would still apply, but I'm no expert).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 1:03 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 1:34 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 54 of 404 (643764)
12-11-2011 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by PaulK
12-11-2011 1:16 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #53
He is saying that the (positive) energy equivalent of the mass of a particle is about the same as the negative energy of the gravitational field relating to that particle.

Not true. I think this is a fairly common misapprehension. I quoted Hawking in the OP:

The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy.

You say

Thermal and kinetic energy are essentially the same thing...

At the quantum or atomic level perhaps. But I am referring to the thermal energy of CMB radiation, the thermal output of the stars and the kinetic energy of the galaxies in motion. Most people would not consider these "the same thing."

That really leaves only Dark Energy, and given the questions about whether it exists or what it is if it does I think it is a little premature to point to it as a problem.

In Message 11 I provided you with evidence that the existence of dark energy is no longer in doubt. See http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ and read #6 in the list. The fact dark energy completely swamps the effects of gravitation should be obvious by the fact the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 1:16 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 55 of 404 (643765)
12-11-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by DrJones*
12-11-2011 1:12 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
Actually, that is what I'm saying his equations prove. He appears to be claiming total net energy is zero. His equations do not account for thermal energy, kinetic energy of galaxies or dark energy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by DrJones*, posted 12-11-2011 1:12 PM DrJones* has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 2:06 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2607 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 56 of 404 (643766)
12-11-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 11:41 AM


Strewth!
Bloody hell, this is getting basic!

It is NOT a circular argument, try to keep up with stuff I learned as an 11 year old.

Positive energy = E=mc2

Negative energy = m M u G / R u

IF positive energy = negative energy

THEN mc2 = m M u G / R u

Now you substitute values for the terms in the equation and see if really do equal each other!

designtheorist writes:

Trixie uses the word "if." The word "if" is required. She is assuming the two equations are equal. i deny this

The word "if" means I am assuming nothing!!!! That's what "if" means! IF the two equations are equal then when you plug in values for the terms you will get the same answer for each equation. IF they are not equal you'll get different answers!

The auther of the website in question doesn't say that E=c2. He is dividing both sides of the equation by a common term, namely m.

If you leave the minus sign in front, then the sum of the two sides of the equation will equal zero IF the equations are equal. If you remove the minus sign, then subtracting one value from the other will equal zero if the equations are equal.

Can we at least agree that the following is true?

IF 2ab=4b
THEN a=2

and

4+(-4) = 4-4

If you're struggling with algebra as basic as this and think that this basic algebra is circular reasoning why on earth do you think you are able to determine if theoretical physicists are wrong?

designtheorist writes:

Anytime I am not persuaded because I don't understand something, I think the honest thing to do is to state what I don't understand. Perhaps someone can explain it to me and increase my understanding.
I also provided evidence to show why the portion I did understand indicates the author is wrong.

Note the part that I bolded. Has it occurred to you that if you only understood a part of what the author is saying, then you don't actually understand what he is saying in toto? If you don't know what he is saying, i.e., what case he is making , you have no way that you can objectively determine whether he is right or wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 11:41 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:09 PM Trixie has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 57 of 404 (643767)
12-11-2011 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 1:36 PM


Re: Reply to PaulK #44
quote:

Actually, that is what I'm saying his equations prove.

Then you are badly misreading what he is saying.

quote:

He appears to be claiming total net energy is zero. His equations do not account for thermal energy, kinetic energy of galaxies or dark energy.

And I answered all these points in my previous post.

Do you really think that the kinetic energy of a galaxy is significant compared to the energy in the mass of the same galaxy ? If you do then perhaps you would like to support that claim...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 1:36 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 58 of 404 (643769)
12-11-2011 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Trixie
12-11-2011 1:46 PM


Re: Strewth!
Note the part that I bolded. Has it occurred to you that if you only understood a part of what the author is saying, then you don't actually understand what he is saying in toto? If you don't know what he is saying, i.e., what case he is making , you have no way that you can objectively determine whether he is right or wrong.

But I did present an argument about why Berman was wrong and why the author of the website was wrong. You did not address the arguments at all. You have only attacked me which is not very helpful in terms of increasing "Understanding through Discussion."

In brief, neither of the two is addressing dark energy which obviously swamps the negative energy of the gravitational field since the universe is accelerating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 1:46 PM Trixie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Trixie, posted 12-11-2011 2:26 PM designtheorist has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2734 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 59 of 404 (643770)
12-11-2011 2:15 PM


A Simple Thought Experiment
PaulK makes the claim:

He is saying that the (positive) energy equivalent of the mass of a particle is about the same as the negative energy of the gravitational field relating to that particle.

We all know that the law of conservation of energy tells us mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass. Keeping in mind this law, try to imagine this conversion happening and PaulK's assertion being true.

You have mass X with at rest energy of Y. This mass creates a gravitational field energy of -Y. Now when you convert this mass into positive energy, the gravitational field energy goes to zero. How much positive energy did the mass actually create when converted to energy?


Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by PaulK, posted 12-11-2011 2:22 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 68 by cavediver, posted 12-11-2011 6:02 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 12-11-2011 8:35 PM designtheorist has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16861
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 60 of 404 (643771)
12-11-2011 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by designtheorist
12-11-2011 2:15 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
quote:

We all know that the law of conservation of energy tells us mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass. Keeping in mind this law, try to imagine this conversion happening and PaulK's assertion being true.

MY assertion is that is what the website is saying. So the correct way to test MY assertion that is to look at what the website says...

And conservation of energy doesn't say anything about mass converted to energy. It just says that the total amount of energy stays the same.

quote:

You have mass X with at rest energy of Y. This mass creates a gravitational field energy of -Y. Now when you convert this mass into positive energy, the gravitational field energy goes to zero. How much positive energy did the mass actually create when converted to energy?

I don't think that either of us is sufficiently expert to deal with this, but maybe that's where the energy comes from.

I am going to repeat the very basic point that it's rather silly to be trying to argue points you don't understand.

(And if you can't tell the difference between "the website says this" and "this is true" I have to say that I don't think that you should be arguing about anything - at least not about anything said in English.)

Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:15 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021