Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9036 total)
88 online now:
AZPaul3 (1 member, 87 visitors)
Newest Member: harpo
Post Volume: Total: 885,635 Year: 3,281/14,102 Month: 222/724 Week: 71/93 Day: 10/18 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 91 of 404 (643875)
12-12-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 1:40 AM


the mass of energy
But dark energy is different. It is an anti-gravity force.

I don't think that's quite right. It certainly acts against gravity, but so do rockets.

quote:
This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion", which is a colorful but possibly confusing expression. In fact a negative pressure does not influence the gravitational interaction between masses—which remains attractive—but rather alters the overall evolution of the universe at the cosmological scale, typically resulting in the accelerating expansion of the universe despite the attraction among the masses present in the universe.

from wiki.


Dark energy (74%) and not enough gravity to cancel it out.

Of course, this ignores other types of energy in the universe such as thermal energy and kinetic energy of galaxies which shows the net total energy to be even more positive.

Have you calculated the gravitational effect of the other types of energy? Have you calculated it for dark energy?

Remember energy and mass are equivalent. So energy has an associated mass just like mass has an associated energy. Where there is mass there is gravity. The negative pressure of dark energy may be greater than the associated gravity its mass produces, but that doesn't mean that the negative energy isn't cancelled out by the positive energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 1:40 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2729 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 92 of 404 (643876)
12-12-2011 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
12-12-2011 1:35 PM


Re: positive and negative
A neutron is made of an up quark which has a charge of +2/3e and two down quarks each with a charge of -1/3e.

There is charge, but a neutron has no net charge.

What is being discussed has nothing at all to do with the charge or even the spin of particles. All atoms and subatomic particles have positive rest energy. Even antimatter has positive rest energy, just an opposite charge (electron/positron).

The negative energy comes from the gravitational field. Because a body in gravitational orbit, such as the moon around the earth, must have positive energy to remove it from its orbit - for that reason it is said to have negative energy. It is an interesting concept and I'm skeptical of this also but this concept is not what I'm challenging in this thread.

However, just to demonstrate how one might challenge the concept of negative gravitational energy - imagine a thrown baseball from a pitcher. The ball has energy. The batter swings and hits it, applying positive energy in the opposite direction. Is it required to say the thrown baseball prior to being hit has negative energy? I don't think so.

I'm quite comfortable in saying my grasp on this subject matter is very tenuous, but it is a subject I intend to study more closely.

Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 12-12-2011 1:35 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 12-12-2011 2:11 PM designtheorist has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1000 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 93 of 404 (643877)
12-12-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 2:00 PM


Re: positive and negative
What is being discussed has nothing at all to do with the charge or even the spin of particles.

It was an analogy designed to show how something can have a net zero value while being composed of positive and negative values.

The negative energy comes from the gravitational field.

Which is why I said in Message 32 that

quote:
negative energy is related to the gravitational field. Positive energy is energy as we generally use it.

But this confused Chuck and he replied

Chuck writes:

Ok, but there is still energy right?

I was attempting to show him how there can still be (positive) energy even if the net energy is zero. I used the analogy of charge. Dr A used the analogy of mutual debt in Message 35. Can you come up with a better analogy to explain it to Chuck?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 2:00 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 3:32 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2729 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 94 of 404 (643879)
12-12-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
12-12-2011 1:09 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
Ah, so this is the crux of the issue for you. Somebody has an argument against god and it relies on the total net energy to be zero. You want to believe in god, therefore, you can't allow for the total net energy to be zero.

I do believe in God. My belief would not be damaged if it was determined that net energy was zero. Such a finding would not disprove God even though it would open the door (in the minds of some) that the world may have come into existence without God.

Positive energy is easy for us to observe. Negative energy is difficult to observe or quantify. The local effects of gravity do not even come close to the rest energy of the matter involved. But gravity does have a long reach. It is claimed that on cosmological scales, the negative energy of gravity can equal the rest energy of atoms. I am skeptical of this, but even if it were true - the net energy of the universe would not be zero because there are so many other types of energy in the universe. The most important of these is anti gravity of dark energy.

While the claim of zero net energy might have made sense in Feynmann's day, it makes no sense in light of dark energy.

So, yes, it is about the physics. The physics, when rightly understood, do not allow the poor arguments poor forward by the atheists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2011 1:09 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-12-2011 3:24 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 101 by PaulK, posted 12-12-2011 3:38 PM designtheorist has responded
 Message 105 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2011 4:25 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2729 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 95 of 404 (643882)
12-12-2011 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by cavediver
12-12-2011 2:24 AM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
Purely theological?

Allow me to rephrase. The impetus and motivation for the colliding branes theory is purely theological. Surely this is not the first time you have heard this criticism?

Stanford University has a fine website on these issues. See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmology-theology/

Hawking, one who is never reluctant to discuss the theological implications of his thoughts, tried to claim the idea of the multiverse was not motivated by theological necessity:

“We saw in Chapter 5 that our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine-tuning..." Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, p. 164

I disagree. And I'm not alone. Many physicists, including atheist physicists, see colliding branes as nothing but a notion arising from atheistic motivations.

You are really not doing too well in this thread, are you?

Actually, I think the thread is going wonderfully. I've learned a few things which improve my understanding, which is what this is all about. More importantly, the central thesis of the OP has stood up quite well. I've not seen any evidence contradicting the central point. I was concerned that someone might be able to point to a paper which includes dark energy and some other form of negative energy I did not know about to show the notion of net zero energy was still viable. But that has not happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2011 2:24 AM cavediver has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Larni, posted 12-12-2011 3:28 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 102 by cavediver, posted 12-12-2011 3:44 PM designtheorist has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 96 of 404 (643884)
12-12-2011 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
12-12-2011 1:09 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
This isn't about physics, this is about you feeling a belief of yours being threatened, and you want to keep that belief, so you're gonna attack it by pretending to talk about physics.

I would say it goes further than this. Pretty much every one of Designtheorist threads have been to defend her world view and to defend the logical fallacies made during said defence.

With all due humility I called this some time ago.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-12-2011 1:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 316 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 97 of 404 (643885)
12-12-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 2:18 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
designtheorist writes:

My limited understanding of physics and cosmology has been gained through informal education

designtheorist writes:

The physics, when rightly understood, do not allow the poor arguments poor forward by the atheists

Don't you see the inherent problem shown by these quotes of yours? Can't you see that you simply lack the education and experience, as admitted in the first quote, necessary to make the pronouncement in the second? Don't you understand that it would take an expert, i.e. someone with multiple relevant degrees and a good amount of experience working in the field, to make that kind of pronouncement?

I'm a reasonably intelligent guy who is interested in physics and cosmology, as you seem to be. It wouldn't occur to me in a million years that I could find errors in the work of actual practicing physicists or cosmologists, or biologists or plumbers or event planners, for that matter, without years of study from where I am today.

OK, maybe only weeks of study in the cases of the plumber or event planner.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 2:18 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 3:35 PM Aware Wolf has responded

  
Larni
Member
Posts: 3999
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 98 of 404 (643886)
12-12-2011 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 3:19 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
I've not seen any evidence contradicting the central point.

If you can't be taught by the likes of the good doctor Cavediver I fail to see how you could learn anything, here.

Sorry to be frank.


The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53

Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.

Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 3:19 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2729 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 99 of 404 (643887)
12-12-2011 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Modulous
12-12-2011 2:11 PM


Re: positive and negative
Dr A used the analogy of mutual debt in Message 35. Can you come up with a better analogy to explain it to Chuck?

Probably not. I am still skeptical that gravitational field energy has to be considered negative as I mentioned in Message 92.

Dr. A's analogy was correct in that it created no net wealth (because the exchange created both an asset and a liability at the same time), but I'm not convinced physics can work that way.

Taking the baseball concept I used earlier, we can imagine the moon moving through space (positive kinetic energy) when the gravitational field of the earth captures the moon and forces it into an orbit. It seems to me the gravitational field can be considered a positive energy which only changed the course of the moon's trajectory. I don't see why this necessarily has to be considered as offsetting to the positive energy of earth's rest energy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 12-12-2011 2:11 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2729 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 100 of 404 (643888)
12-12-2011 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Aware Wolf
12-12-2011 3:24 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
It wouldn't occur to me in a million years that I could find errors in the work of actual practicing physicists or cosmologists, or biologists or plumbers or event planners, for that matter, without years of study from where I am today.

You might be interested to study the contributions of amateur scientists in the history of science. Sometimes a fresh look at the problem is exactly what the field needs.

http://www.economist.com/node/305193


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-12-2011 3:24 PM Aware Wolf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by DrJones*, posted 12-12-2011 3:57 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 104 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-12-2011 3:58 PM designtheorist has responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 16859
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 101 of 404 (643890)
12-12-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 2:18 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
quote:

So, yes, it is about the physics. The physics, when rightly understood, do not allow the poor arguments poor forward by the atheists.

So, you're claiming that General Relativtiy is not physics, just a "poor argument poor[sic] argument put forward by atheists".

I think that really tells us all that we need to know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 2:18 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 7:04 PM PaulK has responded

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 2539 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(8)
Message 102 of 404 (643891)
12-12-2011 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 3:19 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
The impetus and motivation for the colliding branes theory is purely theological. Surely this is not the first time you have heard this criticism?

yes, it is. And it is ludicrous and imbecilic. And as I actually know the two authors of the paper I presented, I can assure that it is also utterly wrong; hilariously wrong

I disagree. And I'm not alone. Many physicists, including atheist physicists, see colliding branes as nothing but a notion arising from atheistic motivations.

Care to mention some of these supposed physicists? I can assure you, as one of the physicists who worked in this area, that you are talking complete bollocks. For the record, for all the time I worked as a theoretical physicist, I was a born-again evangelical Christian, attending various Vineyard fellowships around the world. So you would have perhaps thought that I would have been a little bit aware of these atheistic tendancies amongst my colleagues?

More importantly, the central thesis of the OP has stood up quite well.

No, it is as much nonsense as it was to begin with.

I've not seen any evidence contradicting the central point.

You have seen my explanation. You have not understood it. So you have dismissed it. So you remain as wrong as you were at the beginning. What more is there to say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 3:19 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 7:19 PM cavediver has not yet responded

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2177
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.7


(1)
Message 103 of 404 (643893)
12-12-2011 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 3:35 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
You might be interested to study the contributions of amateur scientists in the history of science.

amateur scientists are one thing, having the ignorance and arrogance to claim:
The physics, when rightly understood, do not allow the poor arguments poor forward by the atheists

after having been corrected on a matter of basic algebra is another.


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 100 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 3:35 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 316 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 104 of 404 (643894)
12-12-2011 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 3:35 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
There is a huge difference between amateur astronomers peering through telescopes and a layman claiming to understand cosmology better than cosmologists. You know this, right? To the extent that your point about the amateur scientist has merit, it moves the bar from 10.0 kilometers over your head to 9.9 kilometers over your head.

I mean, do you really think you understand cosmology enough to correct cosmologists? I don't mean this as an insult. You may be the brightest guy or girl in the world, but you would still need the background to be able to do that. That's obvious, yes?

BTW, no offense meant to amateur astronomers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 3:35 PM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by designtheorist, posted 12-13-2011 11:31 AM Aware Wolf has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 404 (643896)
12-12-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 2:18 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
I do believe in God.

For the record, so do I.

My belief would not be damaged if it was determined that net energy was zero. Such a finding would not disprove God even though it would open the door (in the minds of some) that the world may have come into existence without God.

Well that's good. I was beginning to think you were one of those people...

Positive energy is easy for us to observe. Negative energy is difficult to observe or quantify. The local effects of gravity do not even come close to the rest energy of the matter involved. But gravity does have a long reach. It is claimed that on cosmological scales, the negative energy of gravity can equal the rest energy of atoms. I am skeptical of this, but even if it were true - the net energy of the universe would not be zero because there are so many other types of energy in the universe. The most important of these is anti gravity of dark energy.

While the claim of zero net energy might have made sense in Feynmann's day, it makes no sense in light of dark energy.

I think it would make sense that the net energy would be zero. That's kinda how everything else is with the universe. If there's a particle, there's an anti-particle. Every positive charge is balanced by a negetive one. There seems to be a balance for everything, so it simply follows for me that this balance would be maintained for the Universe as a whole.

So, yes, it is about the physics. The physics, when rightly understood, do not allow the poor arguments poor forward by the atheists.

Physics is never rightly understood...

We can't speak in math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 2:18 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