Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9042 total)
98 online now:
DrJones*, nwr (2 members, 96 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 886,022 Year: 3,668/14,102 Month: 288/321 Week: 104/44 Day: 20/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 121 of 404 (643929)
12-13-2011 3:10 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by cavediver
12-13-2011 2:53 AM


Re: Hamiltonian definition of energy always equals net zero
f it wasn't for weveryone else here, I'd wonder why I bother.

I thought you were posting just for me. Seriously, I don't know of any other place I can go to get a real physicist to discuss this stuff on a regular week night.

I suppose I really ought to thank designtheorist...

And why does every crank think that they are Einstein toiling away examining patents or ...Galileo challenging the establishment.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2011 2:53 AM cavediver has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by subbie, posted 12-13-2011 10:07 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-13-2011 10:44 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 122 of 404 (643945)
12-13-2011 10:07 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by NoNukes
12-13-2011 3:10 AM


Re: Hamiltonian definition of energy always equals net zero
And why does every crank think that they are Einstein toiling away examining patents or ...Galileo challenging the establishment.

When someone lacks even a basic understanding about an area of expertise in which they are expounding and lacks even the simplest grasp on the idea of logic, and everybody they share their ideas with thinks they're a kook, what other choice do they have?


Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2011 3:10 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 123 of 404 (643952)
12-13-2011 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by NoNukes
12-13-2011 3:10 AM


Re: Hamiltonian definition of energy always equals net zero
And why does every crank think that they are Einstein toiling away examining patents or ...Galileo challenging the establishment.

The less you know, the more you think you know. The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2011 3:10 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 124 of 404 (643954)
12-13-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Aware Wolf
12-12-2011 3:58 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.

I don't want you to think amateur astronomers are the only amateurs to make contributions to science. The article I linked did focus on astronomers because it is somewhat relevant, but amateurs make contributions in all kinds of fields. They have to put in tons of hours to be ready to make such a contribution, but it happens.

Here's another story you might find interesting about a 17 year old girl and a competition which has resulted in a number of breakthroughs by teenagers. http://www.thenanoscience.com/?q=node/94


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-12-2011 3:58 PM Aware Wolf has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-13-2011 12:54 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2011 3:40 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
kbertsche
Member (Idle past 1069 days)
Posts: 1427
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007


Message 125 of 404 (643955)
12-13-2011 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by cavediver
12-13-2011 2:53 AM


Re: Hamiltonian definition of energy always equals net zero
Cavediver--any answer or comments to my earlier question of how flatness is related to zero net energy? We have experimental evidence of flatness, so if there's a relationship to zero net energy, this would help to give zero net energy some experimental grounding.

"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 120 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2011 2:53 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
Aware Wolf
Member (Idle past 358 days)
Posts: 156
From: New Hampshire, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 126 of 404 (643960)
12-13-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by designtheorist
12-13-2011 11:31 AM


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

I don't want you to think amateur astronomers are the only amateurs to make contributions to science. The article I linked did focus on astronomers because it is somewhat relevant, but amateurs make contributions in all kinds of fields. They have to put in tons of hours to be ready to make such a contribution, but it happens.

Let's stipulate that there are amateur scientists making contributions to theoretical physics and cosmology, after putting in "tons of hours". Are you one of them? Have you put in tons of hours? Do you have the math background necessary to make contributions?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by designtheorist, posted 12-13-2011 11:31 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 404 (643971)
12-13-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by designtheorist
12-13-2011 11:31 AM


Re: This ain't about the physics
Along the same lines as Aware Wolf's comment, I read the following in the article about the 17 year old:

quote:
Zhang’s achievement is impressive considering she is only 17 years old, but also due to the level of understanding required to create such a nanoparticle in the first place. She has spent over 1,000 hours since 2009 researching and developing the particle, and wants to go on to study chemical engineering, biomedical engineering, or physics. Her dream job is to be a research professor.

Do your efforts towards understanding cosmology sound anything like the effort this 17 year old has undertaken in understanding nanotechnology?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by designtheorist, posted 12-13-2011 11:31 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by subbie, posted 12-13-2011 5:35 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 193 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 128 of 404 (643976)
12-13-2011 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by NoNukes
12-13-2011 3:40 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
But . . . but . . . amateur . . . . 17 . . . therefore I'm right!

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2011 3:40 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 547 days)
Posts: 3811
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 129 of 404 (643985)
12-13-2011 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by cavediver
12-13-2011 2:53 AM


Oh bother
cavediver writes:

If it wasn't for everyone else here, I'd wonder why I bother.

Speaking as one of everyone else here, thanks for bothering.

You've disabused me of a number of confused notions: prying those away is like clearing barnacles from a keel. I may yet find some understanding.


"If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by cavediver, posted 12-13-2011 2:53 AM cavediver has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 130 of 404 (644149)
12-15-2011 3:08 PM


Email from Lawrence Krauss
I received a brief email from Dr. Krauss this week. He writes:

I don't visit forums, but I recommend the new book, A Universe from Nothing, where I elaborate extensively on the idea I mentioned in my lecture.

I did not realize he had written a book on the subject so this is welcome info.

BTW, sorry I have not been on for a while. Life is busy and I've been spending some of my time reading and researching this very interesting question. Can't wait to reduce it to a post here.


Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by hooah212002, posted 12-15-2011 4:31 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 50 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


(1)
Message 131 of 404 (644150)
12-15-2011 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by designtheorist
12-15-2011 3:08 PM


Re: Email from Lawrence Krauss
Let me get this straight: you start a thread decrying theoretical physics, yet you didn't even realize the one of the foremost current theoretical physicists had written a book on the subject you created a thread about? Next you're gonna say you don't know who Michio Kaku is.....

Put the FSM back in Chrifsmas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by designtheorist, posted 12-15-2011 3:08 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 132 of 404 (644391)
12-17-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by NoNukes
12-12-2011 8:51 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
You are not going to see any such thing because you will not allow it.

Once you've acknowledged that energy contributes to the warping of space, unless you are capable of calculating the effect of dark energy on both gravitational energy and on the expansion of space, then you should understand that your musings on dark energy contributing significantly to the net energy calculation aren't going to persuade anyone, because they are going to be wrong. I think Modulus has already made the same point.

Further, your opinion that kinetic and thermal energy are unaccounted for is also clearly wrong.

I am convinced the effect of dark energy on the gravitational field has to be quantified. The effects of dark energy clearly swamp the effects of gravity since the expansion of the universe is accelerating. It is like me throwing a ball in the air and telling you that you have to quantify the effects of gravity are greater than the force of the thrown ball before someone will believe it. You can watch the ball fall from the sky. Who are you going to believe? The calculations or your eyes as you watch the ball fall from the sky?

Your unsupported claim that kinetic and thermal energy are accounted for is not persuasive. Where's your evidence?

Maybe it was controversial at the turn of the century (i.e. early 20th century). Even E=mc*c was controversial in some circles. But wouldn't it be more controversial for gravitational energy to simply disappear when energy was converted away from mass? That's an implication of your proposal that photons don't warp space-time.

I did a little looking around on this and there is some controversy at least.

“Light traveling freely in space does not produce a gravitational field - contrary to most "establishment" thinking. Because the "Interval" of light = zero, light has no specific location in spacetime, and hence cannot provide a definite center for such a field. Since an uncentered gravitational field violates energy (and symmetry) conservation (including the "Equivalence Principle"), light moving freely in vacuum cannot and does not produce a gravitational field. This result is important for theories attempting to unify gravity with the other forces.” - John A. Gowan - "Dark Energy": Does Light Produce a Gravitational Field? http://www.johnagowan.org/lightfield.html

“The ‘acceleration’ (or reduced deceleration) of the expansion of the Cosmos is caused by the expansive entropic property (intrinsic dimensional motion) of light, combined with a reduction of the total gravitational energy of the Cosmos. This expansive combination is the "dark energy" or "cosmological constant" producing the observed acceleration (which should have been anticipated if we had realized that light does not produce a gravitational field). In any case, it seems obvious that this "cosmic acceleration" constitutes the observational evidence that light, traveling freely in spacetime at velocity c, does not and cannot produce a gravitational field.” John A. Gowan - "Dark Energy": Does Light Produce a Gravitational Field? http://www.johnagowan.org/lightfield.html

I don't know if he is right. He clearly identifies this position as outside the establishment. Sometimes it is good to look outside the establishment way of thinking on things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by NoNukes, posted 12-12-2011 8:51 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2011 2:11 PM designtheorist has not yet responded
 Message 140 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2011 2:28 PM designtheorist has responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 133 of 404 (644392)
12-17-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Dr Adequate
12-12-2011 10:06 PM


Re: Does any of this matter or even make sense?
Try here.

Berman, Marcelo Samuel (2009). "On the Zero-energy Universe". International Journal of Theoretical Physics 48 (11): 3278

Let me know if you find any mistakes in his math.

While some people may consider this an interesting paper, I do not. It is not dealing with actual observations, measurements and calculations. It is dealing with theoretical concepts such as pseudo-tensors which some people disapprove of in the context of GR.

At one place he writes:

Now, the energy of the Universe, can be calculated at constant time coordinate t . In par- ticular, the result would be the same as when t → ∞ , or, even when t → 0.

His calculation is not falsifiable because it is not possible to observe the universe at either of these points in time. I would be satisfied if he would do the calculation at the present point in time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-12-2011 10:06 PM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 2771 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 134 of 404 (644394)
12-17-2011 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by PaulK
12-13-2011 1:33 AM


Re: General relativity and dark energy
Energy interacts with gravity in the same way that mass does. This would refute all your ideas about Dark Energy making the positive energy exceed the negative energy of the gravitational field. Yet you dismiss the idea without offering any rebuttal.

I don't need a rebuttal. Dark energy does not interact with gravity in the same way that mass does. It is patently absurd to state otherwise since the antigravity effects are clear to see.

Firstly that does NOT in any way justify your refusal to even acknowledge the point, You cannot reasonably assume that any feature of General Relativity will be completely negated. In fact the reverse is true - any viable replacement theory will be very close to GR in many ways, so we should expect this feature to remain largely unchanged.

I never said it would be completely negated just as Newtonian physics were not completely negated with the ascendancy of GR.

Secondly, in the Big Bang thread you attacked Hawking precisely BECAUSE he was dealing with some of the modifications required. That is exactly where Hawking's elimination of the singularity came from, another point that you refused to acknowledge because it contradicted your own (unsupported) ideas about his motivation. Make your mind up. Is General Relativity absolutely right so that we must accept the existence of a singularity - or does it need changing so that there may not have been a singularity in the first place ?

I disagreed with Hawking. I didn't attack him. (You don't attack a man in man in a wheelchair!) I disagreed because Hawking claimed by getting rid of the singularity he was getting rid of the finite age of the universe. It is untenable viewpoint.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by PaulK, posted 12-13-2011 1:33 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 404 (644396)
12-17-2011 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by designtheorist
12-17-2011 1:31 PM


Re: A Simple Thought Experiment
Your unsupported claim that kinetic and thermal energy are accounted for is not persuasive. Where's your evidence?

My claim is completely supported by the material I've already provided. Kinetic energy, and thermal energy which is essentially the kinetic energy of particles, are accounted for in the energy momentum tensor. In fact, any form of energy that has a mass equivalent, as well as momentum, pressure, and shear, are all accounted for in Tab. I'm sure that at least three of us have explained that to you in various amounts of detail. You have presented zero evidence or argument in rebuttal.

I am convinced the effect of dark energy on the gravitational field has to be quantified.

I know that you are not convinced. You are unwilling to take on the effort of learning the theory that you denigrate. I can, however, point out why you shouldn't be taken seriously. You know doodly point squat about the topic in question.

Your method of accounting for dark energy is completely dependent on a belief that energy has no gravitational effect. And we know that principle is wrong. We also know that the effect of dark matter is not merely to add a positive effect that proportionately cancels the gravitational effect of gravity, because over huge scales, gravity does bind objects together. Dark energy only overwhelms gravity over super cosmic scales.

Edited by NoNukes, : Add additional information re dark matter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by designtheorist, posted 12-17-2011 1:31 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