Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 301 of 404 (698650)
05-08-2013 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 3:23 PM


quote:
When we measure voltage at a point we measure a difference in potential between that point and a reference. We can choose different reference potentials and thus get different voltage readings for the same point.
Exactly, so what source do you choose to use as your base voltage value? We will then compare the voltage of every atom in the universe compared to that base value and see if it sums to 0.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 3:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:06 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 302 of 404 (698652)
05-08-2013 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 2:39 PM


quote:
A fair proposal, but one that is not matched to the evidence. The standard model does predict an extremely tiny neutron dipole moment of 10—32ecm, but that moment is simple not strong enough to explain why an atom like He-3 is completely stable despite the repulsion of the two protons. The strong nuclear force does that work.
There is a wikipedia article on the neutron electric dipole moment that is reasonably supported with pointers to the experimental evidence and the theoretical support for the tiny value of the nedm. I see no reason to take your word for it.
A good attempt at diversion, some were probably fooled by it.
quote:
The strong interaction is thought to be mediated by gluons, acting upon quarks, antiquarks, and other gluons. Gluons, in turn, are thought to interact with quarks and gluons because all carry a type of charge called "color charge."
So call it color, red, green and blue, upquarks, dpwnquarks or whatever, and in the end it is charged particles. So what again is the difference between the EM and strong force?
quote:
A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus).
It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons.
But wait, the stromng force binds fundemental particles, but sadly it was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not. So how exactly does the strong force which governs fundemental particles have anything to do with neutrons?
Strong interaction - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 2:39 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:22 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 303 of 404 (698653)
05-08-2013 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 3:41 PM


Exactly, so what source do you choose to use as your base voltage value? We will then compare the voltage of every atom in the universe compared to that base value and see if it sums to 0.
Okay. I pick signal ground of the laptop computer I'm typing on. Now it's your turn. Please show your work. Remember of course that for atoms the separation of charge is on the order of 1 to 100 Angstrom.
Potential results from a charge separation. When I am at a distance between a separated +1e and -1e charge that dwarfs the separation distance between the charges what force will I feel. Hint, force law from a dipole is 1/r^3 and not 1/r^2. Remeber also that the sign and magnitude of the force depends on the orientation of the dipoles to my laptop, where sad orientation is probably random distributed. My educated guess is zero total for all atoms in the universe, but show me your work
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 3:41 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 4:22 PM NoNukes has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 304 of 404 (698654)
05-08-2013 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 4:06 PM


Electromagnetism - Wikipedia
quote:
The electromagnetic force is the interaction responsible for almost all the phenomena encountered in daily life, with the exception of gravity...The theoretical implications of electromagnetism, in particular the establishment of the speed of light based on properties of the "medium" of propagation (permeability and permittivity), led to the development of special relativity by Albert Einstein in 1905.
What is gravity again?
Electromagnetic field - Wikipedia
quote:
An electromagnetic field (also EMF or EM field) is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space
Just like gravity, so how far apart do those molecules have to be again???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:34 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 311 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 5:20 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 305 of 404 (698655)
05-08-2013 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 3:53 PM


Not supportive of your point...
But wait, the stromng force binds fundemental particles, but sadly it was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not. So how exactly does the strong force which governs fundemental particles have anything to do with neutrons?
From the article in wikipedia that you quoted, but did not read to closely, let's take this answer.
quote:
In the context of binding protons and neutrons together to form atoms, the strong interaction is called the nuclear force (or residual strong force). In this case, it is the residuum of the strong interaction between the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons. As such, the residual strong interaction obeys a quite different distance-dependent behavior between nucleons, from when it is acting to bind quarks within nucleons. The binding energy related to the residual strong force is used in nuclear power and nuclear weapons.
To sum up the above, the strong nuclear force is a residuum of the strong interaction between quarks. The strong interaction is the inter quark force. The strong force is the inter nucleon force.
So the question to answer now is whether the interquark force is electrostatic. Well apparently not.
quote:
At atomic scale, it [the strong interaction] is about 100 times stronger than electromagnetism, which in turn is orders of magnitude stronger than the weak force interaction and gravitation.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 3:53 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 307 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 4:37 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 404 (698657)
05-08-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 4:22 PM


What is gravity again?
You did not cite anything that tells us what gravity is.
Just like gravity, so how far apart do those molecules have to be again???
Let me describe the situation in some detail. Picture an electron and a proton centered at exactly the same point. Each would generate a electric field equal and opposite from that generated by the other particle, yielding no net electric field through out all of space. On the other hand separating the charges by some distances does creates a net electric dipole field, but the field is not spherically symmetrical. Both sign and magnitude depends on the orientation of the dipole. Now given random orientations relative to some external object, the net electric field would again be zero. In order to detect the dipole we would need some way to align the orientations.
Even given some alignment, the dipole force law is not an inverse square law relationship. If this was the way gravity was produced, we would observe that planets did not obey a 1/r^2 force law, and we would observe that gravity could be repulsive rather than attractive. We would also observe that gravity would have zero effect on objects having neutral charge. Finally, we would observe forces that were not proportional to the mass of the object. Accordingly no equivalence principle meaning that General Relativity is a bunch of hooey. No explanation for the anomaly in the perihelion advance of Mercury, Venus, and Earth, etc.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 4:22 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 7:17 PM NoNukes has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 307 of 404 (698658)
05-08-2013 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 305 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 4:22 PM


Re: Not supportive of your point...
quote:
To sum up the above, the strong nuclear force is a residuum of the strong interaction between quarks. The strong interaction is the inter quark force. The strong force is the inter nucleon force.
So the question to answer now is whether the interquark force is electrostatic. Well apparently not.
but the strong force was "hypothosized" to govern the interaction because it was believed they were fundemental particles. Since they are not fundemental particles, how is the strong force still a fundemental force? It can't be by your very own definition of fundemental forces.
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia
quote:
Fundamental interactions, sometimes called fundamental forces or interactive forces, are described in fundamental physics as patterns of relations in physical systems evolving over time, whose descriptions appear not reducible to relations among entities more basic.
Strong interaction - Wikipedia
quote:
The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons.
So the strong force is not even a fundemental force. You like to call it color charge, as if that somehow makes the charge not charge, but in the end it is all to do with the interraction of moving charges, which is electric current.
quote:
An electric current is a flow of electric charge. Electric charge flows when there is voltage present across a conductor.
In electric circuits this charge is often carried by moving electrons in a wire. It can also be carried by ions in an electrolyte, or by both ions and electrons such as in a plasma.
And back to plasma we come, 99% of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:45 PM justatruthseeker has replied
 Message 309 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 4:59 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 308 of 404 (698659)
05-08-2013 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 4:37 PM


Still not supportive of your point...
how is the strong force still a fundemental force? It can't be by your very own definition of fundemental forces.
Let's take this statement to be correct.
So what? The point is that it is not electro-magnetic. The strong nuclear force is generated by the strong interaction which is a fundamental force, and which is not generated by charge. The attractive force between nucleons is greater than can be generated by electrostatic forces.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 4:37 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 310 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 5:03 PM NoNukes has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 404 (698661)
05-08-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 4:37 PM


Re: Not supportive of your point...
So the strong force is not even a fundemental force. You like to call it color charge, as if that somehow makes the charge not charge, but in the end it is all to do with the interraction of moving charges, which is electric current.
Electric current is the flow of electric charge. Color charge is not electric charge.
quote:
Color charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences.
Color charge - Wikipedia
quote:
The strong force acts between quarks. Unlike all other forces (electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational), the strong force does not diminish in strength with increasing distance.
Strong interaction - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 4:37 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 310 of 404 (698662)
05-08-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 308 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 4:45 PM


Re: Still not supportive of your point...
quote:
Let's take this statement to be correct.
So what? The point is that it is not electro-magnetic. The strong nuclear force is generated by the strong interaction which is a fundamental force, and which is not generated by charge. The attractive force between nucleons is greater than can be generated by electrostatic forces.
Says who, the same people that still claim the strong force is a fundemental force when it is a sub-field of the color charge force? And what is the color charge force? Moving charges.
Electrostatics - Wikipedia
quote:
Electrostatics is the branch of physics that deals with the phenomena and properties of stationary or slow-moving (without acceleration) electric charges.
and what does that force have to do with an electron moving at close to the speed of light around the neutron and protons, never mind the speed of the proton and neutron, shall we go look that up? Haven't bothered to yet, but I bet it aint slow.
Stop trying to apply forces to other things that have no application. Just admit electrical forces in the universe and all your dark matter will go dark once and for all.
next you'll be telling me when the solar wind hits the edge of our system it'll veer sideways.
i apologize, that is what you used to say, now you simply have no model whatsoever for the solar system, under no theory but one!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98GdebTOIak
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:45 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 5:23 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 311 of 404 (698664)
05-08-2013 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 4:22 PM


Are you going to explain why my calculation of the potential difference for all of the atoms in the universe measured relative to my chosen ground potential is wrong? You did not actually address the point.
Are you capable of calculating the electric field for a dipole? Can you make an argument that I have done it incorrectly?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 4:22 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 5:29 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 312 of 404 (698665)
05-08-2013 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 310 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 5:03 PM


Re: Still not supportive of your point...
Says who, the same people that still claim the strong force is a fundemental force when it is a sub-field of the color charge force? And what is the color charge force? Moving charges.
No. I mean the same people who say the strong force is a residuum of the strong interaction. Remember that you are the one who provided the reference saying exactly that.
And no a force is not "moving charges", so why not tell us what you really mean when you say that. I cannot address this until you say something coherent.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 310 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 5:03 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 5:37 PM NoNukes has replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 313 of 404 (698668)
05-08-2013 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 311 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 5:20 PM


I would get the wrong answer, perhaps you should try with the correct formula.
You still haven't explained to me why i should use 1/r^3 instead of 1/r^2? Especially when you want to use the electrostatic law?
Coulomb's law - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 5:20 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 7:52 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 314 of 404 (698669)
05-08-2013 5:37 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 5:23 PM


Re: Still not supportive of your point...
quote:
No. I mean the same people who say the strong force is a residuum of the strong interaction. Remember that you are the one who provided the reference saying exactly that.
And no a force is not "moving charges", so why not tell us what you really mean when you say that. I cannot address this until you say something coherent.
I didn't write it, got a source you prefer? Let's see what that has to say. I simply used as reference wiki, which earlier you were saying it made your point, but its suddenly not good enough?
And I think Einstein would disagree, since mass and energy are idistinguishable from one another. He tried to tell you by the very title of his paper, and by the very equation that defines relativity, but you ignored him then and you ignore him today. Just like when he said Black Holes could not be a physical reality. You ignored him because you WANT there to be black holes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 5:23 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 8:06 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3283 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 315 of 404 (698676)
05-08-2013 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 4:34 PM


quote:
Let me describe the situation in some detail. Picture an electron and a proton centered at exactly the same point.
Why? That only occurs in Big Bang theory When Black Holes compress all matter into 0 volume, a blank check to explain anything they can't explain, not to mention forbidden by that very theory. Especially when gravity is a field interpretation.
Division by zero - Wikipedia
("Division by zero must be left undefined in any mathematical system that obeys the axioms of a field.")
quote:
Each would generate a electric field equal and opposite from that generated by the other particle, yielding no net electric field through out all of space.
See above.
quote:
On the other hand separating the charges by some distances does creates a net electric dipole field, but the field is not spherically symmetrical. Both sign and magnitude depends on the orientation of the dipole. Now given random orientations relative to some external object, the net electric field would again be zero. In order to detect the dipole we would need some way to align the orientations.
Yet we measure charges every day, we have 100 years of laboratory work measuring charges that apparently don't understand that theory.
quote:
Even given some alignment, the dipole force law is not an inverse square law relationship. If this was the way gravity was produced, we would observe that planets did not obey a 1/r^2 force law, and we would observe that gravity could be repulsive rather than attractive. We would also observe that gravity would have zero effect on objects having neutral charge. Finally, we would observe forces that were not proportional to the mass of the object. Accordingly no equivalence principle meaning that General Relativity is a bunch of hooey. No explanation for the anomaly in the perihelion advance of Mercury, Venus, and Earth, etc.
But yet relativity says that the electromagnetic force can be observed both as just an electric force, and as an electric and magnetic force, depending on ones frame of reference. So let's play with relativity shall we? One can observe an electric field, without a magnetic field, but one cannot observe a magnetic field without an electric current (moving charges) - call em dipole movements if you want, that's fine with me. Spinning electric charges creating that very dipole field. Yet are you claiming Quarks have a dipole moment, or are created by at least 3, because you require a minimum of 3. So no magnetic dipole moment exists unless two or more charges interact. There exists electric monopoles, but no magnetic monopoles. Since we know that the electric force is both attractive and repulsive, depending on orientation of the currents and the magnetic field they create, I quite agree that it is an alignment issue. Do quarks exist only in protons and neutrons???????? They say they don't exist in electrons, and I tend to agree, but then again they cant pinpoint the electron down, only end up in results that tend to show up as clouds. Do quarks just disappear when you smash a neutron in an accelerator? You've only theorized they exist, never seen one, just like you've never seen an electron, but an electron cloud is well known. Want to discuss particle physics too?
So it is far from impossible for gravity to be an electrical event, as like you said, it all depends on what the REAL basic particle is. We won't go into the purely geometric interpretation of relativity because that is patently false since all of relativity is derived from the Electromagnetic force.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 4:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 316 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 7:27 PM justatruthseeker has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024