Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 220 of 404 (645392)
12-26-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by designtheorist
12-26-2011 7:22 PM


Re: How much energy is in empty space?
Calling into question those who have gone before is, at least in part, what science does.
Yeah, but not at random.
The fact you have the faith to accept the claim (third or fourth hand) that the energy of empty space is infinite or greater than the energy of U-238 of the same volume is... well... you have more faith than a scientist should ever have.
Hooah didn't say he accepted Feynman's claim: he said that if you're going to claim that Feynman was wrong you should provide some sort of reasoning or math rather than just the gut feeling ("that seems a bit much to me") of someone who is, in matters of physics, a simpleton whose views have consistently been ill-informed nonsense.
Regarding actual calculations, we will have to wait until we see some from those claiming the net energy is zero.
These have already been provided and ignored, presumably because you find it easier to bullshit in English than in math.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 7:22 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 246 of 404 (645553)
12-27-2011 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by designtheorist
12-27-2011 9:34 PM


Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
This is correct, but the pseudotensor approach does not do this. The pseudotensor approach works exactly the same way after the discovery of dark energy as it did before. That is simply not tenable to me.
For reasons that you may or may not one day be able coherently to explain.
The pseudotensor calculations start with Einstein's equations. Hence they hold whatever the stress energy tensor is and so for any universe satisfying the equations. Discovering the existence of dark energy doesn't change that any more than discovering the thirteenth moon of Jupiter, they're both just one more thing in a universe which is still described by General Relativity.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by designtheorist, posted 12-27-2011 9:34 PM designtheorist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by NoNukes, posted 12-27-2011 10:58 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 260 of 404 (698484)
05-07-2013 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by justatruthseeker
05-07-2013 8:35 AM


If you don't know anything about physics, you shouldn't post about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 8:35 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 283 of 404 (698551)
05-08-2013 1:53 AM


The loon is not addressing the topic.

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 3:00 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 290 of 404 (698631)
05-08-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 12:36 PM


It's been on topic from the start, had you even bother to read what plasma is you would realize it is an electrified medium. Since electric currents exist everywhere, including your brain (although some could argue that and I wouldn't have a defense in your case) it is impossible for the universe to be electrically neutral. Especially if we consider that there is NO gravitational model for the atom, only electrical. So what holds atoms together and by extension you if no electricity is allowed?
You can't get better until you realize that you have a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 12:36 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 293 of 404 (698636)
05-08-2013 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 2:14 PM


What was that about water and evaporation????
ShieldSquare Captcha
PlasmaAir AG - Saubere Luft ist unsere Herausforderung PlasmaAir AG
plasma is involved in steam as well.
My God you're stupid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 2:14 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 296 of 404 (698641)
05-08-2013 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 2:26 PM


Where have you measured this overall charge but "localized"? And everywhere you measure it, it is anything but neutral!
Forbidden - Stack Exchange
Voltage has no set strength, only relative to something else, which conversely means that no matter what you measure it has voltage, just more or less to whatever you pick as your starting value.
A voltage of zero is zero no matter what your units of measurement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 2:26 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 3:23 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 322 of 404 (698691)
05-08-2013 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 9:03 PM


I wonder what you think "order of magnitude" means ... ?
But you were lecturing us about science, do go on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:03 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:39 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 324 of 404 (698695)
05-08-2013 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 9:39 PM


That is not a theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:39 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 328 of 404 (698718)
05-09-2013 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 325 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 10:25 PM


Says who, you?
Yeah. 'Cos it's not a theory. It's vacuous hand-waving.
But I apologize, you are correct. it isn't a theory, it's a paradigm.
"Paradigm" is what cranks call their half-baked ideas.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 10:25 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 337 of 404 (698765)
05-09-2013 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 9:22 AM


Re: Plasma cosmology... Fraud or fake?
No, you've made your point. Now show us ten corresponding links where each of these observations was predicted, before it was made, by your quaint little sect of cranks.
No?
OK, then all these things came as a surprise to you too.
And yet you are going to claim that a paradigm that has predicted every discovery about the sun and solar system and galaxies is wrong.
Only for some reason you are unable to find any of these predictions you boast of, what a shame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 9:22 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


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 seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 361 of 404 (698904)
05-10-2013 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 352 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 8:06 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 is ignorant gibberish. Why don't you learn some physics?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 8:06 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 364 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-10-2013 7:05 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 365 of 404 (698930)
05-10-2013 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by justatruthseeker
05-10-2013 7:05 PM


Only gibberish when it goes against you? Others were using it to try to prove your point, you didn't seem to object then, so you have no valid objection now. Or are you saying they were incorrect too?
You are delusional: no-one was trying to use your gibberish to prove my point.
Try to be a little less crazy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-10-2013 7:05 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-10-2013 9:17 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 369 of 404 (698937)
05-10-2013 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by justatruthseeker
05-10-2013 9:17 PM


All I have to say is this, you leave me speechless with your knowledge, yet say nothing.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia
Apparently being speechless is something else you don't know how to do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-10-2013 9:17 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 373 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-10-2013 11:56 PM Dr Adequate 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