Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 335 of 404 (698749)
05-09-2013 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 9:22 AM


Re: Plasma cosmology... Fraud or fake?
considering 99% of the universe is made of plasma
You still haven't explained what that means. Obviously, you don't even know and can only drop bare links that have been spoonfed to you.
Last time I asked you what it means, you talked about the ramifications of it being true. But you still can't explain, in your own words without bare links, what that statement is actually saying.
No, you shouldn't. I realize you're a little slow, but for the nth time: we don't debate bare links here.

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

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 342 of 404 (698804)
05-09-2013 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 341 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 5:03 PM


If you can't tell me or the OP what 99% of the universe is, then how can you even attempt to answer the OP's post?
But even you can't tell us what it means that 99% of the universe is plasma...
This would be like trying to tell you what diamonds are, while ignoring carbon in the answer. Completely and utterly worthless.
Is there anything that you can't be wrong about?
Here's how a jeweler would tell you what your diamond is, and they don't mention carbon once:
quote:
GIA Diamond Grading Report
The Gemological Institute of America is the most highly regarded and internationally recognized gemological laboratory. GIA diamond grading reports always include the date of issue, report number and laser registry if the diamond has been laser inscribed.
Shape and Cutting Style
The diamond's shape as seen from above (round, oval, heart, pear, square, etc.) and the cutting style, or facet arrangement, (brilliant, modified brilliant, emerald cut, etc.). Refer to our Diamond Learning Center for more information on Diamond Shapes and Diamond Cut.
Measurements
Reports measurements of the diamond's dimensions in millimeters. For round diamonds, measurements are listed as 'smallest diameter — largest diameter x depth'.
Carat Weight
Lists the weight of the diamond in carats. One carat equals 1/5 gram. Please refer to our page on Carat Weight for further information.
Color Grade
Evaluates absence of color in the diamond when compared to a master colorless stone. A Color Scale is provided for reference on all reports. Visit our Learning Center for more information on Diamond Color and color grading.
Clarity Grade
Evaluates the absence of inclusions and blemishes. Inclusions are internal characteristics while blemishes are external characteristics. This grade is determined by examining the diamond under 10x magnification. A Clarity Scale is provided for reference on all reports. Learn more about Diamond Clarity.
Cut Grade
Evaluates quality and craftsmanship of the diamond cut. Diamonds are examined face-up. Cut grade will only appear on round brilliant diamonds from reports issued after January 1, 2006. A Cut Scale is provided for reference on all reports.
Finish Grades the polish of the diamond's surface and symmetry of the facet placement.
Polish Evaluates smoothness of the diamond's surface on a scale of excellent to poor.
Symmetry Evaluates a diamond's outline, shape, and facet alignment on a scale of excellent to poor.
Fluorescence
Evaluates the glow of a diamond when examined under long wave ultra violet rays. Ranges from none to very strong. Low fluorescence is typically desirable, as high fluorescence is associated with lower quality and lower value stones.
Comments
Lists any other relevant characteristics not mentioned elsewhere.
Plotting Diagram
An approximated illustration of the shape and cutting style of the diamond as seen from above and below. Symbols representing clarity characteristics (inclusions and blemishes) are plotted according to their size, type and relative location. Symbols can be identified using the Key to Symbols.
Proportions Diagram
An illustrated profile representing the diamond's actual proportions.
Reports like these can be worth quite a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 5:03 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 354 of 404 (698865)
05-10-2013 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by justatruthseeker
05-09-2013 8:06 PM


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,
The Singularity is an asymptote... you don't ever actually "get there".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 8:06 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 355 of 404 (698877)
05-10-2013 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 353 by Percy
05-10-2013 7:08 AM


Do you agree with the Wikipedia definition of a plasma where it says:
Wikipedia writes:
Plasma is loosely described as an electrically neutral medium of positive and negative particles (i.e. the overall charge of a plasma is roughly zero).
Heh, so if 99% of the universe if plasma then 99% of the universe is neutral.
From that page I found this graph:
I think that helps show the source of my confusion from the statement "99% of the universe is plasma"...
The interstellar regions contain low densities of ionized particles that are relatively far apart. So while that still "counts" as plasma, saying it like "99% of the universe is plasma" isn't really painting the right picture, in my opinion, because there's an awful lot of "empty" space out there. Am I wrong to see it that way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 7:08 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 11:56 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 358 of 404 (698898)
05-10-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 356 by Percy
05-10-2013 11:56 AM


I don't understand enough of how you see things to say whether it's right or wrong, but if you're saying that the fact that so much of universe is plasma is unintuitive because so little of what we contact in daily life is plasma, then I certainly agree.
I dont' mean that its unintuitive because of what we see in our daily life (well, it is, but that's not the point I was making). I see saying "99% of the universe is plasma" as analogous to saying that "99% of our solar system is the sun".... Sure, 99% of the mass of the solar system is the sun, but that doesn't paint the right picture of what the rest of the solar system looks like, which is very non-sun like.
Typically, when people picture plasma, they think of hot gas. So when someone hear's that 99% of the universe is plasma, I don't think that paints the picture of what is really happening in the interstellar regions of outer space. Sure, it technically counts as a plasma, but since the density is so low its not really what people are thinking when they picture it.
I think that's part of the point of saying it that way. Its supposed to be a "wowzer". The physics cranks seem to like to say things that appear false at face value, but tend to be technically correct. That way, they can build some doubt as if everything you think you know could be wrong, and therefore, all of physics could be wrong too. I don't find it to be a very honest approach.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 356 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 11:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 359 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 12:40 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 376 of 404 (698953)
05-11-2013 8:23 AM


The problem of the singularity is analogous to physical laws that have distance in the denominator. The intensity of sound doesn't really become infinite when you reach the source, and gravity doesn't really become infinite when the distance of separation is 0, but that is the result you get if you just blindly apply the formulas.
Or if you just listen

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024