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?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 404 (698678)
05-08-2013 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 7:17 PM


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.
It is a thought experiment intended to demonstrate a point. And there is no division by zero involved in the thought experiment because we are not discussing the forces on the particles of the charges, but only the field generated by the charges at a distance from the separated charges.
Yet we measure charges every day, we have 100 years of laboratory work measuring charges that apparently don't understand that theory.
Charges behave exactly as I have described. Incidentally, I haven't described how to measure charge, but how to measure the fields associated with the charge. Apparently you've missed the point and I am not going to bother with this further.
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.
That's right. I've picked a frame and described events from that frame. I don't have any problem with you picking a frame of reference from which we can describe magnetic effects or combination electrical magnetic effects. What we are looking for is a circumstance under which the resulting force behaves as does gravity. That stuff simply does not happen.
Much of the rest of the stuff you discuss seems to be correct, but is entirely pointless. None of it explains how a separated positive or negative charge would affect a body having no net charge located at distances that are large compared to the separation distance between the charges.

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 315 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 7:17 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 8:20 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 317 of 404 (698681)
05-08-2013 7:52 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 5:29 PM


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?
Because the net field from a dipole is the sum of the fields from the two charges. Yes it is true that the electrostatic force for each charge falls off as 1/r^2, but the net force from two opposite charges falls off at 1/R^3. You can find the details in any physics book covering the topic.
I would get the wrong answer, perhaps you should try with the correct formula.
You can use any method you choose, so why must you get the wrong answer? And more importantly, why is the correct answer not zero?
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 313 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 5:29 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 318 of 404 (698682)
05-08-2013 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 5:37 PM


Re: Still not supportive of your point...
I didn't write it, got a source you prefer?
Yes, you did.
I'm suppose to provide a source for your nonsense. Please. You tell me where I can find in wiki that "moving charges" are a force. Then show me that color is a type of charge that generates an electrical or magnetic force when moving.
And I think Einstein would disagree, since mass and energy are idistinguishable from one another.
That's not quite what Einstein said. But matter/energy equivalence is not inconsistent with anything I've posted.
Just like when he said Black Holes could not be a physical reality. You ignored him because you WANT there to be black holes.
I don't have any requirement that there be black holes, but I do know that Einstein's theory of GR predicts them, and that there is evidence of matter concentrations that would lead to black holes according to GR. Einstein died in 1955 at a time when there was no evidence for black holes. That's simply not the case anymore. I'll also note that Einstein initially believed in a static universe, but was quite receptive to the evidence that he was wrong.
You are just throwing around Einstein's name as if mere name dropping proves anything. Try to tie something I've said to something contrary to the theory of relativity by showing a contrary prediction from Einstein's theory. Then you'll give me something to respond to.
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 314 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 5:37 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 404 (698688)
05-08-2013 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 319 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 8:20 PM


Because only when plasma is condensed into solids, liquids and gasses, and its atoms are more in alignment than when charges are separated, does the effect you call gravity begin to dominate.
So not like in the sun? The effect of sun's gravity on planetary motion is negligible?
Nor can I even begin to comprehend how you can even suggest to me that the sun is a nuclear furnace.
Yes, you are likely right. You are probably not reachable by me.

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 319 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 8:20 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:03 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 326 of 404 (698700)
05-08-2013 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 9:03 PM


Likewise I have no problem separating the gravitational and electrical properties, its not required they be the same force, just because they are both inverse square laws and the math describing each is identical,
The mathematics related to gravity and coulomb forces is not identical in form. Gravitational forces are fictitious and obey the equivalence principal leading to gravity being explained by general relativity and to all of the distinctions between Newtonian physics and general relativity. Also as best we know there is no anti-gravity matter that generates repulsion.
For coulomb forces, no general relativity, and we cannot avoid positive and negative charges from most scenarios. All of these things providing different math/physics from gravity.
Why is there even a corona if its just a nuclear furnace?
What do you mean by "just".
Not every function associated with the sun is related to whether or not the source of energy in the sun is nuclear. Yes there are other forces at work in the sun other than energy release by nuclear fusion. No one denies that. Nuclear fusion does not explain why people believe in big foot either or why the earth is round either. Neither are reasons to give up nuclear fusion is the source of solar energy.
Your theory forbids the sun to be as round as it has been measured to be, another falsification.
Show your work, bro.
How about the solar wind that continues to accelerate out past the orbit of Jupiter, and then stops abruptly at the heliopause? Not quite wanting to behave like your fluid dynamics predicts. Perhaps because it doesn't obey the laws of fluid dynamics because its plasma?
The solar wind extends into interstellar space and it does not terminate abruptly. What effect are you describing that is not how I expect it?
Measured convection is 1% of that required by theory. Granted, it is a preliminary experiment, and yes, I expect the results to be refined, maybe to 5% or maybe to .5%, but we both know its not off by 99 orders of magnitude.
Do you understand what orders of magnitude mean? Hint 1% is only 2 orders of magnitude below 100%.

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 321 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 9:03 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 327 of 404 (698703)
05-09-2013 12:06 AM


Plasma cosmology... Fraud or fake?
Apparently this stuff is quite popular in some circles. Here is an article describing some of the details of both the cosmology and its proponents.
Your access to this site has been limited
quote:
I'm going to try to take down plasma cosmology on two points. The first is a general point, the second is a specific point. As far as I can tell, plasma cosmology is motivated by people who just want to be different, or by people who have aesthetic or conceptual problems with things such as dark matter and cosmological distances.
quote:
Magnetic fields are responsible for initially collimating jets in active galactic nuclei that are observed shooting out over hundreds of thousands of light-years. So, the assertion you sometimes see that astronomers don't train their grad students about electromagnetic forces and that astronomers don't take into account those forces is an assertion that's wildly wrong. However, plasma cosmology also asserts that electromagnetic forces between plasma flowing through the solar system and through the Universe and the magnetic fields of objects (or even the objects themselves, as they'll often decide, for instance, that comets must have a substantial electric charge) make significant contributions to the motion of objects that mainstream astronomy is able to explain entirely through gravity
You can find articles about this stuff on Rational Wiki and other places. I'm not going to continue trying to debunk this stuff. I already feel not unlike a troll victim, and it's my own fault for not resisting my impulse to post.

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by Panda, posted 05-09-2013 5:13 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 332 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-09-2013 9:22 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 404 (698730)
05-09-2013 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Panda
05-09-2013 5:13 AM


Re: Plasma cosmology... Fraud or fake?
He relies on gish gallops and red herrings.
Yes, but neither tactic is very effective in a written debate.
In order to be an effective defender of crank science, you have to know the real science quite well. You cannot admit to not knowing about something like how to compute the electric field of a dipole simply because it is not on the crank script.
And the crank script covers just the parts of real science that allow an 'in' for the pseudo science and then all of the crank science. It's not always easy to chew on those aspects, but it's doable if the crank science is attempting to re-explain something already well explained conventionally.
And, I've said I'm quitting enough times that it's hurting my own credibility to continue. In doing some background reading on this stuff it seems that it can be really difficult to discourage plasma cosmologists and this guy fits the profile to a tee.

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 329 by Panda, posted 05-09-2013 5:13 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 378 of 404 (698970)
05-11-2013 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 364 by justatruthseeker
05-10-2013 7:05 PM


Only gibberish when it goes against you?
Yes, what you posted was gibberish. I'll point to some of the more obvious "non science" in your post.
The equations for two or more such masses has never been solved in relativity.
Einstein's equations are a set of inter-related differential equations that are extremely difficult to solve. Any who has taken a course in differential equations, which I suspect is a grouping that excludes you, can appreciate that it is quite unsurprising that there are exact solutions to the equations for only a small set of circumstances. The absence of solutions for many circumstances is of no particular import. Let's also note that there is no general solution to the n body problem, for n > 3, and yet we can still predict the motion of planets in the solar system with great accuracy using Newtonian mechanics.
There is no reason to believe that a space with more than one black hole in it violates general relativity, and there is evidence of multiple black holes in the universe. Your attempt at a point making a point here is gibberish.
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,
Whatever theory the above quote is supposed to describe, it is not the Big Bang theory of reality, which does not involve a zero volume singularity. And what the heck is a "zero-point volume mass" anyway? Just more gibberish.
Free gibberish debunk. An electron has no size. An electron and a proton at the same point in space does not form a singularity. So what would such a combination be?
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.
The same as it was initially in what way? In quantity perhaps if we insist on the conservation of energy under all circumstance. But not necessarily in the same form of course.
But that's not the gibberish I mean to point out. A balanced amount of charge exists in a battery, yet there is chemical energy stored therein. Further, the question raised in the original discussion is whether the current situation, with charges and masses distributed as they are might total zero energy. You aren't even answering the right question.
as if all is balanced, why start expansion in the first place?
Because electrical/magnetic forces are not the only ones in existence? Because even with charges in balanced an arrangement of particles can have large amounts of kinetic energy, and various types of stored energy, some positive and some negative? That's right. Balanced necessarily means zero energy is still more gibberish.
Your attempts to describe convention science are like nails screeching across a black board. You simply don't know enough real physics for anyone to value your personal impressions of whether electric cosmology is a better fit than general relativity and we have plenty of evidence for the latter. My personal impression is that there must be a better description of this stuff elsewhere.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : correction to n-body problem

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 364 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-10-2013 7:05 PM justatruthseeker has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 380 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-13-2013 7:01 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 382 of 404 (699047)
05-13-2013 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by justatruthseeker
05-13-2013 7:01 PM


Which equations he derived from the work of Ampere, Weber and Gauss. Weber already had a relativistic formula for the working of the atom before the electron, proton or neutron had ever been discovered.
None of which has even the slightest relevance to the theory of General Relativity or to anything else I posted. In fact, nothing in your entire post is the least bit responsive or rebuts my pointing out that you are posting gibberish.
Here you quote from Wikipedia:
quote:
The nonlinearity of the EFE distinguishes general relativity from many other fundamental physical theories. For example, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are linear in the electric and magnetic fields, and charge and current distributions (i.e. the sum of two solutions is also a solution); another example is Schrdinger's equation of quantum mechanics which is linear in the wavefunction.
And comment thusly...
So Maxwell messed Weber's theory up which he had almost completed before he died, and Einstein tried to get right back there, but had to use Maxwell's equations because they were "Standard" theory then.
More gibberish. Your comment does not follow from the paragraph of stuff you quoted from Wikipedia, and does not address anything I've posted. What's wrong with you?

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 380 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-13-2013 7:01 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 383 of 404 (699052)
05-13-2013 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by justatruthseeker
05-13-2013 7:01 PM


Weber already had a relativistic formula for the working of the atom before the electron, proton or neutron had ever been discovered. Which Maxwell "simplified" with partial differential equations, and Einstein tried to put back into the non-linear form.
Pure gibberish. Einstein did nothing of the sort.

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 380 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-13-2013 7:01 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 392 of 404 (699265)
05-16-2013 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 387 by justatruthseeker
05-16-2013 11:43 AM


justatruthseeker Misfires again...
just writes:
Doesn't seem to be anyones interpretation but yours. Funny how that seems to be the case everytime you all say they say one thing, when everytime you look it up they say just the opposite, why do you think that is?
The above is, at least, not gibberish. Congratulatons, that's a step up from most of the stuff you proclaim. But you are still wrong.
Black hole - Wikipedia
quote:
The appearance of singularities in general relativity is commonly perceived as signaling the breakdown of the theory.[63] This breakdown, however, is expected; it occurs in a situation where quantum effects should describe these actions, due to the extremely high density and therefore particle interactions. To date, it has not been possible to combine quantum and gravitational effects into a single theory, although there exist attempts to formulate such a theory of quantum gravity. It is generally expected that such a theory will not feature any singularities
The link you provide does not use the word 'signularity'. What relevance do you think the article at the link has to whatever point you are trying to make, and how does it bring into question anything Percy posted?
just writes:
Quite amazing that something not believed to exist can be tearing stars apart, since that is their official explanation for what is observed. get your story straight next time.
You don't seem to have any particulalry strong ability to comprehend what you read. Percy did not say that black holes did not exist, he simply said that there was no real singularity involved involved.

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 387 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-16-2013 11:43 AM justatruthseeker has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 397 of 404 (699287)
05-16-2013 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by justatruthseeker
05-16-2013 1:52 PM


I notice that none of you ever include references when you say this is what they say, why is that?
Of course, this is demonstrably false. I cite references of my own, but quite often I find information in the references you provide that contradicts your claims.
Besides that, I think it's reasonable for people to post things like 'F=ma' or to cite Newton's law of gravitation without providing a reference until they are called on it. The problem I see in arguing with you is that all you seem to know about physics comes from the fringe sites that provide mere caricatures of science for the purpose of a strawman attack.
I am sure that you can find any number of physics sites that provide some sloppy talk about black holes, the big bang, and singularities. But here is a hint on handling those things. When someone talks about a 'classical' (e.g. classical Big Bang) approach in physics, they are almost always describing something other than the current understanding.

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 393 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-16-2013 1:52 PM justatruthseeker has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Coyote, posted 05-16-2013 9:09 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024