Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 68 (9032 total)
55 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 53 visitors)
Newest Member: robertleva
Post Volume: Total: 884,968 Year: 2,614/14,102 Month: 279/703 Week: 100/158 Day: 10/34 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 259 of 404 (698454)
05-07-2013 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by designtheorist
12-09-2011 9:45 AM


That is such an old tired theory, one certainly gets sick of mainstreams hardheadiness when it comes to electrical or energetic activity in space. But let's see if space is really electrically neutral or not by admissions from those same scientists.
http://www.nasa.gov/...n_pages/juno/multimedia/pia03155.html
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/nature09928
http://science.nasa.gov/...science-at-nasa/2007/11dec_themis

So, we see that direct measurements whenever and wherever they are taken, show electrical currents everywhere we have looked or gone. Yet I am to believe that space is electrically neutral and overall sums to 0? Apparently they have not been reading their own papers. And what are those stringy things and magnetic ropes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

Edited by justatruthseeker, : spelling


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by designtheorist, posted 12-09-2011 9:45 AM designtheorist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2013 12:04 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded
 Message 261 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 12:59 PM justatruthseeker has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 262 of 404 (698505)
05-07-2013 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by NoNukes
05-07-2013 12:59 PM


let me ask you two questions, to which I sincerely hope you know the answer to, otherwise any conversation beyond this point is absoluetely uselss.

1) How much of the universe is plasma?
2) what is plasma?

Until you can answer those two questions, any debate about the universe is pointless, unless your theory calls for the laws of physics to suddenly change and work differently outside the solar system, why wouldn't plasma everywhere behave the same?

Shall we then discuss the voyager measurements of the solar wind that stopped abruptly, even though your theory said it would veer sideways? And while we are at it let me ask a couple more since apparently you understand how the universe works. Why does the sun have a corona? it is neither predicted nor needed in a nuclear theory. Speaking of which, how are charged particles accelerated? There is only one known way, so we will soon see just how honest you are.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 12:59 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 3:32 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 280 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 10:19 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 264 of 404 (698516)
05-07-2013 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 3:32 PM


quote:
That question doesn't really make much sense, nor is it really that useful.

Answer me this, how much of the solar system is the sun?

Well, over 99% of the mass of our solar system is contained in the sun. But the solar system takes up much more volume than just the sun.

Saying that 99% of our solar system is the sun doesn't really help us talk about the properties of the rest of the solar system...


How can you talk about the rest of the solar system without considering the sun, since it controls everything about the solar system?

It makes more sense than you ever realize, or do realize and want to willfully ignore, and that's a diversion tactic when one has no answer, or knows the answer and doesn't want to say. The entire sun is plasma, so how could one ever discuss the sun or solar system without knowing what a plasma was and how it behaved?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

quote:
As the Sun consists of a plasma and is not solid....The Sun inherited its chemical composition from the interstellar medium out of which it formed.....

So just why again is knowing about plasma NOT important in ALL of astrophysics???

You talk like plasma is just another state of matter. This is such a misconception it boggles the mind. You talk as if you believe plasma is nothing more than matter with its electrons stripped away, a hot gas. But that isn't your fault, it's because you have been lied to for over 100 years. Shall we bring up the ridiculous idea against plasma because it would take more energy than exists in the universe to strip away one electron in each grain of salt in a teaspoon? That's pretty convincing, those who never consider it sure swallowed that.

So we will now assume that the Big Bang is entirely correct. What was the first state of all matter according to your very own theory?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2011/03/110318091144.htm

quote:
According to theory, the whole universe consisted of quark-gluon plasma in the first split seconds after the Big Bang.

http://www.crystalinks.com/bigbang.html

Only after it began to cool did atomic binding begin and gas to liquid to solids began to condense. It is THE fundamental state of all matter, not just one of them as they try to tell you. Plasma in space is not separated from matter, it is already charge separated from the beginning and the electric currents and magnetic fields condense and separate like charges which help atomic structures to form. There is no gravitational theory of the atom, only electrical. So for those atoms to form, it required electricity. No charge separation was or ever has been required. It isn't how much energy it takes to separate a molecular bond that is important, but how much energy it takes to form those bonds that is.

Granted, it's not your fault that they told you plasma is just another common form of matter and can't be abundant because it would take too much energy, without then telling you but we require it to be THE first form of matter, so no charge separation was or is required anyways. ALL other forms of matter came from this initial form of matter, plasma, and still does. It is THE most important thing in astronomy!

And just so you know I am neither Electric Universe, Nor Plasma Universe, nor Relativity Universe believer. They all got something right, and they all got something wrong. Believe what you want, I do, but at least don't let them tell you what to believe without looking at it all. Because sometimes what they are telling you is, isn't.

They KNOW plasma is 99% of the universe. They KNOW plasma is only plasma because of it's electrical and magnetic properties. Properties that do not require you to keep your coffee pot lower than the electric outlet. Well known properties KNOWN and ignored for 100 years.
http://electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm

And the refusal to even talk about it shows fear and desperation, not knowledge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98GdebTOIak

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : Wasn't through ranting

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 7:40 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 268 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 8:39 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 282 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 1:25 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 266 of 404 (698521)
05-07-2013 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Panda
05-07-2013 7:40 PM


Yes I do, and so do you. NO ONE KNOWS! But I do know it had to be electrical, hence electromagnetic spectrum, and I got a universe full of plasma, they do too, they just ignore it for what it really is, and so require all that invisible mass like Dark Matter, Black Holes, Neutron Stars, all things the poor public cant understand so they should fund us some more. When none of it is needed if one just considers plasma for what it really is. They'll milk you dry for billion dollar studies for Dark Matter, but just try to get funding to look for electricity. It is only ever found when looking for something else, because it was never expected in the first place. And ALWAYS a surprise, which I find surprising since they are always surprised, you would think they would be used to it by now.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/...discover-surprise-in-101025.aspx

And it is not new, it's been studied in physics labs in plasma for over 100 years.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 7:40 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 8:37 PM justatruthseeker has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 269 of 404 (698525)
05-07-2013 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 8:39 PM


Wrong theory again, as usual. I am 52 years old and know what the theories your trying to tell me say better than you do. Not only did I grow up on them, but have had a bit of time to study them, as I can see you haven't bothered to. I quite believe E=mc^2 is true, the question is do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 8:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 8:47 PM justatruthseeker has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 271 of 404 (698527)
05-07-2013 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Panda
05-07-2013 8:37 PM


99.99% and all of it plasma. How much is matter, well Jupiter makes up about .009% of the rest, so this earth is a <.001% of the rest, and its normal matter you base your entire theory on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 8:37 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 9:00 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded
 Message 273 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 9:01 PM justatruthseeker has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 274 of 404 (698530)
05-07-2013 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by New Cat's Eye
05-07-2013 8:47 PM


Every single remark was answered, go read what plasma is, all your questions will resolve themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 8:47 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-07-2013 11:25 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 275 of 404 (698532)
05-07-2013 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Panda
05-07-2013 9:01 PM


It's not my 99% figure, it's yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System

quote:
The principal component of the Solar System is the Sun, a G2 main-sequence star that contains 99.86% of the system's known mass and dominates it gravitationally.[13] The Sun's four largest orbiting bodies, the gas giants, account for 99% of the remaining mass, with Jupiter and Saturn together comprising more than 90%

Although I do apologize for misleading you by .13% of the actual figure, since I did say 99.99%

Must of forgot Pluto since I'm not sure if it's a planet now or not, or just a big ball of rock. They havn't decided, but I think it's not looking good for poor Pluto.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 9:01 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 9:19 PM justatruthseeker has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 277 of 404 (698536)
05-07-2013 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by Panda
05-07-2013 9:19 PM


Do you mean how much of the Galaxy is the sun? or the Universe? Because the sun is 99.86% of the Solar System. And about the same ratio as the earth is to the sun for the galaxy, which is 99.86% plasma! And the galaxy is about the same ratio as the Universe, which is 99.86% plasma, such a nice coincident that 99.86% plasma is everywhere.

If the sun is a ball of plasma, what do you think all the stars in the galaxy are? And since stars form from the stuff of galaxies, what do you think galaxies are made of???

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 9:19 PM Panda has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by NoNukes, posted 05-07-2013 9:49 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded
 Message 279 by Panda, posted 05-07-2013 10:00 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 285 of 404 (698611)
05-08-2013 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by NoNukes
05-08-2013 3:00 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 3:00 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 12:45 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 05-08-2013 1:52 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 290 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 2:02 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 287 of 404 (698617)
05-08-2013 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by New Cat's Eye
05-08-2013 12:45 PM


Then explain how a quote "neutral" unquote neutron is attracted to both negative and positive charges if it is neutral? You are totally confused as to what neutral means when discussing electric charges. It means there are equal amounts of both negative and positive charges, not that no charge exists at all. Learn your science, that is 4th grade teaching. That is how the positive protons in the nucleus are prevented from flying apart, you know, negative and positive atract, but positive repells positive, negative repels negative. So the neutron by attracting the positive protons to its negative charge prevent them from flying apart, just as it prevents the negative electrons from slaming into the positive protons because of that same negative charge. being you know nothing about charge I would of expected you to do some research before attempting to argue the very fact of charge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-08-2013 12:45 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by NoNukes, posted 05-08-2013 2:39 PM justatruthseeker has responded
 Message 334 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-09-2013 9:55 AM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 289 of 404 (698629)
05-08-2013 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by ringo
05-08-2013 1:52 PM


A quote from your very own science books:
quote:
The Standard Model of particle physics predicts a tiny separation of positive and negative charge within the neutron leading to a permanent electric dipole moment.

So what was that again about neutral????

And electricity could care less if your coffe pot is above or below the electrical outlet, it requires not the slightest bit of gravity to function.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 05-08-2013 1:52 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by ringo, posted 05-08-2013 2:14 PM justatruthseeker has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 291 of 404 (698634)
05-08-2013 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by ringo
05-08-2013 1:52 PM


What was that about water and evaporation????

http://iopscience.iop.org/0963-0252/21/1/015009

http://www.plasma-air.de/Steam_Plasma_Burner_-2-91.htm

plasma is involved in steam as well.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 05-08-2013 1:52 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 2:18 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded
 Message 294 by ringo, posted 05-08-2013 2:20 PM justatruthseeker has responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 295 of 404 (698640)
05-08-2013 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by ringo
05-08-2013 2:14 PM


Where have you measured this overall charge but "localized"? And everywhere you measure it, it is anything but neutral!

http://electronics.stackexchange.com/...-circuit-be-grounded

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by ringo, posted 05-08-2013 2:14 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-08-2013 2:30 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded
 Message 297 by ringo, posted 05-08-2013 2:38 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 2028 days)
Posts: 117
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Joined: 05-05-2013


Message 300 of 404 (698649)
05-08-2013 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by ringo
05-08-2013 2:20 PM


quote:
Sure, you can cause localized concentrations of energy but that doesn't effect the overall energy of the unverse. All you're doing is moving it around.

What energy, i thought you said it summed to 0? 1 + 1 + 2 does not sum to 0, but what should I have expected from someone that believes dividing by zero is mathematically acceptable. If you have 5 sources of energy 1 volt each in a universe devoid of any other charge, the universe still sums to 5.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by ringo, posted 05-08-2013 2:20 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 338 by ringo, posted 05-09-2013 12:10 PM justatruthseeker has 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