Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 Messages Thread Titles This Thread

 Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
 125 online now: AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 123 visitors) Newest Member: maria Upcoming Birthdays: AdminPhat Post Volume: Total: 887,136 Year: 4,782/14,102 Month: 380/707 Week: 111/197 Day: 0/55 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Author Topic:   Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
Trixie
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004

 Message 37 of 404 (643738) 12-11-2011 5:54 AM Reply to: Message 26 by designtheorist12-11-2011 12:17 AM

Re: Is the total net energy in the universe zero?
I'm not in any way familiar with cosmology or physics (beyond the basics) so maybe I can explain to you why m can be disregarded.

If the total net energy in the universe is zero then, the positive energy content = the negative energy content so the equation can be written as,

mc2 = m Mu G / R u

Simplifying, we can cross out the m on either side of the equation. To illustrate, 2ab=4b, therefore simplifying gives 2a=4, a=2, Basic algebra tells you that whatever you do to one side of the equation you must do to the other. As jar would say, it really is that simple.

That's the point that is being made. Please bear in mind I'm not arguing one way or the other for a net energy of zero, I'm just explaining why basic algebra allows little m to be removed from both sides.

 This message is a reply to: Message 26 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 12:17 AM designtheorist has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 42 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 11:41 AM Trixie has responded

Trixie
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004

 Message 56 of 404 (643766) 12-11-2011 1:46 PM Reply to: Message 42 by designtheorist12-11-2011 11:41 AM

Strewth!
Bloody hell, this is getting basic!

It is NOT a circular argument, try to keep up with stuff I learned as an 11 year old.

Positive energy = E=mc2

Negative energy = m M u G / R u

IF positive energy = negative energy

THEN mc2 = m M u G / R u

Now you substitute values for the terms in the equation and see if really do equal each other!

 designtheorist writes:Trixie uses the word "if." The word "if" is required. She is assuming the two equations are equal. i deny this

The word "if" means I am assuming nothing!!!! That's what "if" means! IF the two equations are equal then when you plug in values for the terms you will get the same answer for each equation. IF they are not equal you'll get different answers!

The auther of the website in question doesn't say that E=c2. He is dividing both sides of the equation by a common term, namely m.

If you leave the minus sign in front, then the sum of the two sides of the equation will equal zero IF the equations are equal. If you remove the minus sign, then subtracting one value from the other will equal zero if the equations are equal.

Can we at least agree that the following is true?

IF 2ab=4b
THEN a=2

and

4+(-4) = 4-4

If you're struggling with algebra as basic as this and think that this basic algebra is circular reasoning why on earth do you think you are able to determine if theoretical physicists are wrong?

 designtheorist writes:Anytime I am not persuaded because I don't understand something, I think the honest thing to do is to state what I don't understand. Perhaps someone can explain it to me and increase my understanding. I also provided evidence to show why the portion I did understand indicates the author is wrong.

Note the part that I bolded. Has it occurred to you that if you only understood a part of what the author is saying, then you don't actually understand what he is saying in toto? If you don't know what he is saying, i.e., what case he is making , you have no way that you can objectively determine whether he is right or wrong.

 This message is a reply to: Message 42 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 11:41 AM designtheorist has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 58 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:09 PM Trixie has responded

Trixie
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004

 Message 62 of 404 (643773) 12-11-2011 2:26 PM Reply to: Message 58 by designtheorist12-11-2011 2:09 PM

Re: Strewth!
 designtheorist writes:But I did present an argument about why Berman was wrong and why the author of the website was wrong.

Your argument about why the author of the website was wrong was based on not having a clue about very basic algebra. Your argument was proved to be wrong and, for once, the word "proved" can be used because we're talking mathematical (or algebraic) proof.

I only butted into this topic to see if I could help you understand why removing m from both sides of the equation was valid. Given my lack of knowledge in cosmology I'm not equipped to debate the actual topic per se. Given that lack of knowledge, I have no way to tell if cosmologists are right or wrong, other than them making a case which I can understand in it's entirety.

Do you now understand that didn't use circular reasoning and that it's valid to remove m from both sides of the equation? If you do, that's my mission completed successfully.

 This message is a reply to: Message 58 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:09 PM designtheorist has responded

 Replies to this message: Message 63 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:54 PM Trixie has responded

Trixie
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004

 Message 64 of 404 (643775) 12-11-2011 3:01 PM Reply to: Message 63 by designtheorist12-11-2011 2:54 PM

Re: Strewth!
Glad to be of service. Hope it helps, Trixie out!

 This message is a reply to: Message 63 by designtheorist, posted 12-11-2011 2:54 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

Trixie
Member (Idle past 2693 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004

 (1)
 Message 215 of 404 (645367) 12-26-2011 4:51 PM Reply to: Message 213 by designtheorist12-26-2011 4:01 PM

Re: Not a Bad Parable - I Fixed It
I see Vimsey's parable as showing what happens when someone who knows nothing about a subject, but thinks they do, is confronted by someone who does know about the subject. The man in the parable knows so little that he doesn't actually understand what the mechanic is telling him, (even though it's exactly what the man thinks himself), but is determined that it is wrong.

It's been brought up before in this thread. If you don't understand what someone is telling you, there is no way you can know whether they are right or wrong.

 This message is a reply to: Message 213 by designtheorist, posted 12-26-2011 4:01 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
 Newer Topic | Older Topic Jump to:Board Administration     The Public Record     Announcements     Proposed New Topics     Suggestions and Questions Science Forums     The Bible: Accuracy and Inerrancy     Big Bang and Cosmology     Dates and Dating     Education and Creation/Evolution     Biological Evolution     Geology and the Great Flood     Human Origins and Evolution     Intelligent Design     Is It Science?     Creation/Evolution Miscellany     Origin of Life Social and Religious Issues     Bible Study     Comparative Religions     Social Issues and Creation/Evolution     Faith and Belief     Theological Creationism and ID Side Orders     Coffee House     The Great Debate     Free For All     Post of the Month     Links and Information     Creation/Evolution In The News     The Book Nook     Columnist     Practice Makes Perfect Archives     Topic Proposals Archive     Showcase Retired Forums     Short Subjects (No new topics or messages)     Welcome visitors

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021