Summations Only

Ah, so this is the crux of the issue for you. Somebody has an argument against god and it relies on the total net energy to be zero. You want to believe in god, therefore, you can't allow for the total net energy to be zero.All this stuff:

quote:

---

When I first watched the clip, I laughed out loud. I thought "Larry's lost it! No one is going to believe the net energy in the universe is zero or even close to zero!"

​

...

​

I am extremely skeptical of this. The total net energy of the universe looks to be strongly, strongly positive.

---

Doesn't really have anything to do with the physics at all, does it?This isn't about physics, this is about you feeling a belief of yours being threatened, and you want to keep that belief, so you're gonna attack it by pretending to talk about physics.

For the record, so do I. Well that's good. I was beginning to think you were one of those people... I think it would make sense that the net energy would be zero. That's kinda how everything else is with the universe. If there's a particle, there's an anti-particle. Every positive charge is balanced by a negetive one. There seems to be a balance for everything, so it simply follows for me that this balance would be maintained for the Universe as a whole. Physics is never rightly understood...We can't speak in math.

The less you know, the more you think you know. The more you know, the more you realize what you don't know.

I agree. I wonder what/where/how DT thinks he differs...What do you think? Psychoanalyst powers activate!

Oh, just use them for fun then But don't get yourself kicked outta the mansions, its prolly cozy in there.

Interesting enough, but I was wondering how DT might think hisself differs from the customer in the parable...I suppose he thinks that he does "understand carburetors", or that he is not misunderstanding that "the fuel and air mixing" thingy is simply a carburetor...

Dontcha hate that! I hadn't thought of that one.In order to maintain the analogous nature, you'd have to assume that either there really isn't a controvery in cosmology, or that there is a controversy in carburetors. Either way, the point of the analogy isn't lost. What a shame...

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...

Well, without considering the sun, we can talk about whether or not Iron Man 3 was as good as the box office numbers suggested.Or we could talk about the thing you, yourself, brought up: how much energy it takes to strip away one electron in from each grain of salt in a teaspoon.See, there's plenty of things.Rather than get into it, I'll just assume you were hyperbolizing when you said that it controls everything about the solar system. Well I'm not dishonest, but I may be ignorant; just what the fuck are you talking about? Um, people were discussing both the sun and the solar system long before plasma was ever mentioned, so I don't understand how you can be asking this. Again? I never saw that claimed the first time. Which parts, specifically, gave you these impressions?I'll have you know that I knew that plasma was ionized gas without having to look it up. And that's part of the problem of saying that the universe is 99% plasma. If two ions of the same gas are fairly far apart, you could say the entire space between them was plasma, but that doesn't paint the right picture for the rest of space (as apposed to most of it), particularly interstellar and intergalactic regions. If you got a low density spot of ionized gas floating around, that counts as a plasma, but it ain't the sun. Cute. Early 20's, right?*Holy shit I just looked at your profile and it says you were born in 1962!Well then you, old man, can cut the asshole bullshit. Okay? I'm feeling some ridicule here, but it doesn't make much sense, do you not understand the energy associated with an ionic bond, or something? You know what, that doesn't really have anything to do with this so let's just drop it. What "they" tried to tell us, was that plasma is just another state from the persective here on Earth. We really only see it in lamps n'stuff, maybe occasionally in the microwave on accident.The states of matter lessons in early chemistry was not from the perspective of astrophysics. Sure, the low density plasmas that are floating around in intergalactic spaces are remnants from the Big Bang. We know this. Its a bit complicated to bring it up in early chemistry classes, dontcha think? I'm not familiar with the "gravitational theory of the atom". Huh? Some bonds form spontaneously; I can let salt water sit out and evaporate and the sodium and chloride ions will automatically bond into salt molecules. I don't think I'm getting the point here. It takes a bit of energy here on Earth to make plasmas (which is why you have to plug in the lamp), I'm not sure where all this misinformation you're talking about is coming from. I'm sure the professional astronomers understand it better than we do. They're not idiots. I don't know what any of those things are and at this point I'm not looking them up. Awe geez, is this some kind of conspiracy, or something? Ha! After realizing that you weren't some fresh outta college kid who was dealing with some newly understood layman's cosmology, I was gonna ask you if you, the old man you, had gotten your hands on some new crazy book or something? I should have known that it was a website!From that site:

quote:

---

There is a revolution just beginning in astronomy/cosmology that will rival the one set off by Copernicus and Galileo. This revolution is based on the growing realization that the cosmos is highly electrical in nature. It is becoming clear that 99% of the universe is made up not of "invisible matter", but rather, of matter in the plasma state. Electrodynamic forces in electric plasmas are much stronger than the gravitational force.

---

Holy shit it IS a conspiracy! Look, you've been bamboozeled. That whole 99% plamsa thing isn't as big a deal as they're making it. Astrophysicists are neither ingnorant of nor conspiring to hide this information. It just doesn't have the ramifications that you've been lead on to believe.*I had guessed this earlier in another post, Message 31:

quote:

---

What are you, in your early 20's? You've read and understood some layman's explanations of cosmological science, and you've gotten all cocky and think you know something? And now you're gonna come here and learn us all about what you know?

---

Added by edit:Panda's right, you never answered my question (and I do think it exposes an important point):How much of the solar system is the sun?Would you agree that more than 99% of the solar system is the sun?Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see added by edit

So, no response to my points at all? Thanks a lot, jerk, I spent some time writing that.

Sorry justatruthseeker, I thought that was a response to my last post. I've hidden the message as a retraction. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : to hide

Okay, I have. I was right and you remain proven wrong until you address the rebuttals that I've provided.

Oh God, you're really out of your league here.Do you know what a "net" charge is? And how we can have amounts of positive and negatively charged ions but still have a total net charge of zero?

Electric current is the flow of electric charge. Color charge is not electric charge.

quote:

---

Color charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences.

---

Color charge - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The strong force acts between quarks. Unlike all other forces (electromagnetic, weak, and gravitational), the strong force does not diminish in strength with increasing distance.

---

Strong interaction - Wikipedia

Its not attracted to both. Apparently you are the one who's confused. Earlier you wrote this:

quote:

---

Since electric currents exist everywhere {snip} it is impossible for the universe to be electrically neutral.

---

Let me know when you figure out how you want to be wrong. No, the neutron is neutral, not negatively charged. This is, like, 4th grade stuff here. Why would you think that you could lie to me about myself?