Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9045 total)
126 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus) (2 members, 124 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

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


(7)
Message 88 of 404 (643868)
12-12-2011 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 12:57 AM


This ain't about the physics
Atheists such as Krauss and Hawking have used this particular claim as evidence that a Creator God is not needed at the start of the universe.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 12:57 AM designtheorist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 2:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 96 by Larni, posted 12-12-2011 3:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 404 (643896)
12-12-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by designtheorist
12-12-2011 2:18 PM


Re: This ain't about the physics
I do believe in God.

For the record, so do I.

My belief would not be damaged if it was determined that net energy was zero. Such a finding would not disprove God even though it would open the door (in the minds of some) that the world may have come into existence without God.

Well that's good. I was beginning to think you were one of those people...

Positive energy is easy for us to observe. Negative energy is difficult to observe or quantify. The local effects of gravity do not even come close to the rest energy of the matter involved. But gravity does have a long reach. It is claimed that on cosmological scales, the negative energy of gravity can equal the rest energy of atoms. I am skeptical of this, but even if it were true - the net energy of the universe would not be zero because there are so many other types of energy in the universe. The most important of these is anti gravity of dark energy.

While the claim of zero net energy might have made sense in Feynmann's day, it makes no sense in light of dark energy.

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.

So, yes, it is about the physics. The physics, when rightly understood, do not allow the poor arguments poor forward by the atheists.

Physics is never rightly understood...

We can't speak in math.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by designtheorist, posted 12-12-2011 2:18 PM designtheorist has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 123 of 404 (643952)
12-13-2011 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by NoNukes
12-13-2011 3:10 AM


Re: Hamiltonian definition of energy always equals net zero
And why does every crank think that they are Einstein toiling away examining patents or ...Galileo challenging the establishment.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 12-13-2011 3:10 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 198 of 404 (644938)
12-21-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by Larni
12-21-2011 4:32 PM


Designtheorist
Pretty much sums up Designtheorist, to a tee.

I agree. I wonder what/where/how DT thinks he differs...

What do you think? Psychoanalyst powers activate!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 4:32 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 4:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 203 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-22-2011 8:04 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 200 of 404 (644942)
12-21-2011 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Larni
12-21-2011 4:48 PM


Re: Designtheorist
Oh, just use them for fun then

But don't get yourself kicked outta the mansions, its prolly cozy in there.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 4:48 PM Larni has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 5:08 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 404 (644949)
12-21-2011 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by Larni
12-21-2011 5:08 PM


Re: Designtheorist
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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by Larni, posted 12-21-2011 5:08 PM Larni has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 207 of 404 (645021)
12-22-2011 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by Aware Wolf
12-22-2011 8:04 AM


Re: Designtheorist
My guess is that if he responds to the parable, he will focus on how the analogy breaks down,

Dontcha hate that!

not with DT and the customer, but with the auto mechanic and cosmologists. Auto mechanics actually do know what they're talking about; cosmologists don't. There are no controversies about how a carburetor works; there are controversies about how the universe works.

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.

We won't hear a peep out of him about the actual point to the post.

What a shame...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Aware Wolf, posted 12-22-2011 8:04 AM Aware Wolf has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 263 of 404 (698507)
05-07-2013 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by justatruthseeker
05-07-2013 3:17 PM


1) How much of the universe is plasma?

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...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 3:17 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 6:56 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 268 of 404 (698523)
05-07-2013 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by justatruthseeker
05-07-2013 6:56 PM


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

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.

Well I'm not dishonest, but I may be ignorant; just what the fuck are you talking about?

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?

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.

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

Again? I never saw that claimed the first time.

You talk like plasma is just another state of matter.

...

You talk as if you believe plasma is nothing more than matter with its electrons stripped away, a hot gas.

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.

But that isn't your fault, it's because you have been lied to for over 100 years.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

. There is no gravitational theory of the atom, only electrical.

I'm not familiar with the "gravitational theory of the atom".

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.

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.

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,

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.

ALL other forms of matter came from this initial form of matter, plasma, and still does. It is THE most important thing in astronomy!

I'm sure the professional astronomers understand it better than we do. They're not idiots.

And just so you know I am neither Electric Universe, Nor Plasma Universe, nor Relativity Universe believer.

I don't know what any of those things are and at this point I'm not looking them up.

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.

Awe geez, is this some kind of conspiracy, or something?

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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 6:56 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 8:44 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 270 of 404 (698526)
05-07-2013 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by justatruthseeker
05-07-2013 8:44 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 8:44 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 9:13 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 404 (698528)
05-07-2013 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by justatruthseeker
05-07-2013 8:50 PM


Sorry justatruthseeker, I thought that was a response to my last post. I've hidden the message as a retraction.

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.

Dude. OMG. You can't be this dense. Are you fucking with me?

How does 'whether or not Iron Man 3 was as good as the box office numbers suggested' have anything to do with the fact that "99.99% and all of it plasma"?

Edited by Catholic Scientist, : to hide


This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 8:50 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 404 (698543)
05-07-2013 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by justatruthseeker
05-07-2013 9:13 PM


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

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-07-2013 9:13 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 404 (698614)
05-08-2013 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 12:36 PM


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?

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 12:36 PM justatruthseeker has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 1:03 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 309 of 404 (698661)
05-08-2013 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 307 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 4:37 PM


Re: Not supportive of your point...
So the strong force is not even a fundemental force. You like to call it color charge, as if that somehow makes the charge not charge, but in the end it is all to do with the interraction of moving charges, which is electric current.

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.

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

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 4:37 PM justatruthseeker has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 334 of 404 (698748)
05-09-2013 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by justatruthseeker
05-08-2013 1:03 PM


Then explain how a quote "neutral" unquote neutron is attracted to both negative and positive charges if it is neutral?

Its not attracted to both.

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.

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.

So the neutron by attracting the positive protons to its negative charge prevent them from flying apart

No, the neutron is neutral, not negatively charged. This is, like, 4th grade stuff here.

being you know nothing about charge

Why would you think that you could lie to me about myself?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by justatruthseeker, posted 05-08-2013 1:03 PM justatruthseeker has not yet 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