When water evaporates, heat energy is converted to gravitational potential energy. When rain fails, gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. Evaporation and rain are in opposite directions, hence opposite signs. ( in case the smart people take this too literally.)
If you have 5 sources of energy 1 volt each in a universe devoid of any other charge, the universe still sums to 5.
But we don't have that. We have other charges which counterbalance and yield a sum of zero.
You and anyone else keeps evading the very simple question: What is plasma?
That isn't the question in this thread. The question is: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? Have your objections been sufficiently addressed?
Do any of you NOT believe in the Big Bang?
I don't "believe" in the Big Bang any more than I "believe" in aerodynamics. I accept that pilots know something about aerodynamics and I accept that physicists know something about the Big Bang. Since both are based on observation, I naturally don't deny their existence.
If you can't tell me or the OP what 99% of the universe is, then how can you even attempt to answer the OP's post?
I'm not attempting to answer the OP. I'm just pointing out the logical flaws in your posts - such as the claim that flow disproves neutrality when flow is, in fact, caused by the tendency toward neutrality.
Since you therefore accept the BB you must therefpre accept that plasma is THE fundemental state of all matter from which all other matter is formed, and that charge seperation MUST have existed from the very beginning.
So what? To use the water cycle analogy again, you're claiming that a height differential must have existed from the very beginning. I agree - but that in no way prevents the energy sum from being zero.
Edited by ringo, : Spellin. Wonky laptop keyboard - yeah, that's it.
Since the BB is the cause of all the energy in existence, according to you, and energy can not be destroyed, then how could it ever sum to 0, when relativity demands that even the smallest speck of dust must contain it? E=mc^2, not one single spck of dust can be without it.
As I said, positive and negative can sum to zero.
And to use your anaology, the original height was 100%, it has dropped to 99%, it still has quite a long way to go to reach 0%.
In my anaolgy, zero height is sea level. There's the same amount of water going up as there is coming down, so the sum of the flows is zero.
So in 14 billion years or so, 1% of plasma has been converted to normal matter, and this normal matter is what you base all your calculations on???????
Plasma is separated charges, only when the attractive aspect of the electric current takes over and atoms begin to bind, do the electric forces become balanced.
You're still talking about localizaed balances and imbalances. You haven't said anything about why the overall energy of the universe can't sum to zero.
Suppose we have some plasma: eleven positive ions over here and eleven negative ions over there. Yes, they need to "flow" to get together and form "normal matter" but the total charge of the system adds up to zero whether it's in the form of plasma or "normal matter".
What about the background radiation you want to use as evidence of the big bang? Sum it to 0 and there goes your evidence, must be a glitch, everything is balanced, even though you still measure it.
What part of "sum" do you not understand? Add up all of the energy in the universe, the positive and the negative. You're just saying, "Oh, there's some energy so the sum can't be zero." Are you confusing "some energy" with "sum energy"?
So then what moved in the 0 volume of the initial event, if the beginning energy was equal, all in one spot?
As Catholic Scientist has suggested, it wasn't zero volume, just close to it. There also were no "things" in it - matter hadn't formed yet - so motion was really undefined.
This is the ONLY reason the Big Bang theory could even hold any merit whatsoever.
Well, there's also a little matter of the observed fact that everything in the universe is moving outward from the same point. The fact that the Big Bang happened is not disputed even if the theory of how it happened isn't completely satisfying.
Your hypothesis. Do you understand the difference?