|
Author
|
Topic: Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
So then what moved in the 0 volume of the initial event, if the beginning energy was equal, all in one spot? Was I not told earlier that this was a valid thought experiment Not that I am opposed to the idea of a singularity, as in singular - ity. schwarzschild's equation admits to that mathematical possibility, but only when it is alone in a universe devoid of all other matter. The equations for two or more such masses has never been solved in relativity. This is the ONLY reason the Big Bang theory could even hold any merit whatsoever. So if all of the universe was condensed into a zero-point volume mass, where all charges would balance each other, then there is no reason for the Big Bang to have occurred, since energy cannot be destroyed and all in existence is the same as it was initially. So yes, I quite disagree that it sums to 0. Or we can have it their way and no such event occurred, as I said, am not too fond of that theory anyways. But even though its not perfect, as I said, it's better than the alternative. My theory won't fall just because the universe may be eternal and overall unchanging, not small and expanding, the exact opposite of neutrality, as if all is balanced, why start expansion in the first place? This is ignorant gibberish. Why don't you learn some physics?
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8755 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 6.5
|
|
Message 362 of 404 (698906)
05-10-2013 1:20 PM
|
Reply to: Message 357 by ringo
05-10-2013 12:02 PM
|
|
Well, there's also a little matter of the observed fact that everything in the universe is moving outward from the same point. Please excuse the quibble, ringo. Let me restate this for you. " the observed fact that everything in the universe is moving outward from every point."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 357 by ringo, posted 05-10-2013 12:02 PM | | ringo has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 363 by ringo, posted 05-10-2013 1:31 PM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 860 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
|
|
Message 363 of 404 (698910)
05-10-2013 1:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 362 by AZPaul3
05-10-2013 1:20 PM
|
|
AZPaul3 writes: Please excuse the quibble, ringo. Let me restate this for you. " the observed fact that everything in the universe is moving outward from every point."
Fair enough. I didn't like the term "point" myself.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 362 by AZPaul3, posted 05-10-2013 1:20 PM | | AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied |
|
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: 05-05-2013
|
Only gibberish when it goes against you? Others were using it to try to prove your point, you didn't seem to object then, so you have no valid objection now. Or are you saying they were incorrect too? it's not my theory of the Big Bang, it's theirs. Your astrophysicists are saying all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity. And just which part is "gibberish" lets see what the theory says about what you say is wrong????? \Don't respond with a general denial, that's avoidance of the issue and no more than a blatant attempt to distract. Aware of all the games. Teach me some physics then, what no references??? From all points? That's a good theory if you could prove it by observation, but since you have never been to another galaxy to observe this, or even outside our own, it is just shall we say opinion? Because if you are correct, and everything is reciprocal in Relativity, then if I am on a high redshift quasar looking at earth (our galaxy), then it would appear to me how? I'll let you answer that and teach me some physics. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : added definition in ()
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Only gibberish when it goes against you? Others were using it to try to prove your point, you didn't seem to object then, so you have no valid objection now. Or are you saying they were incorrect too? You are delusional: no-one was trying to use your gibberish to prove my point. Try to be a little less crazy.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 4161 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 366 of 404 (698933)
05-10-2013 8:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 353 by Percy
05-10-2013 7:08 AM
|
|
Percy writes: Do you agree with the Wikipedia definition of a plasma...
Sorry Percy, justatruthseeker doesn't do answers - even to the simplest of questions. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 353 by Percy, posted 05-10-2013 7:08 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: 05-05-2013
|
All I have to say is this, you leave me speechless with your knowledge, yet say nothing. Ad hominem - Wikipedia
|
Percy
Member Posts: 23406 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 7.0
|
justatruthseeker writes: Your astrophysicists are saying all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity. The problem of the singularity is analogous to physical laws that have distance in the denominator. The intensity of sound doesn't really become infinite when you reach the source, and gravity doesn't really become infinite when the distance of separation is 0, but that is the result you get if you just blindly apply the formulas. So cosmologists know better than to blindly apply the laws of general relativity all the way back to T=0. They understand that there wasn't really any singularity. A number of theories have been proposed to explain what really happens, but none has yet garnered enough evidence to win out over the others. --Percy
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
All I have to say is this, you leave me speechless with your knowledge, yet say nothing. Ad hominem - Wikipedia Apparently being speechless is something else you don't know how to do.
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8755 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 6.5
|
From all points? Yeah, from every point. Interesting isn't it? Of course ringo knew this (as do most of the posters on this forum). Just had a momentary finger-pokin' problem on the keyboard. But me, being a picayunish son of a bitch, just had to quibble and correct.
That's a good theory if you could prove it by observation, but since you have never been to another galaxy to observe this, or even outside our own, it is just shall we say opinion? No, not an opinion. Now the logic and math behind this fact is way beyond you and you might strain a synapse just looking at it let alone understanding it so there really is no use trying to show you. Besides you are just not worth the effort. However, should you decide to go out on your own and find the answer let me give you a small hint to get you started. As we look out into the cosmos we can see the laws of physics working in exactly the same way we see them working here. Everywhere we look, no matter how far away in space or deep in time, the laws show that they hold. [insert a lot of heavy physics here] So, yeah, every point in the universe is moving outward from every other point in the universe. Every point. Each and every one of them. The whole universe. All of it. Quite cool actually.
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8755 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 6.5
|
if I am on a high redshift quasar looking at earth (our galaxy), then it would appear to me how? Depends on timing. If the timing is right you might see the Milky Way as a highly red-shifted quasar. In some other timing you would just see a highly red-shifted dinky little pipsqueek galaxy. You do know what a quasar is, yes?
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Your astrophysicists are saying all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity. I don't have any astrophysicists, they're too expensive. The bills for astrophysicist kibble alone would be more than I could afford. However, if I did have some astrophysicists, I can guarantee you that they would not be saying that "all matter was confined in a 0 point volume singularity", because the gibberish phrase "0 point volume singularity" was invented by you and has never been used by anyone else; especially not by astrophysicists, who tend to be sane.
|
justatruthseeker
Member (Idle past 3618 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: 05-05-2013
|
I don't mind you talking, this is a forum isn't it, a place to debate theories? Just don't say the data says what it doesn't say. If you want to say we think it is this way, that's fine, but when data contradicts that theory it is then twisted so it can explain any situation. Can't explain galaxy rotation? Add a pinch of Dark Matter, a dollop of Dark Energy and wham, there you go. And you are forbidden to think something we actually can measure can't be the cause. Only within the last few decades have we even had the technology to measure electric and magnetic fields in space, yet we know everything about it from theories that once said Kristen Birkeland was wrong. And know they are right back where they started. Measuring the electric fields and then ignoring them. Wondering why the data doesn't fit. They have a couple theories though, don't you worry - just keep the pocketbooks open, just not any that include electrical activity in plasma, the very thing they measure. Newsroom | UCLABut, since they ignore the very electrical currents they measure as having any effect, how can you trust them to tell you the sum of all the energy in the universe when they have never taken a course in plasma physics? If as those very same astrophysicists say 99.86% of the universe is plasma?
quote:
Apparently being speechless is something else you don't know how to do.
and then why are we here at all, if no one is going to say anything? Might as well sum it up now. I'll tell you my summation right now. E=mc^2
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 374 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-11-2013 12:05 AM | | justatruthseeker has not replied | | | Message 375 by Percy, posted 05-11-2013 5:35 AM | | justatruthseeker has not replied | | | Message 377 by ringo, posted 05-11-2013 12:05 PM | | justatruthseeker has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 128 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
I don't mind you talking, this is a forum isn't it, a place to debate theories? Just don't say the data says what it doesn't say. If you want to say we think it is this way, that's fine, but when data contradicts that theory it is then twisted so it can explain any situation. Can't explain galaxy rotation? Add a pinch of Dark Matter, a dollop of Dark Energy and wham, there you go. And you are forbidden to think something we actually can measure can't be the cause. Only within the last few decades have we even had the technology to measure electric and magnetic fields in space, yet we know everything about it from theories that once said Kristen Birkeland was wrong. And know they are right back where they started. Measuring the electric fields and then ignoring them. Wondering why the data doesn't fit. They have a couple theories though, don't you worry - just keep the pocketbooks open, just not any that include electrical activity in plasma, the very thing they measure. Newsroom | UCLABut, since they ignore the very electrical currents they measure as having any effect, how can you trust them to tell you the sum of all the energy in the universe when they have never taken a course in plasma physics? If as those very same astrophysicists say 99.86% of the universe is plasma?
quote:
Apparently being speechless is something else you don't know how to do.
and then why are we here at all, if no one is going to say anything? Might as well sum it up now. I'll tell you my summation right now. E=mc^2 Some important part of your brain appears to have broken. It's the part that would have stopped you from writing that. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
Percy
Member Posts: 23406 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 7.0
|
justatruthseeker writes: Can't explain galaxy rotation? Add a pinch of Dark Matter, a dollop of Dark Energy... Dark energy has nothing to do with keeping galaxies from flying apart due to rotation. Sticking to the facts seems to be getting me ignored, while Dr Adequate's taunts are garnering all your attention, so I guess I have to mix in a taunt if I want a response: For a seeker of truth you sure seem to say a lot of things that aren't true. Oh, wait, I get it, you're a seeker of truth, not a speaker of truth. --Percy
|
™ Version 4.2