|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,488 Year: 3,745/9,624 Month: 616/974 Week: 229/276 Day: 5/64 Hour: 0/0 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: That is quite obviously false.
quote: You are again, obviously incorrect. The website does not make that assumption, and Trixie is simply explaining things.
quote: No, I see that he is NOT assuming any such thing, and he is doing no more than applying simple algebra in a way that is completely valid.
quote: The author is saying no such thing. All he is doing is cancelling the numerical value of m on each side. What you are saying is complete nonsense. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2154 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Cavediver,
Thanks for the explanations. This is another of the times that I wish I had taken the GR course in grad school! As far as I know, the experimental data is consistent with a flat universe (reference; see Fig 5). Apparently, the claim of zero net energy is equivalent to the claim of perfect flatness to the universe? Can you explain this relationship to us a bit better? (BTW, the claim that the universe arose from an initial "quantum fluctuation" has the same problems (but worse, IMO) as the claims that the universe "began to exist". A fluctuation is something that occurs in time; how can a "fluctuation" occur if time and space do not yet exist?) Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
All he is doing is cancelling the numerical value of m on each side. But both sides of the equation have to be equal for such an operation to be valid, correct?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: No. If you're testing for equality the only restriction is that m can't be zero. That's basic algebra. (If m were negative it would flip the sign, but that doesn't matter when you only care about whether they are equal and it won't be the case anyway)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
E does not equal mc 2. Instead, E = c 2.
And this is why I questioned your understanding of basic algebra. 1.postive energy can be calculated from E=mc22.E=mc2 can be written as E/m=c2 3. Negative energy can be calculated from E=m Mu G / R u4. which can then be written as E/m=Mu G / R u 5. because m is the same value in both equations we can run the numbers and see if Ep/m is indeed equal to En/mGod separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
You're right. The author of the website is not assuming equivalency as I first thought. There are still problems with his equations.
He is saying velocity of the speed of light squared equals all of the positive energy of the universe. This is untrue. Even if everything he presented was true, this would only show the rest energy of all matter is the speed of light squared - which is a claim I could accept. The equation does not account for thermal energy, dark energy or kinetic energy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2285 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
He is saying velocity of the speed of light squared equals all of the positive energy of the universe. This is untrue.
Again, no he's not. Please learn some basic algebra. What he is saying is: Ep/m=c2God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel.- Buzsaw Message 177 It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in mindssoon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: I suggest you think very carefully about how you came to make such an obvious mistake, and how long it took you to notice.
quote: No, he's not. He is saying that the (positive) energy equivalent of the mass of a particle is about the same as the negative energy of the gravitational field relating to that particle.
quote: Thermal and kinetic energy are essentially the same thing and even if we ignore relativity they are much, much smaller than the energy equivalent of the mass. That really leaves only Dark Energy, and given the questions about whether it exists or what it is if it does I think it is a little premature to point to it as a problem. (Especially as I think that the considerations offered by Cavediver would still apply, but I'm no expert).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
He is saying that the (positive) energy equivalent of the mass of a particle is about the same as the negative energy of the gravitational field relating to that particle. Not true. I think this is a fairly common misapprehension. I quoted Hawking in the OP:
The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of. A body such as a star will have more negative gravitational energy, and the smaller it is (the closer the different parts of it are to each other), the greater the negative gravitational energy will be. But before it can become greater than the positive energy of the matter, the star will collapse to a black hole, and black holes have positive energy. You say
Thermal and kinetic energy are essentially the same thing... At the quantum or atomic level perhaps. But I am referring to the thermal energy of CMB radiation, the thermal output of the stars and the kinetic energy of the galaxies in motion. Most people would not consider these "the same thing."
That really leaves only Dark Energy, and given the questions about whether it exists or what it is if it does I think it is a little premature to point to it as a problem. In Message 11 I provided you with evidence that the existence of dark energy is no longer in doubt. See Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and read #6 in the list. The fact dark energy completely swamps the effects of gravitation should be obvious by the fact the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
Actually, that is what I'm saying his equations prove. He appears to be claiming total net energy is zero. His equations do not account for thermal energy, kinetic energy of galaxies or dark energy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Trixie Member (Idle past 3728 days) Posts: 1011 From: Edinburgh Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Then you are badly misreading what he is saying.
quote: And I answered all these points in my previous post. Do you really think that the kinetic energy of a galaxy is significant compared to the energy in the mass of the same galaxy ? If you do then perhaps you would like to support that claim...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
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. But I did present an argument about why Berman was wrong and why the author of the website was wrong. You did not address the arguments at all. You have only attacked me which is not very helpful in terms of increasing "Understanding through Discussion." In brief, neither of the two is addressing dark energy which obviously swamps the negative energy of the gravitational field since the universe is accelerating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
designtheorist Member (Idle past 3855 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
PaulK makes the claim:
He is saying that the (positive) energy equivalent of the mass of a particle is about the same as the negative energy of the gravitational field relating to that particle. We all know that the law of conservation of energy tells us mass can be converted into energy and energy into mass. Keeping in mind this law, try to imagine this conversion happening and PaulK's assertion being true. You have mass X with at rest energy of Y. This mass creates a gravitational field energy of -Y. Now when you convert this mass into positive energy, the gravitational field energy goes to zero. How much positive energy did the mass actually create when converted to energy?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: MY assertion is that is what the website is saying. So the correct way to test MY assertion that is to look at what the website says... And conservation of energy doesn't say anything about mass converted to energy. It just says that the total amount of energy stays the same.
quote: I don't think that either of us is sufficiently expert to deal with this, but maybe that's where the energy comes from. I am going to repeat the very basic point that it's rather silly to be trying to argue points you don't understand. (And if you can't tell the difference between "the website says this" and "this is true" I have to say that I don't think that you should be arguing about anything - at least not about anything said in English.) Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024