|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3858 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
quote: But that IS the question. 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? This would be like trying to tell you what diamonds are, while ignoring carbon in the answer. Completely and utterly worthless. Then since you accept the BB hypothesis, then perhaps you can explain why plasma is not important when that very own theory says that plasma was the very first form of matter? Not just one of 4 fundemental states, but THE fundemental state of all matter, out of which all other matter such as liquids, solids and gasses condensed. Shall we show why such makes charge seperation in space a foregone conclussion? How the silly idea that plasma cant exsist in space because there is not enough energy in the universe to seperate one electron from each grain of salt in a teaspoon? 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. It is not important how much energy it takes to seperate atomic bonds, but how much energy it takes to form them that is. So what was that again about plasma not being important in astrophysics??? Without energy your BB would never have banged, and since energy can not be destroyed according to science, it must still exist. E=mc^2, there is no such thing as no energy. Have you given up on Dark Energy and an expanding universe that is accelerating? Supposedly this Dark Energy and Dark Matter make up 96% of the universe, about the same amount coincidently that you want to ignore. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
quote:yet one must have non-neutrality for the term neutrality to have any meaning at all. One must have higher density for a substance to move towards lower density. No one disputes the universe's natural tendency to balance forces. But since 99% of the universe is still plasma, apparently it isnt aware yet that you require it to be finished balancing. 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. 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%. 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??????? no wonder it sums to 0 in your world, its a representation taken from 1% of the universe. I'm wrong about many things, just not plasma, being I have actually studied it and read about it, not just taken what I was told and ran with it as it seems 99% of people do. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
quote: By electric currents that run in plasma. 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. http://www.ndt-ed.org/...llege/Materials/Structure/bonds.htm
quote: This I agree with completely, and so should you. "Atoms" are the stable remnants of free neutrons and protons (made up of quarks - or any name you want to pick) - (electric charges), and electrons (only imaged as clouds - multiple quarks??) that have bonded electrically to stabilize the electric charge. This is why in your day to day life it takes energy added to create an electric current. The atom itself once it has formed wants to resist you, it wants to remain balanced so to speak. But plasma is an excellent conductor. You talk of wind and bow shocks in space as if an atmosphere exists, or an ocean, yet deny any possibility of an aether. Fine, then quit thinking like it is. Yet the very movement of charges in relation to other charges creates current. Is not those winds and bow shocks indicative of just that, movement? It is that movement from the attraction and repulsion of the EM forces and the electric current and magnetic fields that then form that causes plasma to take on a filamentary aspect. When enough atoms have been bonded, normal matter forms and it becomes stabilized, its smaller components more in line and less random, and charges become balanced. This occurs through what is termed a Z-pinch, on a scale from micro to macro. In atoms (normal matter) the electrical force is muted, balanced, and so gravity does indeed become the dominating force acting upon it. Or if one may hypothesize, the electric and magnetic fields are more equal, to which force is fully described in relativity, and only partially described in Maxwell's equations, which describes better the more pure electrical component of a single charge or particle, an unbound (non-atom) form, plasma. Z-pinch - Wikipedia Everything I said might be wrong, but electric currents form magnetic fields and charged particles spiral in magnetic fields, and there is not one thing in the universe, down to the smallest quark, that is not spinning (spiraling - if one assumes relativity to be correct and as all must have forward movement. Falling as it is described. I am not against Relativity in the tiniest bit at all, it is an excellent theory within the bounds of our solar system, where atoms dominate, not free particles. But that is just my theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
Google Image Search of "galaxies"
Does this look like no energy? 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. So ok, sum it to 0, now they gotta get a new theory as there goes that one. Never mind, please sum it to 0, not to fond of that theory anyways. Edited by Admin, : Fix link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
It can't be equal, or no movement would be possible, nothing would repel or attract. It would all be neutral. That's worse than the alternative. I know what you mean by sum, but does not the fact that the Big Bang banged, point to the fact that it could not be perfectly balanced? That an inequality existed? However minute that may be.
I don't know the answer to that, but I don't think the event occurred because all was perfectly balanced, so what we see can't be either, since it's the end result. And maybe in a quadrillion billion years it'll try to equalize again and collapse upon itself, but because the inequality will still be there, bang we go again. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
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 ()
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
All I have to say is this, you leave me speechless with your knowledge, yet say nothing.
Ad hominem - Wikipedia
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
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 | UCLA But, 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: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
quote:You don't really believe that do you? What does it matter what theory of Black Holes we think correct if none of them are real to begin with? Cosmologist almost weekly mention the physical Black Hole in the center's of galaxies they have no explanation for to explain the vast plasma jets ejecting from their centers, yet scoff at the idea that quasar's might be ejected from galactic cores. After all, almost every single ones lies within a 20 degree plane of an active galaxies axis, the others at the ends of spiral arms, the plasma connection quite obvious. Just Google "black hole" and come back at tell me they talk about them as if they are not real. Got to NASA's web page and look it up. They use the impossible to explain what has been demonstrated over and over in the laboratory for over 100 years, plasma. And you want me to trust those telling me all about Black Holes?? They are the ones I am to believe, the ones that tell you 99% of the universe is plasma, then ignore it in every theory they have? Those experts? Shall we see what Stephen Hawkings thinks about the reality of Black Holes? Are you mad???? Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
quote: Einstein field equations - Wikipedia
quote: Which equations he derived from the work of Ampere, Weber and Gauss. Weber already had a relativistic formula for the working of the atom before the electron, proton or neutron had ever been discovered. Which Maxwell "simplified" with partial differential equations, and Einstein tried to put back into the non-linear form.Einstein field equations - Wikipedia quote:So Maxwell messed Weber's theory up which he had almost completed before he died, and Einstein tried to get right back there, but had to use Maxwell's equations because they were "Standard" theory then. quote:Big Bang Theory Astronomy pick one, lets see The Suppressed Electrodynamics Of Ampère-Gauss-Weber Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : added link Edited by Admin, : Fix link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
quote:Doesn't seem to be anyones interpretation but yours. Funny how that seems to be the case everytime you all say they say one thing, when everytime you look it up they say just the opposite, why do you think that is? Maybe because you don't actually know what they say, just what you want to believe they say, so you can whitewash it??? Press Release: Black Hole Caught Red-Handed in a Stellar Homicide Quite amazing that something not believed to exist can be tearing stars apart, since that is their official explanation for what is observed. get your story straight next time. Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
quote: I would say you are the one that can't tell the difference, since according to your theorists, they are the exact same thing.http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=55 Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia And don't try to distract with that infintile reliance on quantum theory, it does not apply. quote: So whenever you devise a quantum gravity theory just let me know, ok?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
I could care less how well I am doing, as if the opinions of half the people on here matter. You claim there is a difference, then fine, point me to the article that explains this difference. Until then you are just stating your opinion. I notice that none of you ever include references when you say this is what they say, why is that?
Perhaps because you can't find any???? It would be nice if your quantum theory didn't rely on them, then conflict with itself over them.
Singularities and Black Holes (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
quote: So you rely on them for trying to formulate quantum gravity, but your quantum theory rules them out. DOUBLETALK!!!!!! And heres your Big Bang for you. Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia
quote:Shibboleth Authentication Request Like I said, get your story straight first.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 3195 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
You should actually call the matter beneath our feet "Strange Matter", being it makes up less then .13% of the universe. Then you wonder why cosmologists are always surprised when observations don't match what was expected after you ignore the other 99.86%. Then you require 96% of fairy dust you call Dark Matter and Dark Energy with a Black Hole in the center of every galaxy to explain the 99.86% you ignore. Don't know what causes it, must be Dark Matter or a Black Hole. Can't be a plasma phenomenon, even though plasma makes up 99.86% of the universe and is exactly what you observe being ejected in a z-pinch. Exactly matching laboratory experiments for over 100 years. Unless you got a mini black hole in a lab somewhere to validate your theory??? Your theory collapses at this imaginary event horizon, the math useless, showing that such is not a supported hypothesis. That even the math is against it. And as every single laboratory experiment has proven time after time, plasma behaves according to the electromagnetic formulas, and not gravitational. This is why you require 96% of dark matter to explain galactic rotation curves, and a super-massive black hole, maybe even a binary black hole or two to explain them, never-mind that's it's not "real", just because we need them to explain what we see because we ignore all 99.86% of the universe. But don't worry, your tax dollars are being well spent on the next imaginary fairy dust project.
Hows that 12 billion dollar project going for the search for gravitational waves? Oh, that's right, none were detected so you need a few billion more to continue to look.No Elephants In My Carpet - More LIES from LIGO A Neverending Story - Cosmologists Find The Nothing!! Dark Matter/Energy?LIGO Successfully finds nothing Dark Inertia - Part One Dark Inertia - Part Two Hows your solar theory doing now that its thermal properties are 1% of that required to support your hypothesis? Oh that's right, you don't have an explanation now, just as voyager falsified your theory of the outer solar system. You have no theory at all to explain the sun, the nearest star, or our solar system, yet insist everything else is correct. That's a surefire belief if I ever saw one. You could never successfully explain galactic rotation curves before, now you don't even have a solar system or one for stars either.http://www.thunderbolts.info/...013/05/08/radio-elliptical-3 http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/05/13/black-hunger-3/ http://www.thunderbolts.info/...anations-that-dont-explain-2 Why aren't those pesky stars taking thousands of years to move across the HR diagram as your theory requires? Please, there is no evidence whatsoever that the overall energy of the universe is neutral, when 99.86% of the universe is still in plasma form 14 billion years after your Big Bang. And as all atomic research has shown it is when atomic bonds begin to form that matter becomes electrically neutral. So far only .13% of the universe has done so, and only partially, as the very lightning in the storms are plasma. The evidence suggest the universe is unbalanced, hence its expansion, not stability. E=mc^2.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024