|
Author
|
Topic: Does the universe have total net energy of zero?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
Water flows downhill, then it evaporates back up. The water cycle has a "total flow" of zero. It's the same with electrical currents. They exist because neutrality is the natural state.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: So what was that again about neutral????
Your quote says, "... within the neutron...." That's a localized dipole. We're talking about the overall charge on the whole universe here.
justatruthseeker writes: And electricity could care less if your coffe pot is above or below the electrical outlet, it requires not the slightest bit of gravity to function.
But the electrical outlet does have to be grounded. The electrons won't flow in nless the can get back out and returnto the power plant.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: plasma is involved in steam as well.
Sure, you can cause localized concentrations of energy but that doesn't effect the overall energy of the unverse. All you're doing is moving it around. At the risk of confusing you further with another analogy, pushing sand into piles doesn't effect the total amount of sand.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: Where have you measured this overall charge but "localized"? And everywhere you measure it, it is anything but neutral!
Have you added up all of the localized charges in the universe to prove that the sum isn't zero?
justbeingreal writes: Voltage has no set strength, only relative to something else, which conversely means that no matter what you measure it has voltage, just more or less to whatever you pick as your starting value.
Voltage is just the potential to flow. Current exists because of voltage and because the natural tendency is toward neutrality.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: 1 + 1 + 2 does not sum to 0....
1 + (-1) sums to 0. 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.)
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: 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?
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
justatruhseeker writes: 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???????
How is that plasma converted to "normal matter"?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: 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". Edited by ringo, : Speling.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: 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"?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: It can't be equal, or no movement would be possible, nothing would repel or attract.
Nonsense. Movement, attraction and repulsion are all local. There's no reason why a movement in one locality can't be balanced out - negated - by an opposite movement in another locality.
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
justatruthseeker writes: 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.
justatruthseeker writes: My theory....
Your hypothesis. Do you understand the difference?
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 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 |
|
ringo
Member (Idle past 604 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: 03-23-2005
|
justatruthseeker writes: ... this is a forum isn't it, a place to debate theories?
We discuss theories here. What we debate is usually misunderstanding of theories.
|
™ Version 4.2