Summations Only

quote:

---

How is that plasma converted to "normal matter"?

---

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:

---

Atoms like to have a balanced electrical charge.

---

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 - WikipediaEverything 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.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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.

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?

Hi JustATruthSeeker,Do you agree with the Wikipedia definition of a plasma where it says: --Percy

The Singularity is an asymptote... you don't ever actually "get there".

Heh, so if 99% of the universe if plasma then 99% of the universe is neutral.From that page I found this graph: I think that helps show the source of my confusion from the statement "99% of the universe is plasma"...The interstellar regions contain low densities of ionized particles that are relatively far apart. So while that still "counts" as plasma, saying it like "99% of the universe is plasma" isn't really painting the right picture, in my opinion, because there's an awful lot of "empty" space out there. Am I wrong to see it that way?

I don't understand enough of how you see things to say whether it's right or wrong, but if you're saying that the fact that so much of the universe is plasma is unintuitive because so little of what we contact in daily life is plasma, then I certainly agree. The density of gas in the empty space between galaxies is better than the best vacuum we can produce on Earth, but there is such a huge volumn of this empty space that that's where most of the matter of the universe apparently resides. And most of this rarefied gas is apparently in plasma form, its high energy causing collisions that keep the hydrogen nuclei separated from their electons (Wikipedia article on intergalactic space).--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

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. 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?

I dont' mean that its unintuitive because of what we see in our daily life (well, it is, but that's not the point I was making). I see saying "99% of the universe is plasma" as analogous to saying that "99% of our solar system is the sun".... Sure, 99% of the mass of the solar system is the sun, but that doesn't paint the right picture of what the rest of the solar system looks like, which is very non-sun like.Typically, when people picture plasma, they think of hot gas. So when someone hear's that 99% of the universe is plasma, I don't think that paints the picture of what is really happening in the interstellar regions of outer space. Sure, it technically counts as a plasma, but since the density is so low its not really what people are thinking when they picture it.I think that's part of the point of saying it that way. Its supposed to be a "wowzer". The physics cranks seem to like to say things that appear false at face value, but tend to be technically correct. That way, they can build some doubt as if everything you think you know could be wrong, and therefore, all of physics could be wrong too. I don't find it to be a very honest approach.

Oh, okay, I think I see what you're saying. Yes, if the average person's visual image for a plasma is anything like mine (blazingly hot and dense flow of gas capable of destroying everything in it's path), then simply saying that 99% of the universe is a plasma paints the wrong image. All the incredibly hot plasma of a cubic mile of interstellar space probably wouldn't contain enough energy to reheat your coffee, or even noticeably change its temperature.--Percy

It's not a hypothesis either.