|
QuickSearch
Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ] |
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total) |
| |
harveyspecter | |
Total: 895,035 Year: 6,147/6,534 Month: 340/650 Week: 110/278 Day: 8/24 Hour: 0/1 |
Summations Only | Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3146 days) Posts: 390 From: Irvine, CA, United States Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Does the universe have total net energy of zero? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member Posts: 19733 From: frozen wasteland Joined: Member Rating: 2.8 |
We discuss theories here. What we debate is usually misunderstanding of theories.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Yes, what you posted was gibberish. I'll point to some of the more obvious "non science" in your post.
Einstein's equations are a set of inter-related differential equations that are extremely difficult to solve. Any who has taken a course in differential equations, which I suspect is a grouping that excludes you, can appreciate that it is quite unsurprising that there are exact solutions to the equations for only a small set of circumstances. The absence of solutions for many circumstances is of no particular import. Let's also note that there is no general solution to the n body problem, for n > 3, and yet we can still predict the motion of planets in the solar system with great accuracy using Newtonian mechanics. There is no reason to believe that a space with more than one black hole in it violates general relativity, and there is evidence of multiple black holes in the universe. Your attempt at a point making a point here is gibberish.
Whatever theory the above quote is supposed to describe, it is not the Big Bang theory of reality, which does not involve a zero volume singularity. And what the heck is a "zero-point volume mass" anyway? Just more gibberish. Free gibberish debunk. An electron has no size. An electron and a proton at the same point in space does not form a singularity. So what would such a combination be?
The same as it was initially in what way? In quantity perhaps if we insist on the conservation of energy under all circumstance. But not necessarily in the same form of course. But that's not the gibberish I mean to point out. A balanced amount of charge exists in a battery, yet there is chemical energy stored therein. Further, the question raised in the original discussion is whether the current situation, with charges and masses distributed as they are might total zero energy. You aren't even answering the right question.
Because electrical/magnetic forces are not the only ones in existence? Because even with charges in balanced an arrangement of particles can have large amounts of kinetic energy, and various types of stored energy, some positive and some negative? That's right. Balanced necessarily means zero energy is still more gibberish. Your attempts to describe convention science are like nails screeching across a black board. You simply don't know enough real physics for anyone to value your personal impressions of whether electric cosmology is a better fit than general relativity and we have plenty of evidence for the latter. My personal impression is that there must be a better description of this stuff elsewhere. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : correction to n-body problem Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 2483 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 2483 days) Posts: 117 From: Tulsa, OK, USA Joined: |
quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations 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. 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 http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/...lectrodynamics.html Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given. Edited by justatruthseeker, : added link Edited by Admin, : Fix link.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Your reading comprehension is sub-normal. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
None of which has even the slightest relevance to the theory of General Relativity or to anything else I posted. In fact, nothing in your entire post is the least bit responsive or rebuts my pointing out that you are posting gibberish. Here you quote from Wikipedia: quote: And comment thusly...
More gibberish. Your comment does not follow from the paragraph of stuff you quoted from Wikipedia, and does not address anything I've posted. What's wrong with you? Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Pure gibberish. Einstein did nothing of the sort. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ‘That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.’ Galileo Galilei 1615. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 20953 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
Hi JustATruthSeeker,
I'm afraid you just pulled an Emily Litella. You seem to have forgotten that I was responding to your comment about the Big Bang, not black holes. In Message 364 you said:
And that's what I responded to, pointing out that scientists don't really believe there was a singularity at T=0. 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. I didn't say anything about black holes, but you seem to be wrong about them, too. Blindly applying the equations of general relativity does yield a singularity at the center of black holes, but scientists understand that general relativity isn't the full story at very small scales. They don't really believe there's a singularity at the center of black holes. As the Wikipedia article on black holes states:
In this view of singularities they are seen as artifacts of applying only general relativity instead of general relativity and quantum theory together. Scientists don't believe singularities exist in the real universe. Can I leave the taunt out this time, or do I need to supply a taunt before you'll respond? If a taunt is required then just let me know and I'll add one. And I was wondering, if I edit in taunts to my other posts that you ignored, will you then respond to those, too? --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 20953 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 3.1 |
Hi JustATruthSeeker,
I agree with NoNukes that you appear to posting gibberish. Nothing you say makes any sense, it certainly doesn't appear to be anything true about the real world, nor does it appear to have anything to do with the posts you're replying to or to the websites you quote. I guess I can only echo NoNukes question: What is wrong with you? I corrected the damaged link in your post, that portion of your message now reads:
The first link is a Google search for "big bang theory astronomy", and the link you posted does not appear on the first two pages of Google results. Given that your link doesn't contain the phrase "big bang", I doubt it appears on any page. Can you not get anything right? But thanks for the link to the crank on-line magazine. Here's a tip. The next time someone claims to be sharing suppressed scientific knowledge with you, they're a crank. You conspiracy suckers are all alike. Anytime someone taps you on the shoulder and whispers, "Hey, buddy, want to hear about the secret conspiracy," you guys just lap it up. Today's accepted scientific theories attained that position through painstaking study of and comparison against the real world. Proving any of them wrong will require more painstaking study of and comparison against the real world, not whatever it is you're doing. --Percy
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Son Goku Member Posts: 1208 From: Ireland Joined: |
This a little false. Firstly the magnetic field lines of black holes are distorted by the rotation of the black hole itself, so you effectively get spinning magnetic field lines. Any nearby matter (such as that in the accretion disk) attaches itself to the magnetic field lines. So you get matter spinning around the black hole. However the curvature of space causes that the magnetic field lines around the equator of the black hole to have a very high intensity, with the intensity dropping off away from the equator. So particles will move away from the equator to minimize their energy. So you have a pile of matter spinning around the hole trapped by the magnetic field lines moving up/down to the north/south pole, while at the same time spinning rapidly. Essentially at the poles the matter is then flung out into space via the centrifugal force of rotating and the curvature of space focusing it up/down. This is the Blandford–Znajek process. There are three other major ways a black hole could fling particles into space as jets, the major question would be how much do these processes contribute. So it is not the case that there is "no explanation", rather there are four and observational evidence shows at least one of them, the Blandford–Znajek process, to be at work (which is why I explained). What we don't know is if the Blandford–Znajek process provides all the energy to the jets.
Are you aware that we've actually seen a black hole eat a star with direct observation: Black Hole eats star. We've also recently seen one consume a star system, including the effects on one of the planets:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 2483 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??? http://www.galex.caltech.edu/newsroom/glx2012-02r.html 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.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Soooo.....you still can't tell the difference between a black hole and a singularity. You aren't really doing very well, are you. "There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
justatruthseeker Member (Idle past 2483 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. quote: So whenever you devise a quantum gravity theory just let me know, ok?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3026 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
That is because you are unable to admit that you can't tell the difference between a black hole and a singularity. You prefer distraction to honesty. As I said, you still can't tell the difference between a black hole and a singularity. /pat Edited by Panda, : No reason given. 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022