Cosmos - Neil deGrasse Tyson

Status
Not open for further replies.

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It's not offset by gravity either because gravity is *not* a form of energy in GR, it's a *geometric feature* for crying out loud!

The former dos not preclude the latter, and you are wrong. Might as well say that stretching a rubber band is a geometric feature. I have done a lot of problems in GR involving potential energy. In GR, the equivalent notion of potential energy comes from the metric. I have my notebook open right in front of me, and I have pages and pages treating potential energy (typically just called "the potential"). For example, right here I have the derivation of the formula for hydrostatic equilibrium which equates the gradient of the potential with the gradient in pressure. This thing *has* to be in the theory if the theory is to describe hydrostatic equilibrium. Let's see.. what's the next chapter?... Oh, orbits in the Schwarzchild metric. That won't have potential in it, will it?... Of course it does. I have here a derivation of the equations of motion that correspond to the Newtonian potential and angular momentum, a description of unbound orbits, and so on. Would you be surprised to hear that unbound orbits are those where the potential is greater than the kinetic energy? Yes, that's GR.

You see, if you don't know GR, you can't go around pontificating about what it does or does not do. In Newtonian gravity, "potential energy" is ability of the gravitational field to alter the trajectory of a body. In GR, that same ability is provided by the metric. It is only more general, so in GR the field equations provide the Newtonian concepts of energy, momentum and pressure together, as those are simply different components of one tensor.


The universe has always had "net positive' amount of energy because energy exists and it cannot be created nor destroyed. This is a *basic law of physics*. Energy has existed in some for or another *eternally*.

Basic law of physics = It fits your intuition and preference?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Basic law of physics = It fits your intuition and preference?

Before I even address the GR aspects, let's do a quick reality check between for us for a moment.

The conservation of energy laws claim that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Energy exists in the universe. The only way to 'balance out' to zero, all the energy of the universe again, you'd quite literally have to destroy every bit of energy that exists, right down to every neutrino and photon. That is a *physical impossibility* according to the laws of physics.

According to your claim, Einstein was a complete idiot, a moron without a clue. E does not equal m times the speed of light squared. E=0 regardless of mass or C! :doh:

Sorry, I trust Einstein not you, and you *yet again* ignored the use of energy over time.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
The former dos not preclude the latter, and you are wrong. Might as well say that stretching a rubber band is a geometric feature.

It's a feature of a universe filled with energy that allows for energy of all types to exist in all it's various forms.

I have done a lot of problems in GR involving potential energy.
All of them required mass and energy, or else it didn't *do* anything. ;)

In GR, the equivalent notion of potential energy comes from the metric. I have my notebook open right in front of me, and I have pages and pages treating potential energy (typically just called "the potential").
Fine. I works like a hill then, with the ability to let you store and do things with *preexisting mass and energy*.

For example, right here I have the derivation of the formula for hydrostatic equilibrium which equates the gradient of the potential with the gradient in pressure.
Great. If you added the EM influences of plasma, Peratt can explain how to get rid of your need for exotic forms of matter to explain galaxy rotation patterns. If you understand fluid dynamics a bit, *MHD* theory shouldn't be all that difficult. Have you read any books on MHD theory yet (by any author)?

This thing *has* to be in the theory if the theory is to describe hydrostatic equilibrium. Let's see.. what's the next chapter?... Oh, orbits in the Schwarzchild metric. That won't have potential in it, will it?... Of course it does.
Yet you keep claiming it has a "net zero" amount of energy? :scratch:

I have here a derivation of the equations of motion that correspond to the Newtonian potential and angular momentum, a description of unbound orbits, and so on. Would you be surprised to hear that unbound orbits are those where the potential is greater than the kinetic energy? Yes, that's GR.
Er, you didn't do much there except preach as far as I can tell, so 'ok".

You see, if you don't know GR,
Um, you leaped to your own conclusion based on nothing much useful that I can see so far.

you can't go around pontificating about what it does or does not do.
It doesn't allow you to destroy energy, or create energy on a whim. GR isn't a magic wand that does whatever Guth claims.

In Newtonian gravity, "potential energy" is ability of the gravitational field to alter the trajectory of a body.
Sure, but you have a body inside of a energy *system* where preexisting energy changes forms, from kinetic to potential and back again, as an ordinary pendulum will demonstrate. You're talking about a system of *energy* that describes energy, energy which cannot be created or destroyed. It's must energy in motion that obeys the laws of physics.

In GR, that same ability is provided by the metric. It is only more general, so in GR the field equations provide the Newtonian concepts of energy, momentum and pressure together, as those are simply different components of one tensor.
:confused: I can't really find much to complain about in terms of your basic description of GR and how it applies to the *transfer of preexisting non destroyable energy*. I have no clue however how you think any of that post allows you to claim the universe has a net zero amount of energy. :confused:

E=MC^2. According to you E=0 regardless of M or C?

Basic law of physics = It fits your intuition and preference?
Well, I've had time to go through the whole thing now, and I still think it's ironic that you're an atheist on a Christian website trying to defy the very premise of GR, namely that E=MC^2. :)
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Before I even address the GR aspects, let's do a quick reality check between for us for a moment.

The conservation of energy laws claim that energy cannot be created, nor destroyed. Energy exists in the universe. The only way to 'balance out' to zero, all the energy of the universe again, you'd quite literally have to destroy every bit of energy that exists, right down to every neutrino and photon. That is a *physical impossibility* according to the laws of physics.

Since you are such a fan of name-dropping, I will quote Steven Hawking:

"If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative" -- Steven Hawking

Sorry, I trust Einstein not you, and you *yet again* ignored the use of energy over time.

When you are done using your personal ignorance to misrepresent Einstein, tell me if you trust Steven Hawking.
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
dcarrera said:
You see, if you don't know GR,
Um, you leaped to your own conclusion based on nothing much useful that I can see so far.

No. The fact that you don't know GR is an empirical observation easily deducible by the available data (two examples included in the same post where you said this). I suppose that an alternate explanation is that you are a dishonest liar, but I am a nice person and I like to give people the benefit of doubt.

E=MC^2. According to you E=0 regardless of M or C?

This is an example of the empirical data that indicates to me that you do not know GR. The E = MC^2 is merely the energy equivalent of matter. It does not even include kinetic energy. As indicated already by myself, lesliedellow and Steven Hawking, "gravitational energy is negative".


I still think it's ironic that you're an atheist on a Christian website trying to defy the very premise of GR, namely that E=MC^2. :)

This is another example of empirical evidence that indicates to me that you do not know GR. E = MC^2 is not a premise of GR. It is merely the one equation the public knows and likes to throw around. It doesn't even originate in GR, it originates in SR.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well, I've had time to go through the whole thing now, and I still think it's ironic that you're an atheist on a Christian website trying to defy the very premise of GR, namely that E=MC^2. :)

The NET energy of the universe is zero - not the energy of a London bus is zero.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Since you are such a fan of name-dropping, I will quote Steven Hawking:

"If the total energy of the universe must always remain zero, and it costs energy to create a body, how can a whole universe be created from nothing? That is why there must be a law like gravity. Because gravity is attractive, gravitational energy is negative" -- Steven Hawking

I love how you utterly ignore the guy with the actual Nobel Prize in MHD theory and toss out a big name that hasn't a clue where dark energy comes from either. :) Cute.

The beginning of his personal statement of faith begins with the word "if'. There is absolutely no emotional or physical need for the total energy of the the universe to start at zero, go to zero, or be anywhere near zero energy. It's a *statement* of faith from the very first word!

With Lambda-CDM, you also have gravity doing push me, pull you tricks whenever and wherever you feel like it. Gravity is attractive here on Earth, but repulsive too, and it even includes magical negative pressure vacuums. You can't physically demonstrate a word of it either in terms of demonstrating actual cause/effect mechanisms.

When you are done using your personal ignorance to misrepresent Einstein, tell me if you trust Steven Hawking.

Hawking is ok, but he admits to his errors, and he is human like the rest of us. I'll stick with Einstein and E=MC^2, while you feel compelled to peddle your free lunch nonsense, but I can't help but be amazed the by the irony.

You want me to simply ignore the use of energy over time while you ignore that use of energy *eternally*. :) I've seen denial before, but you take the cake. In you goofy universe, any amount of mass can exist moving at any rate of speed and regardless of the speed of expansion, or the amount of mass, it's always a "net zero" amount of energy simply because you say so. :( You need to rewrite your own theory and call it the theory of E=0. :D
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
The NET energy of the universe is zero - not the energy of a London bus is zero.

It's a lame argument any way you put it. We live in a universe filled with energy which cannot be created or destroyed, energy which can only change forms according to the *laws* of physics.

You could reasonably claim that Pope Guth started with energy in the form of an inflaton field, and converted that energy into the matter and energy that currently exists in the universe. You can reasonably suggest inflation is an eternal and infinite energy source too if you like.

You could reasonably claim to extract energy from an *almost (but not quite) empty vacuum, and convert that energy into other (other) forms of energy that we are now familiar with too.

What you cannot do is claim that E=0 because the energy that exists today must have always existed in some *form* or another.

It's really that simple.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
This is another example of empirical evidence that indicates to me that you do not know GR. E = MC^2 is not a premise of GR. It is merely the one equation the public knows and likes to throw around. It doesn't even originate in GR, it originates in SR.

This is really amusing. You're basically *emotionally attached* to the "net" amount of energy of the universe working out to some magic number. In order to fudge to that number, you'll blatantly ignore the role of velocity in terms of total energy, blatantly ignore the role of distance between objects and the total energy, and blatantly ignore the use of energy/time. I've seen denial before, but that's so hard core, words simply fail me.

There is no logical need to pick a "zero" out of thin air and until I see you deal with the energy use over time aspects and the velocity and mass aspects, your claims about net zero energy universe are utterly preposterous.

Mass is energy, and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, energy can only change forms. You could start with energy and never violate and "free lunch" laws in the process, but instead you choose go to the grave with your faith in Pope Guth's free lunch nonsense that violates the very principles of GR.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Out of thin air? Dude, it's a measurement. You know, science.

You could have said:

If the total net energy of the universe is +X, and it's always been +X, then I have no emotional need to dream up a bunch of useless, pointless dogma that is totally and completely related to GR and physics!
 
Upvote 0

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You could have said:

If the total net energy of the universe is +X, and it's always been +X, then I have no emotional need to dream up a bunch of useless, pointless dogma that is totally and completely related to GR and physics!

Measurements indicate X = 0. Deal with it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dcarrera

Member
Apr 26, 2014
283
50
Lund, Sweden
Visit site
✟9,347.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
By the way. How in the pagan hades does the 'net zero' energy universe apply to dark energy, and negative pressure vacuums?

\Omega_\Lambda = 0.683
\Omega_M = 0.317

\Omega = \Omega_\Lambda + \Omega_M = 1.000

That should answer your question. I am sure you are aware that a universe with \Omega = 1 has zero net energy.
 
Upvote 0

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
but instead you choose go to the grave with your faith in Pope Guth's free lunch nonsense that violates the very principles of GR.

And what would those "very principles of GR" be exactly?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
And what would those "very principles of GR" be exactly?

Mass and energy are interchangeable, combined with the *law* of physics that insists that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only change forms. It ignores the use of energy of time (which you will do again, just watch), and it ignores minor little problems like chemical energy, etc.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Status
Not open for further replies.