Cosmos - Neil deGrasse Tyson

[Michael]

\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.

So basically they amount the 68% fudge factor that allows you to get to a perfect zero, is that it?

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

The only part of that which makes any sense at all refers to Special Relativity.

 

[dcarrera]

How?

Subtraction.

 

[Michael]

Subtraction.

Of what from what?

 

[dcarrera]

Of what from what?

Positive Energy - Negative Energy

 

[Michael]

Positive Energy - Negative Energy

What "negative energy"? You just made that up in your E=0 religion.

Ya know......

Your emotional attachment to supernatural forms of matter and energy that utterly fail to materialize in the lab, and aren't necessary in the first place, really doesn't jive well with your lack of belief in God. I fail to understand how you justify one, and exclude the other. Care to enlighten me?

 

[dcarrera]

What "negative energy"?

Gravity.

Your emotional attachment to supernatural forms of matter and energy that utterly fail to materialize in the lab

I can detect gravity in the lab. I can detect it in my bedroom too.

 

[Michael]

Gravity.

Baloney:
General relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General relativity, or the general theory of relativity, is the geometric theory of gravitation published by Albert Einstein in 1916[1] and the current description of gravitation in modern physics. General relativity generalizes special relativity and Newton's law of universal gravitation, providing a unified description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time, or spacetime. In particular, the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present. The relation is specified by the Einstein field equations, a system of partial differential equations.

It's a geometric feature, not a form of energy. An ordinary valley would suffice to describe the difference. You can ride your wagon *freely* as you cruise down the hill, but you'll have to use energy to get back up. The hill itself is not a form of energy.

I can detect gravity in the lab. I can detect it in my bedroom too.

Not dark matter or dark energy however. All you detect is rotation irregularities with your claims about plasma acting like a 'hot gas', and photon redshift. There is no cause effect relationship between photons redshift and 'space expansion' except in your head and your dogma!

 

[dcarrera]

Does anyone understand what Michael's problem is? I don't get why he is suddenly so interested in chemical energy.

Since I have failed to communicate with him, could someone tell him that we measure the net energy of the universe directly from its curvature? A universe with positive curvature has negative energy; a universe with negative curvature has positive energy; and in between lies a universe with zero curvature and zero net energy, which appears to be the one we live in.

 

[Michael]

Does anyone understand what Michael's problem is? I don't get why he is suddenly so interested in chemical energy.

Since I have failed to communicate with him, could someone tell him that we measure the net energy of the universe directly from its curvature? A universe with positive curvature has negative energy; a universe with negative curvature has positive energy; and in between lies a universe with zero curvature and zero net energy, which appears to be the one we live in.

I can simply start my theory with an infinite flat universe and do away with every single one of your supernatural constructs and claims. Do you see *your* problem yet?

 

[Michael]

Does anyone understand what Michael's problem is? I don't get why he is suddenly so interested in chemical energy.

Since I have failed to communicate with him, could someone tell him that we measure the net energy of the universe directly from its curvature? A universe with positive curvature has negative energy; a universe with negative curvature has positive energy; and in between lies a universe with zero curvature and zero net energy, which appears to be the one we live in.

Your sig line quotes are absolutely *hysterical* by the way.

 

[dcarrera]

Baloney...
It's a geometric feature, not a form of energy.

"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

An ordinary valley would suffice to describe the difference.

Because an analogy fueled by nothing but ignorance is superior to knowledge of Riemann geometry.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

The only part of that which makes any sense at all refers to Special Relativity.

Of which General Relativity is a generalization of. A poor one that only explains the 1% of the universe that is solids, liquids or gasses, hence your need for a cosmology that contains 96% Fairie Dust.

I say you are looking for a miracle to save your precious creation event, the Big Bang. And your theory that only applies to 1% of the universe, which since the math doesn't explain anything, you add to it ad-hoc theories to adjust the math back into a semblance of reality.

 

[lesliedellow]

Of which General Relativity is a generalization of. A poor one that only explains the 1% of the universe that is solids, liquids or gasses,

Really? Well, that shows how much you know, which as usual is less than nothing.

 

[pyramid33]

gravitational energy is negative" -- Steven Hawking

I happen to think gravity is positive. Positive gravity.

Just look at the movie Gravity with Sandra and George.

 

[dcarrera]

Of which General Relativity is a generalization of. A poor one that only explains the 1% of the universe that is solids, liquids or gasses

You must know that you are making stuff up. You must know that this is lying. How do you live with yourself?

 

[lesliedellow]

You must know that you are making stuff up. You must know that this is lying. How do you live with yourself?

I am afraid you under estimate the extent of his ignorance. The chances are he really believes what he says.

Of course, that doesn't prevent him issuing exhortations to "learn science".

 

[mzungu]

Does anyone understand what Michael's problem is? I don't get why he is suddenly so interested in chemical energy.

Since I have failed to communicate with him, could someone tell him that we measure the net energy of the universe directly from its curvature? A universe with positive curvature has negative energy; a universe with negative curvature has positive energy; and in between lies a universe with zero curvature and zero net energy, which appears to be the one we live in.

It is simple. Creationists have tried every trick in the book to add the God variable into science. They failled with Creation Science. They failed with ID (which is creationism in a tuxedo) and now they peddle their EU hypothesis that claims the Universe itself is a sentient, omniscient being called God. They have gone so far as to claim that they have lab evidence for their claims.

The cardinal rule for the creationists is to rid this world off of science.

I would not bother debating with them! Cheers

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Does anyone understand what Michael's problem is? I don't get why he is suddenly so interested in chemical energy.

Since I have failed to communicate with him, could someone tell him that we measure the net energy of the universe directly from its curvature? A universe with positive curvature has negative energy; a universe with negative curvature has positive energy; and in between lies a universe with zero curvature and zero net energy, which appears to be the one we live in.

Only someone that believes the universe is expanding like a balloon could ever conceive of that being flat without curvature. Energy causes mass, mass curves space, bodies follow this curvature in space. Therefore for any movement to occurr, an expansion to be accelerating those bodies, that space must be curved. And frankly, one with an accellerating expansion at fractions of c to be correct along with Dark Energy theory, it must have positive curvature and a net energy of not zero, else an accelerating expansion would not be occurring. So according to redshift and expansion theory, along with dark Energy theory, it certainly does not appear the middle is the one we live in.

 

[lesliedellow]

Only someone that believes the universe is expanding like a balloon could ever conceive of that being flat without curvature. Energy causes mass, mass curves space, bodies follow this curvature in space. Therefore for any movement to occurr, an expansion to be accelerating those bodies, that space must be curved. And frankly, one with an accellerating expansion at fractions of c to be correct along with Dark Energy theory, it must have positive curvature and a net energy of not zero, else an accelerating expansion would not be occurring. So according to redshift and expansion theory, along with dark Energy theory, it certainly does not appear the middle is the one we live in.

Maybe you need a new pair of reading glasses. The curvature of the universe has been measured, and it is flat.