Zero Energy

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by D. Scarlatti
Souljah, have you even read this book? Did you read Chapters 1-7 prior to reading Chapter 8?

Be honest.

Parts.  My question was about this particular part.  You guys are so caught up in insulting me and trying to paint me as a liar that you have to switch subjects everytime I provide what you ask for.

Why are you so emotionally invested in answering a simple question.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Desperate, huh? Never figured anyone would check, huh?

Um, that doesn't really make sense. You guys are very familiar with this book...why would I figure "you wouldn't check"?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Ok, I will follow suit, since you like this game...

Me: Where does the original virtual particle get its energy from in this supposed "empty" vacuum?

Morat: The time-traveling third particle.

Me:

Morat:  Proceeds to insult s0uljah and say he doesn't understand QM.

 

[Morat]

  Beats me, Souljah, but you blatantly misrepresented him. For the second time, I might add.

  You claimed he stated "We don't have to explain where the energy came from", when in fact, his statement was "We don't need to answer where", followed by an in-depth explanation of how this concept led to the universe we know.

   You implied, quite obviously, that Hawking had hand-waved the notion aside, instead of it explaining it at length.

   What's your problem with the truth?

 

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Why are you so emotionally invested in answering a simple question.

I'm not. I just don't understand what your point is, or the point of your question.

Here is your question:

What do the atheists here think about that statement? Do you think that his statement is valid and that we don't have to explain where energy came from, since there isn't any energy?

First of all, according to quantum theory, that the sum total of the energy in the universe is zero, given that matter represents positive energy and gravity represents negative energy, and given a uniform universe, is not the same as saying "There isn't any energy." Of course you do realize that now by now, right?

As for what atheists think about it, I can tell you that this atheist probably isn't going to lose any sleep over it tonight.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
 

   You implied, quite obviously, that Hawking had hand-waved the notion aside, instead of it explaining it at length. 


 

Um, he did hand-wave it aside by explaining the sum of energy is zero.  Its a fairly simple observation.  The only thing he did in depth was speculate about tangents of the topic.

Note: You can now observe how I am more aggressive in my statements, since you were kind enough to provide me with the whole chapter, which backs me up.

 

[Morat]

  I notice you pull out that third particle every time you're really nailed into the corner. And I notice you never talk about the Fenyman diagrams I linked to as explanation.

   Strange, that. One would think you bring it up to cover for your own mistakes. But you'd never be so deceptive, would you? Never resort to that kind of tactic.

  So tell me, Souljah, now that we've had this discussion, and you realize that virtual particle production is the difference between a classic vacuum and a quantum vacuum, where does the energy come from again?

 

 

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I just finished glancingthrough that chapter again.

After he makes the statement that you seem to have a problem with he goes on to try and explain the orijin of the universe.

You know about the universe don't you? You know that thing that contains all known energy like quantum energy?

So to you an explanation of the one thing that is all known energy is not an explanation of all known energy?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

So tell me, Souljah, now that we've had this discussion, and you realize that virtual particle production is the difference between a classic vacuum and a quantum vacuum, where does the energy come from again?

The energy in the Universe that contaminates your supposed empty vacuum.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

So to you an explanation of the one thing that is all known energy is not an explanation of all known energy?

There was no explanation of the energy in that chapter, rather, a detailed look at why the sum is zero.

If you are happy with that explanation, then more power to you. Personally, I find it comical.

 

[Morat]

Um, he did hand-wave it aside by explaining the sum of energy is zero.  Its a fairly simple observation.  The only thing he did in depth was speculate about tangents of the topic.

  Wow. You've got guts. Given that the chapter is linked to, and anyone can read it and see that he spends quite a bit of time (before and after your quote) explaining how a net energy of zero applies to the universe...

   Well, it's not often to see someone lie so obviously.

  I mean, what would you call this?

Thus the universe can double the amount of positive matter energy and also double the negative gravitational energy without violation of the conservation of energy. This does not happen in the normal expansion of the universe in which the matter energy density goes down as the universe gets bigger. It does happen, however, in the inflationary expansion because the energy density of the supercooled state remains constant while the universe expands: when the universe doubles in size, the positive matter energy and the negative gravitational energy both double, so the total energy remains zero. During the inflationary phase, the universe increases its size by a very large amount. Thus the total amount of energy available to make particles becomes very large

   Oops! Sounds like he's explaining how positive energy (and matter) can come about in a universe with a net energy of zero.

   Sounds like an explanation to me.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Sounds like an explanation to me.

Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

 

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally posted by s0uljah
your supposed empty vacuum.

Maybe you should differentiate between "vacuum" and "vacuum state." Just a thought.

 

[Morat]

The energy in the Universe that contaminates your supposed empty vacuum.

  What energy? You don't get to make up energy for your own amusement. Please source this please.

  Oh, and don't be an idiot and source zero-point energy, please, given that zero-point energy is virtual particle production.

  So, please reference an energy source that is not the very thing you claim borrows energy.

There was no explanation of the energy in that chapter, rather, a detailed look at why the sum is zero

  Lucky for you I quoted a bit of it in another post. Aren't you glad to have your mistakes corrected, so you don't repeat them and look foolish?

 

 

[Morat]

Sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

 

  Hah! You can't do it, can you? I'd bail, Souljah. You've been caught in a lie, and now your reputation is getting mauled because you refuse to admit you were wrong.

  Smoke and mirrors my tail-end. It was exactly what you claimed wasn't there, and you're too prideful to admit your mistake.

  Isn't excessive pride up there with lies as offenses to God?

 

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Aren't you glad you can revert to insults, so you don't have to rely on facts and look foolish?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
 

  Hah! You can't do it, can you? I'd bail, Souljah. You've been caught in a lie, and now your reputation is getting mauled because you refuse to admit you were wrong. 


 

Can't do what exactly?  You can keep saying I lied if it makes you feel better. You all asked what I was refering to, I pointed it out.  And I am lying how?

 

[Morat]

  Souljah, pointing out that you lied and misrepresented Hawking again, as well as pointing out your refusal to address your mistakes, isn't an insult.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Souljah, pointing out that you lied and misrepresented Hawking again, as well as pointing out your refusal to address your mistakes, isn't an insult.

No, we can call it libel. Is that better?

I never lied. If you think I did, tell me how? I misrepresented nothing. Its plainly there for anyone to read. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't change anything.

In my original Hawkings thread, you all were supposedly upset because I was insulting in my tone.  Now in this thread, I have been respectful, and it has ended up the same.  Why is that?

Maybe I was actually correct when I first said you all were emotionally invested in Hawking and crew.  I gave you the benefit of the doubt and stated my objections in a respectful way, never resorting to insults like Morat has, and you still end up hostile.  Interesting.

 

[Morat]

No, we can call it libel. Is that better?

 

   Nope. Libel is incorrect. I'd have to knowingly lie about you in such a way as to cause monetary or emotional damage.

I never lied. If you think I did, tell me how? I misrepresented nothing. Its plainly there for anyone to read. You can keep saying that, but it doesn't change anything.

  It's very simple. You stated that Hawking claimed no explanation was needed for where the energy came from. His actual statement was different (He stated that the answer to "where did the energy come from was "There is no net energy") and proceeded to spend several paragraphs explaining how that works.

   So, while you claimed he said it needed no explanation, the reality was that Hawking's devoted a good chunk of the chapter to explaining it.

  

In my original Hawkings thread, you all were supposedly upset because I was insulting in my tone.  Now in this thread, I have been respectful, and it has ended up the same.  Why is that?

   I'd imagine it's because you, either through shoddy comprehension or deliberate choices, continue to misrepresent Hawking.

  Still waiting on this:

What energy? You don't get to make up energy for your own amusement. Please source this please.

&nbsp; Oh, and don't be an idiot and source zero-point energy, please, given that zero-point energy <I>is virtual particle production</I>.

&nbsp; So, please reference an energy source that is <I>not</I> the very thing you claim borrows energy

&nbsp;