Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Zero-energy universe

tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2016 4:55:48 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The "zero-energy universe" hypothesis is one frequently mentioned all over DDO, from debates on God's existence to Big Bang cosmology and general relativity. It's something I've wanted to make an OP on for quite awhile, and I'm doing it in the Science forum. This post is to help anyone understand zero-energy universe, confirm that my understanding of it is right, and to generate discussion in this forum, which is one of the few active forums on this site.

To understand zero-energy universe, the basic ideas behind Einstein's field equations and gravitational theory have to be understood. As such, I'll make an outline of it.

General relativity is the primary theory of gravitation today. It seeks to explain the force of gravity, what it does, and how it best explains certain concepts in physics. Conventional understanding of science, and Newtonian physics, hold that gravity is an attractive force -- merely a "push," or "pull," like any other force. But GR is based on the idea that gravity isn't that simple, and is a very different force. Gravity is a consequence of the geometry of space-time. Space-time is a geometry, and was previously assumed to be a flat plane. GR challenges that very assumption.

Let me begin by explaining what a "geodesic" is. A geodesic is defined as the shortest path between two nearby points. When one draws two points that are perpendicular to each other on a flat surface, the geodesic between these two points is a straight line. That's basic geometry. And it was long assumed that the geodesic between two points on space-time is also a straight line. But Einstein challenged that assumption with his general theory of relativity. A geometric plane, or any other two-dimensional flat surface, is a plane on which the geodesics are lines. But geodesics differ by the geometry of each surface. For instance, the surface of the Earth is a two-dimensional *curved* surface; therefore, the geodesic on Earth is called a "great circle," or a latitude. I'm going to explain this with Hawking's example in A Briefer History of Time: the distance between New York and Madrid travelling vertically is 3,707 miles, but the length of the curved geodesic between New York and Madrid is 3,605 miles (p. 39).

GR holds that the geodesics in space aren't necessarily straight lines, and that space-time itself could be "warped," or curved. The reason for this is the presence of mass, because there's matter in the universe that has a certain mass. But how does this mass curve space-time? Einstein found the answer in gravity. Gravity is a result of the geometry of space-time. Space-time isn't a "fabric," it's a geometry. In 1915, Einstein created the field equations to calculate the geodesics in space-time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

But recently, theoretical physicists -- making certain assumptions -- claimed to solve the Einstein field equations and concluded that, on a large scale, space-time *is* flat, though there could be a small deviation. Observations of phenomena such as the Cosmic Microwave Background confirmed that the universe, on a large scale, was spatially flat. [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...] If the universe is spatially flat, that means there's no curvature. There's evidence for something "canceling" gravity out, because of the rate at which the universe is expanding. Gravity resists the expansion of the universe, so the universe's expansion should constantly slow down. But it's been proven that the universe's expansion is actually constantly accelerating.

Physicists theorize that the reason for this is the prevalence of "dark energy" in the universe, which -- along with all other energy in the universe -- could "cancel" gravity out. Lawrence Krauss explains that measurements confirm this.

But there's nothing more to this hypothesis. I've heard people claim that this could facilitate a "universe from nothing," but that's incorrect.

Thoughts?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 4:35:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 4:55:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
The "zero-energy universe" hypothesis is one frequently mentioned all over DDO, from debates on God's existence to Big Bang cosmology and general relativity. It's something I've wanted to make an OP on for quite awhile, and I'm doing it in the Science forum. This post is to help anyone understand zero-energy universe, confirm that my understanding of it is right, and to generate discussion in this forum, which is one of the few active forums on this site.

To understand zero-energy universe, the basic ideas behind Einstein's field equations and gravitational theory have to be understood. As such, I'll make an outline of it.

General relativity is the primary theory of gravitation today. It seeks to explain the force of gravity, what it does, and how it best explains certain concepts in physics. Conventional understanding of science, and Newtonian physics, hold that gravity is an attractive force -- merely a "push," or "pull," like any other force. But GR is based on the idea that gravity isn't that simple, and is a very different force. Gravity is a consequence of the geometry of space-time. Space-time is a geometry, and was previously assumed to be a flat plane. GR challenges that very assumption.

Let me begin by explaining what a "geodesic" is. A geodesic is defined as the shortest path between two nearby points. When one draws two points that are perpendicular to each other on a flat surface, the geodesic between these two points is a straight line. That's basic geometry. And it was long assumed that the geodesic between two points on space-time is also a straight line. But Einstein challenged that assumption with his general theory of relativity. A geometric plane, or any other two-dimensional flat surface, is a plane on which the geodesics are lines. But geodesics differ by the geometry of each surface. For instance, the surface of the Earth is a two-dimensional *curved* surface; therefore, the geodesic on Earth is called a "great circle," or a latitude. I'm going to explain this with Hawking's example in A Briefer History of Time: the distance between New York and Madrid travelling vertically is 3,707 miles, but the length of the curved geodesic between New York and Madrid is 3,605 miles (p. 39).

GR holds that the geodesics in space aren't necessarily straight lines, and that space-time itself could be "warped," or curved. The reason for this is the presence of mass, because there's matter in the universe that has a certain mass. But how does this mass curve space-time? Einstein found the answer in gravity. Gravity is a result of the geometry of space-time. Space-time isn't a "fabric," it's a geometry. In 1915, Einstein created the field equations to calculate the geodesics in space-time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

But recently, theoretical physicists -- making certain assumptions -- claimed to solve the Einstein field equations and concluded that, on a large scale, space-time *is* flat, though there could be a small deviation. Observations of phenomena such as the Cosmic Microwave Background confirmed that the universe, on a large scale, was spatially flat. [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...] If the universe is spatially flat, that means there's no curvature. There's evidence for something "canceling" gravity out, because of the rate at which the universe is expanding. Gravity resists the expansion of the universe, so the universe's expansion should constantly slow down. But it's been proven that the universe's expansion is actually constantly accelerating.

Physicists theorize that the reason for this is the prevalence of "dark energy" in the universe, which -- along with all other energy in the universe -- could "cancel" gravity out. Lawrence Krauss explains that measurements confirm this.

But there's nothing more to this hypothesis. I've heard people claim that this could facilitate a "universe from nothing," but that's incorrect.

Thoughts?

Well that's the thing. "Nothing" is never "nothing". The conjectures that the universe sprang up like virtual particles and kept expanding by external influences. Energy flowing into the universe from outside of it. Or energy from the space in which the universe emerges from.

It's bad logic to assert it's like virtual particles. Then bad science to assert what outside the universe looks like without any casual evidence. And then back to bad logic because such an argument by science is affirming the consequent. Which is a FORMAL fallacy. meaning it will always be of invalid inferences.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 4:37:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:35:30 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 2/13/2016 4:55:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
The "zero-energy universe" hypothesis is one frequently mentioned all over DDO, from debates on God's existence to Big Bang cosmology and general relativity. It's something I've wanted to make an OP on for quite awhile, and I'm doing it in the Science forum. This post is to help anyone understand zero-energy universe, confirm that my understanding of it is right, and to generate discussion in this forum, which is one of the few active forums on this site.

To understand zero-energy universe, the basic ideas behind Einstein's field equations and gravitational theory have to be understood. As such, I'll make an outline of it.

General relativity is the primary theory of gravitation today. It seeks to explain the force of gravity, what it does, and how it best explains certain concepts in physics. Conventional understanding of science, and Newtonian physics, hold that gravity is an attractive force -- merely a "push," or "pull," like any other force. But GR is based on the idea that gravity isn't that simple, and is a very different force. Gravity is a consequence of the geometry of space-time. Space-time is a geometry, and was previously assumed to be a flat plane. GR challenges that very assumption.

Let me begin by explaining what a "geodesic" is. A geodesic is defined as the shortest path between two nearby points. When one draws two points that are perpendicular to each other on a flat surface, the geodesic between these two points is a straight line. That's basic geometry. And it was long assumed that the geodesic between two points on space-time is also a straight line. But Einstein challenged that assumption with his general theory of relativity. A geometric plane, or any other two-dimensional flat surface, is a plane on which the geodesics are lines. But geodesics differ by the geometry of each surface. For instance, the surface of the Earth is a two-dimensional *curved* surface; therefore, the geodesic on Earth is called a "great circle," or a latitude. I'm going to explain this with Hawking's example in A Briefer History of Time: the distance between New York and Madrid travelling vertically is 3,707 miles, but the length of the curved geodesic between New York and Madrid is 3,605 miles (p. 39).

GR holds that the geodesics in space aren't necessarily straight lines, and that space-time itself could be "warped," or curved. The reason for this is the presence of mass, because there's matter in the universe that has a certain mass. But how does this mass curve space-time? Einstein found the answer in gravity. Gravity is a result of the geometry of space-time. Space-time isn't a "fabric," it's a geometry. In 1915, Einstein created the field equations to calculate the geodesics in space-time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

But recently, theoretical physicists -- making certain assumptions -- claimed to solve the Einstein field equations and concluded that, on a large scale, space-time *is* flat, though there could be a small deviation. Observations of phenomena such as the Cosmic Microwave Background confirmed that the universe, on a large scale, was spatially flat. [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...] If the universe is spatially flat, that means there's no curvature. There's evidence for something "canceling" gravity out, because of the rate at which the universe is expanding. Gravity resists the expansion of the universe, so the universe's expansion should constantly slow down. But it's been proven that the universe's expansion is actually constantly accelerating.

Physicists theorize that the reason for this is the prevalence of "dark energy" in the universe, which -- along with all other energy in the universe -- could "cancel" gravity out. Lawrence Krauss explains that measurements confirm this.

But there's nothing more to this hypothesis. I've heard people claim that this could facilitate a "universe from nothing," but that's incorrect.

Thoughts?

Well that's the thing. "Nothing" is never "nothing". The conjectures that the universe sprang up like virtual particles and kept expanding by external influences. Energy flowing into the universe from outside of it. Or energy from the space in which the universe emerges from.

It's bad logic to assert it's like virtual particles. Then bad science to assert what outside the universe looks like without any casual evidence. And then back to bad logic because such an argument by science is affirming the consequent. Which is a FORMAL fallacy. meaning it will always be of invalid inferences.

I never talked about virtual particles. I never argued that the universe sprang from nothing. Note the underlined part -- I actually agree with you that the universe didn't come from "nothing." Please read the OP before posting.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:33:30 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/13/2016 4:55:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
The "zero-energy universe" hypothesis is one frequently mentioned all over DDO, from debates on God's existence to Big Bang cosmology and general relativity. It's something I've wanted to make an OP on for quite awhile, and I'm doing it in the Science forum. This post is to help anyone understand zero-energy universe, confirm that my understanding of it is right, and to generate discussion in this forum, which is one of the few active forums on this site.

To understand zero-energy universe, the basic ideas behind Einstein's field equations and gravitational theory have to be understood. As such, I'll make an outline of it.

General relativity is the primary theory of gravitation today. It seeks to explain the force of gravity, what it does, and how it best explains certain concepts in physics. Conventional understanding of science, and Newtonian physics, hold that gravity is an attractive force -- merely a "push," or "pull," like any other force. But GR is based on the idea that gravity isn't that simple, and is a very different force. Gravity is a consequence of the geometry of space-time. Space-time is a geometry, and was previously assumed to be a flat plane. GR challenges that very assumption.

Let me begin by explaining what a "geodesic" is. A geodesic is defined as the shortest path between two nearby points. When one draws two points that are perpendicular to each other on a flat surface, the geodesic between these two points is a straight line. That's basic geometry. And it was long assumed that the geodesic between two points on space-time is also a straight line. But Einstein challenged that assumption with his general theory of relativity. A geometric plane, or any other two-dimensional flat surface, is a plane on which the geodesics are lines. But geodesics differ by the geometry of each surface. For instance, the surface of the Earth is a two-dimensional *curved* surface; therefore, the geodesic on Earth is called a "great circle," or a latitude. I'm going to explain this with Hawking's example in A Briefer History of Time: the distance between New York and Madrid travelling vertically is 3,707 miles, but the length of the curved geodesic between New York and Madrid is 3,605 miles (p. 39).

GR holds that the geodesics in space aren't necessarily straight lines, and that space-time itself could be "warped," or curved. The reason for this is the presence of mass, because there's matter in the universe that has a certain mass. But how does this mass curve space-time? Einstein found the answer in gravity. Gravity is a result of the geometry of space-time. Space-time isn't a "fabric," it's a geometry. In 1915, Einstein created the field equations to calculate the geodesics in space-time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

But recently, theoretical physicists -- making certain assumptions -- claimed to solve the Einstein field equations and concluded that, on a large scale, space-time *is* flat, though there could be a small deviation. Observations of phenomena such as the Cosmic Microwave Background confirmed that the universe, on a large scale, was spatially flat. [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...] If the universe is spatially flat, that means there's no curvature. There's evidence for something "canceling" gravity out, because of the rate at which the universe is expanding. Gravity resists the expansion of the universe, so the universe's expansion should constantly slow down. But it's been proven that the universe's expansion is actually constantly accelerating.

Physicists theorize that the reason for this is the prevalence of "dark energy" in the universe, which -- along with all other energy in the universe -- could "cancel" gravity out. Lawrence Krauss explains that measurements confirm this.

But there's nothing more to this hypothesis. I've heard people claim that this could facilitate a "universe from nothing," but that's incorrect.

Thoughts?

I have also heard this, and have devoted some time to into researching this and quantum fluctuations (which some also use to prove a zero-energy universe and falsify God).

I fail to see how dark energy and the cancellation of gravity would even be used to attempt the disprove God anyway. Is there a way you could explain that? Lol.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/14/2016 7:34:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 4:37:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
I never talked about virtual particles. I never argued that the universe sprang from nothing. Note the underlined part -- I actually agree with you that the universe didn't come from "nothing." Please read the OP before posting.

How do you think the universe began?
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 11:53:25 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:33:30 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/13/2016 4:55:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
The "zero-energy universe" hypothesis is one frequently mentioned all over DDO, from debates on God's existence to Big Bang cosmology and general relativity. It's something I've wanted to make an OP on for quite awhile, and I'm doing it in the Science forum. This post is to help anyone understand zero-energy universe, confirm that my understanding of it is right, and to generate discussion in this forum, which is one of the few active forums on this site.

To understand zero-energy universe, the basic ideas behind Einstein's field equations and gravitational theory have to be understood. As such, I'll make an outline of it.

General relativity is the primary theory of gravitation today. It seeks to explain the force of gravity, what it does, and how it best explains certain concepts in physics. Conventional understanding of science, and Newtonian physics, hold that gravity is an attractive force -- merely a "push," or "pull," like any other force. But GR is based on the idea that gravity isn't that simple, and is a very different force. Gravity is a consequence of the geometry of space-time. Space-time is a geometry, and was previously assumed to be a flat plane. GR challenges that very assumption.

Let me begin by explaining what a "geodesic" is. A geodesic is defined as the shortest path between two nearby points. When one draws two points that are perpendicular to each other on a flat surface, the geodesic between these two points is a straight line. That's basic geometry. And it was long assumed that the geodesic between two points on space-time is also a straight line. But Einstein challenged that assumption with his general theory of relativity. A geometric plane, or any other two-dimensional flat surface, is a plane on which the geodesics are lines. But geodesics differ by the geometry of each surface. For instance, the surface of the Earth is a two-dimensional *curved* surface; therefore, the geodesic on Earth is called a "great circle," or a latitude. I'm going to explain this with Hawking's example in A Briefer History of Time: the distance between New York and Madrid travelling vertically is 3,707 miles, but the length of the curved geodesic between New York and Madrid is 3,605 miles (p. 39).

GR holds that the geodesics in space aren't necessarily straight lines, and that space-time itself could be "warped," or curved. The reason for this is the presence of mass, because there's matter in the universe that has a certain mass. But how does this mass curve space-time? Einstein found the answer in gravity. Gravity is a result of the geometry of space-time. Space-time isn't a "fabric," it's a geometry. In 1915, Einstein created the field equations to calculate the geodesics in space-time. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

But recently, theoretical physicists -- making certain assumptions -- claimed to solve the Einstein field equations and concluded that, on a large scale, space-time *is* flat, though there could be a small deviation. Observations of phenomena such as the Cosmic Microwave Background confirmed that the universe, on a large scale, was spatially flat. [http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov...] If the universe is spatially flat, that means there's no curvature. There's evidence for something "canceling" gravity out, because of the rate at which the universe is expanding. Gravity resists the expansion of the universe, so the universe's expansion should constantly slow down. But it's been proven that the universe's expansion is actually constantly accelerating.

Physicists theorize that the reason for this is the prevalence of "dark energy" in the universe, which -- along with all other energy in the universe -- could "cancel" gravity out. Lawrence Krauss explains that measurements confirm this.

But there's nothing more to this hypothesis. I've heard people claim that this could facilitate a "universe from nothing," but that's incorrect.

Thoughts?

I have also heard this, and have devoted some time to into researching this and quantum fluctuations (which some also use to prove a zero-energy universe and falsify God).

I fail to see how dark energy and the cancellation of gravity would even be used to attempt the disprove God anyway. Is there a way you could explain that? Lol.

It's basically the idea that since the universe has net "zero" energy, there's nothing to create -- like saying when the debts and assets cancel each other out, you don't have any money in your wallet, but you actually do (at least in paper).
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 11:54:26 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:34:25 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2016 4:37:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
I never talked about virtual particles. I never argued that the universe sprang from nothing. Note the underlined part -- I actually agree with you that the universe didn't come from "nothing." Please read the OP before posting.

How do you think the universe began?

Debating between two hypotheses:

https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://infidels.org...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 12:56:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/14/2016 7:33:30 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:

Zero-energy universe is probably true, but it has no relevance to God.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:16:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 11:53:25 AM, tejretics wrote:
It's basically the idea that since the universe has net "zero" energy, there's nothing to create -- like saying when the debts and assets cancel each other out, you don't have any money in your wallet, but you actually do (at least in paper).

Oh. Okay, thanks.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2016 5:17:14 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/15/2016 11:54:26 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 2/14/2016 7:34:25 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/14/2016 4:37:18 AM, tejretics wrote:
I never talked about virtual particles. I never argued that the universe sprang from nothing. Note the underlined part -- I actually agree with you that the universe didn't come from "nothing." Please read the OP before posting.

How do you think the universe began?

Debating between two hypotheses:

https://en.wikipedia.org...
http://infidels.org...

These sound interesting. I need to read up on these some more.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.