Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Science
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-19-2011, 06:37 PM
Kon Foundas Kon Foundas is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 11
Default total net energy in the universe is zero and other implications.


Some of the underlying presumptions in science suggest an equilibrium (equal but opposite force) between two opposing forces or states. Here are some examples from various physics sites:

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter: E = mc2 In the equation, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

and

We now know that every particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate. There could be whole antiworlds and antipeople made out of antiparticles. However, if you meet your antiself, don't shake hands! You would both vanish in a great flash of light. from: A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME Stephen W. Hawking


All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.


If you factor these fundamental principles into every day life (and ignore your presuppositions and your center of the universe assumptions), then what sort of value and understanding should we place on everyday experiences and events? After all, experiences and events are purely relations between clusters of sets and sets of atoms/molecules interacting with each other, that themselves sometimes or potentially end up being cancelled-out by some opposite (and perhaps) equally significant force.

But the microscopic (quantum) world is different and less predictable than (the sum of its parts) the macro world. The interactions in the quantum world are different from the interactions in the macro world. It's the macro world that we relate to the most.

Do we favor the positive energies, that make-up us and everything we experience over the unseen and 'insignificant' negative energies? You bet! You can never remove human belief, emotion, bias and experience from something like this. The possessions I have, like my favorite shoes, do matter and I wouldn't want to see them being annihilated by some antimatter (won't happen) or I really don't see the importance of negative energy being created as I toss them under the bed.

So it seems that it is nearly only part of the equation that we are really interested in when we live-out our everyday lives; not that you are conscious of this as most don't care too much about physics. But just as matter takes a 'form' of its own, antimatter, for example, might (or must) too. Just because we don't see, directly experience it doesn't mean it has an insignificant role to play. This is yet another example of the limitations associated with knowledge, as we are inherently selective in what we (choose to) understand, through no fault of our own.

The statement: 'The total net amount of energy in a closed universe is zero' is one of the most profound statements you could make and it seems to nullify many commonly held beliefs/conclusion you can make about people-centric events if you factor this in to the premise of your argument. So why did your football team lose on the weekend? There are obvious answers that would satisfy your needs, but if you dig deeper you can enter the world of equal and opposite forces (and quantum physics) that would play a (major) part/role. Insignificant if you're looking for a conventional response that just makes plain sense. Just about all of the time that's exactly what we're after. Convention has its place in our everyday understanding of our world.

damn, i accidentally deleted two paragraphs - $%$*&#$!! i really needed them in here, but have to go out!

On a different topic altogether, I found these two consecutive news headlines on Wikipedia News:

Belgium breaks the record for the longest time any country has been without a government.....IBM's artificial intelligence program Watson wins on the American quiz show Jeopardy! against two of the show's most successful contestants.

Interesting times ahead!

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-19-2011, 09:02 PM
BlueAngel BlueAngel is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 10,799
Default Re: total net energy in the universe is zero and other implications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kon Foundas View Post
Some of the underlying presumptions in science suggest an equilibrium (equal but opposite force) between two opposing forces or states. Here are some examples from various physics sites:

The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant. Einstein's famous equation (written below) describes the relationship between energy and matter: E = mc2 In the equation, energy (E) is equal to matter (m) times the square of a constant (c). Einstein suggested that energy and matter are interchangeable. His equation also suggests that the quantity of energy and matter in the Universe is fixed.

and

We now know that every particle has an antiparticle, with which it can annihilate. There could be whole antiworlds and antipeople made out of antiparticles. However, if you meet your antiself, don't shake hands! You would both vanish in a great flash of light. from: A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME Stephen W. Hawking


All of these particles consist of positive energy. This energy, however, is exactly balanced by the negative gravitational energy of everything pulling on everything else. In other words, the total energy of the universe is zero! It is remarkable that the universe consists of essentially nothing, but (fortunately for us) in positive and negative parts. You can easily see that gravity is associated with negative energy: If you drop a ball from rest (defined to be a state of zero energy), it gains energy of motion (kinetic energy) as it falls. But this gain is exactly balanced by a larger negative gravitational energy as it comes closer to Earth’s center, so the sum of the two energies remains zero.

If you factor these fundamental principles into every day life (and ignore your presuppositions and your center of the universe assumptions), then what sort of value and understanding should we place on everyday experiences and events? After all, experiences and events are purely relations between clusters of sets and sets of atoms/molecules interacting with each other, that themselves sometimes or potentially end up being cancelled-out by some opposite (and perhaps) equally significant force.

But the microscopic (quantum) world is different and less predictable than (the sum of its parts) the macro world. The interactions in the quantum world are different from the interactions in the macro world. It's the macro world that we relate to the most.

Do we favor the positive energies, that make-up us and everything we experience over the unseen and 'insignificant' negative energies? You bet! You can never remove human belief, emotion, bias and experience from something like this. The possessions I have, like my favorite shoes, do matter and I wouldn't want to see them being annihilated by some antimatter (won't happen) or I really don't see the importance of negative energy being created as I toss them under the bed.

So it seems that it is nearly only part of the equation that we are really interested in when we live-out our everyday lives; not that you are conscious of this as most don't care too much about physics. But just as matter takes a 'form' of its own, antimatter, for example, might (or must) too. Just because we don't see, directly experience it doesn't mean it has an insignificant role to play. This is yet another example of the limitations associated with knowledge, as we are inherently selective in what we (choose to) understand, through no fault of our own.

The statement: 'The total net amount of energy in a closed universe is zero' is one of the most profound statements you could make and it seems to nullify many commonly held beliefs/conclusion you can make about people-centric events if you factor this in to the premise of your argument. So why did your football team lose on the weekend? There are obvious answers that would satisfy your needs, but if you dig deeper you can enter the world of equal and opposite forces (and quantum physics) that would play a (major) part/role. Insignificant if you're looking for a conventional response that just makes plain sense. Just about all of the time that's exactly what we're after. Convention has its place in our everyday understanding of our world.

damn, i accidentally deleted two paragraphs - $%$*&#$!! i really needed them in here, but have to go out!

On a different topic altogether, I found these two consecutive news headlines on Wikipedia News:

Belgium breaks the record for the longest time any country has been without a government.....IBM's artificial intelligence program Watson wins on the American quiz show Jeopardy! against two of the show's most successful contestants.

Interesting times ahead!
Thank you for your post, but it doesn't really interest me.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-18-2012, 05:47 AM
ragavang43 ragavang43 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 20
Default Re: total net energy in the universe is zero and other implications.

nice said foundas.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-18-2012, 05:49 AM
ragavang43 ragavang43 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 20
Default Re: total net energy in the universe is zero and other implications.

nice said blueangel
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.