320 replies to this topic

[Mariner]

thesometimesaint, on 30 April 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Mariner:

How could I prove a supernatural cause of a natural event when it is my belief that God uses natural events to meet his goals?

Talk about conflating apples with bananas.

Seems to me that you are simply setting up a non-falsifiable hypothesis here so that you can protect your unfounded beliefs from objective evaluation.  As a scientist have you not learned that one must be very skeptical of beliefs that cannot be objectively tested?

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

By definition any supernatural being or agent is beyond the realm of science. Ask me the science of how our star works I can tell you using the natural sciences. Ask me how mathematics leads me to love my neighbor as myself, and I can't do it.

You asked earlier if creation has stopped I said no. As each new baby is born it creates a bond between the generations and the next. We marvel at the creation of its new, and precious life, even if we do know the technical processes involved. When I look at the stars at night I marvel at their simple beauty. I live in the best of times of our universe, the time of stars. Even though I know they are in their destruction the building blocks of everything we see, touch, smell, and experience in this life. I marvel at a God who was wise enough to send me to live on a lonely little rocky planet, orbiting a middling star, 2/3 of the way out on a arm of a middling galaxy to enjoy it.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 30 April 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[Franktalk]

Mariner, on 30 April 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

Franktalk, Why would you say that I seem angry with God, when you know perfectly well that I do not believe that there is a God and that, in fact, there is a vanishingly small probability that the Mormon God could even exist. Rather than preach irrelevant Sunday School platitudes, why not just answer the questions? Are you uncomfortable committing to a specific answer? Come on guys, this is a science vs. religion / creation vs. evolution thread. Why not take a stand?

When we talk science we talk about repeatable experiments and observation by anyone willing to perform the experiment.  But there are experiences which are not repeatable and are personal.  So for me I embrace all observation whether it be global or personal.  The problem comes in when some can't get the personal experience and they declare that those who do are somehow liars or dreamers willing to manufacture an experience in our head in order to get our theology into the masses.  Of course they are aided by many false teachers of theology.  So those who do not pursue a spiritual path see all kinds of conflicting opinions about the scripture and spiritual experiences.  The only way to truly sort this out is to have your own personal experience.  But here is the big problem.  Those who embrace this world as the ultimate reality will not receive a personal experience.  It is spiritual and the spirit will not enter into a person who is of this world.  So where does this all lead?  It leads us here with some who have personal experiences and some who do not.

[Franktalk]

Cobalt-70, on 30 April 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

Electrical charge cannot describe the effects we see with our telescopes. We know there is dark matter because it is massive, and it bends light around it. Electrical charge is not equivalent to mass, and cannot bend light like that. Besides, if the universe were not electrically neutral, it would be very obvious when we look through our telescopes. Plus, if our galaxy were charged, we would be able see such a charge by looking at the solar wind.

You seem educated so perform the following calculations.  Take the mass of a penny and divide it in half and separate it by 100 m.  Then calculate the force of gravity between the two halves.  Write that number down.  Now take that same penny but now separate the charges in the penny.  All of the plus in one place and all of the negatives 100 m apart.  Now calculate the force between the two parts, one plus and one negative.  Write that number down.  Tell me, what do you notice about the amount of force from the same penny?  I am sure many on this thread would enjoy the answer to this question.

Since you seem to have answers about many things in the universe maybe you can answer a few more questions.  After all you seem very definite in your opinion about how things work.  I would think that to be that definite would require some kind of complete knowledge instead of guess work.  I have been reading about the sun and have found what I consider an anomaly.  You see the theory is that the sun is very hot inside and gets cooler as you move to the surface.  We of course have not measured the internal temperature of the sun but we can measure the temperatures at the surface and in the gas that surrounds the sun.  So my first question deals with why is it that the gas gets hotter the farther away it is from the surface?  Around 6000 on the surface and a million or so farther away?  Second question - why is it that sun spots in which we can see deeper inside the surface of the sun are cooler than the surface?  The third question is related to the first.  In order to supply an energy source to heat the gas that surrounds the sun many have theorized that the sun's magnetic field supplies the energy.  According to this theory how does the magnetic field transfer the energy to the gas to heat it up?  From what I read it is a mystery.

So the theory that the sun is hot in the middle and cools towards the surface is completely opposite of what we measure.  In the face of that bandaids are added to the theory and called unknowns.  But the theory remains fact for most of science.  Does that strike you as odd?  It does me, but hey I am just some dummy and if I was real smart then I would know that theories are supposed to have data that comes out completely opposite of projections.  Go figure.

So let me get this straight.  Science has theories.  The data does not agree with the theory.  So bandaids are added to try to explain the conflicting data.  But no one dares to consider the theory wrong.  So the bigger the theory the bigger the bandaid.  Like galaxies.  They don't move around like the theory says so we make the biggest bandaid in the universe.  We add 99% more of everything and we tell people we can't see it or can't measure it, but trust us it is there because we certainly can't change our theory.  Did I get that right?

And to top it off anyone who dares to disagree is stupid or uneducated.  Did I get that right?

[blackstrap]

Franktalk, on 30 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

You seem educated so perform the following calculations.  Take the mass of a penny and divide it in half and separate it by 100 m.  Then calculate the force of gravity between the two halves.  Write that number down.  Now take that same penny but now separate the charges in the penny.  All of the plus in one place and all of the negatives 100 m apart.  Now calculate the force between the two parts, one plus and one negative.  Write that number down.  Tell me, what do you notice about the amount of force from the same penny?  I am sure many on this thread would enjoy the answer to this question.

Since you seem to have answers about many things in the universe maybe you can answer a few more questions.  After all you seem very definite in your opinion about how things work.  I would think that to be that definite would require some kind of complete knowledge instead of guess work.  I have been reading about the sun and have found what I consider an anomaly.  You see the theory is that the sun is very hot inside and gets cooler as you move to the surface.  We of course have not measured the internal temperature of the sun but we can measure the temperatures at the surface and in the gas that surrounds the sun.  So my first question deals with why is it that the gas gets hotter the farther away it is from the surface?  Around 6000 on the surface and a million or so farther away?  Second question - why is it that sun spots in which we can see deeper inside the surface of the sun are cooler than the surface?  The third question is related to the first.  In order to supply an energy source to heat the gas that surrounds the sun many have theorized that the sun's magnetic field supplies the energy.  According to this theory how does the magnetic field transfer the energy to the gas to heat it up?  From what I read it is a mystery.

So the theory that the sun is hot in the middle and cools towards the surface is completely opposite of what we measure.  In the face of that bandaids are added to the theory and called unknowns.  But the theory remains fact for most of science.  Does that strike you as odd?  It does me, but hey I am just some dummy and if I was real smart then I would know that theories are supposed to have data that comes out completely opposite of projections.  Go figure.

So let me get this straight.  Science has theories.  The data does not agree with the theory.  So bandaids are added to try to explain the conflicting data.  But no one dares to consider the theory wrong.  So the bigger the theory the bigger the bandaid.  Like galaxies.  They don't move around like the theory says so we make the biggest bandaid in the universe.  We add 99% more of everything and we tell people we can't see it or can't measure it, but trust us it is there because we certainly can't change our theory.  Did I get that right?

And to top it off anyone who dares to disagree is stupid or uneducated.  Did I get that right?

You have hit the nail(s) correctly.

[Franktalk]

For those not willing to wait for Cobalt-70 to give an answer to the relative strength of the main forces I give you this link.

http://hyperphysics....ces/couple.html

But here is the short list

The strong nuclear force  =1
Electromagnetic     =1/137  or 7.299 x 10 ^-3
The weak nuclear force    = 10 ^ -6
Gravity   = 10 ^ -39

So if the force of gravity is 1
Electromagnetic force is 7,299,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

But the really smart people say gravity is in charge (pun intended).

[Mariner]

Quote

For those not willing to wait for Cobalt-70 to give an answer to the relative strength of the main forces I give you this link.

http://hyperphysics....ces/couple.html

But here is the short list

The strong nuclear force =1
Electromagnetic =1/137 or 7.299 x 10 ^-3
The weak nuclear force = 10 ^ -6
Gravity = 10 ^ -39

So if the force of gravity is 1
Electromagnetic force is 7,299,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

But the really smart people say gravity is in charge (pun intended).

Franktalk,

You continue to amaze me, my friend. It seems that you simply refuse to think critically about any of this stuff before you post it. In this case, in implying that some force other than gravity is mainly responsible for the the gross structure of the universe as we observe it, you have failed to take into account the rate at which the various forces you describe diminish with distance.

The strong nuclear force acts at distances on the order about 1 femtometer (fm: 1 x 10 exp -15 meters) between nucleon centers. At a distance of about 2.5 fm, the strong nuclear force is negligible. At very short distances (less than 0.7 fm), it becomes repulsive.

The weak nuclear force is mediated by the exchange (emission and absorption of) the relatively heavy W and Z bosons between fermions. Because of the relative size of the exchange particles the weak nuclear force has essentially no range. That is, the “field” does not extend much beyond the interacting particles.

So, in terms of the forces important in shaping the overall long distance structure of the universe, we need consider only the electromagnetic and gravitational forces.

The strength of both the electromagnetic and the gravitational force fields fall off as the square of the distance between interacting particles or bodies (inverse square law).

The electromagnetic field is mediated by the exchange of photons. Electrical charge is conserved in a closed system (electric charge cannot be gained or lost in a closed system). This means that for any closed space in which charge is created (including a space filled with your current favorite form of matter, plasma) the net electrical charge will be zero. (One of the definitions of a plasma, which I suggested that you look up earlier in this thread, is that it is electrically neutral overall.)

The gravitational field is mediated by the exchange of gravitons. (Gravitons have not yet been observed directly. However, the Standard Model requires them, explains why they have not yet been detected, and tell us where and how to look for them.)  

Both photon and graviton force-carrying particles travel at the speed of light.

One who understands these very basic scientific principles can then ask themselves why it is that, at long distances and between massive collections of particles such as planets, stars or even galaxies, the gravitational force between collections of particles with mass is much more important than the relatively stronger electromagnetic force between collections of particles with both mass and net charge.

If you now think about the number of particles in the universe that carry mass, as compared to the number of particles in the universe that carry mass as well as net charge, you should be able to figure this out for yourself.

Remember that we know dark matter exists because we can observe its gravitational interaction with ordinary matter. This interaction also allows us to estimate the amount of dark matter in the universe. As you have seen on this thread, there is much more dark matter than ordinary matter in the universe.

It should now be clear to you why gravity really  is "in charge".

Edited by Mariner, 01 May 2012 - 05:10 AM.

[Franktalk]

Mariner, on 01 May 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

The gravitational field is mediated by the exchange of gravitons. (Gravitons have not yet been observed directly. However, the Standard Model requires them, explains why they have not yet been detected, and tell us where and how to look for them.)  

One who understands these very basic scientific principles can then ask themselves why it is that, at long distances and between massive collections of particles such as planets, stars or even galaxies, the gravitational force between collections of particles with mass is much more important than the relatively stronger electromagnetic force between collections of particles with both mass and net charge.

So the model you have requires things as yet unseen.  But the model tells you where to look for them.  But you still can't find them.  I want to thank you for your support of my comments.  I know that was not your intention but thanks anyway.

Yes I know I am a big dummy for not agreeing with you.  Now that we have that settled maybe we can move along.

One day a young man was looking through his telescope.  He noticed a car in the far distance.  He had never seen a car before and did not know what it was.  Then he saw it move around.  He saw it move down hills which made sense to the young man because he knew things reacted with gravity.  Then he saw it move up hills which surprised him.  So he figured that the car had some kind of antigravity device inside.  After all who would be so dumb to think that some other kind of forces were involved.  He was excited so he published a paper on his car observations.  Of course his peers were critical of this new theory, they tried to break his new theory.  But in the end they all agreed and gave him a prize in physics.  Now he teaches at the university.  He tells the students that the road to fame and honor is paved in gravity.

[Mariner]

Franktalk, on 01 May 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

So the model you have requires things as yet unseen.  But the model tells you where to look for them.  But you still can't find them.  I want to thank you for your support of my comments.  I know that was not your intention but thanks anyway.

Yes I know I am a big dummy for not agreeing with you.  Now that we have that settled maybe we can move along.

One day a young man was looking through his telescope.  He noticed a car in the far distance.  He had never seen a car before and did not know what it was.  Then he saw it move around.  He saw it move down hills which made sense to the young man because he knew things reacted with gravity.  Then he saw it move up hills which surprised him.  So he figured that the car had some kind of antigravity device inside.  After all who would be so dumb to think that some other kind of forces were involved.  He was excited so he published a paper on his car observations.  Of course his peers were critical of this new theory, they tried to break his new theory.  But in the end they all agreed and gave him a prize in physics.  Now he teaches at the university.  He tells the students that the road to fame and honor is paved in gravity.

Franktalk,

The Standard Model is not my model. It is the result of well over a century of scientific investigation by tens of thousands of trained and dedicated people. It is the best and most predictive model of how the universe works that humankind has and it has served us very well. It will certainly be refined, but is unlikely to be overturned, especially by folks who cannot (or do not even try) to understand it.

If you do not agree with the Standard Model, and claim that it is not correct (or that there is a better model), then it is incumbent upon you, using experimental data and supporting mathematics, to come up with a model that is better than the Standard Model in terms explaining how things work. And I can assure you that some off the wall woo woo "plasma universe" model is not it.

In terms of confirming the existence of gravitons, there are experiments now operating that have a good chance of detecting them in the form of gravity waves. One of them is the LIGO device with detectors located at Hanford, WA and  Livingston, LA.  Planned upgrades to LIGO should increase its sensitivity by an order of magnitude.

Bottom line is we either need to build more sensitive devices or get lucky with a relatively nearby event that generates gravitational waves of sufficient magnitude to be detected by the detectors that we have now.

Gravitons are not the only particles predicted by the Standard Model and other ancillary theories that have not been directly detected or observed.  Another is the Higgs boson (or God particle). Detection of the Higgs would be more significant to the Standard Model than the simple confirmation of the graviton by direct observation. Folks at CERN have data now that looks as if it confirms the existence of the Higgs boson, but want to continue to collect such data to make any announcement of the observation of the Higgs bullet proof. Most folks who follow this kind of thing expect a formal announcement by the end of 2012.

Edited by Mariner, 01 May 2012 - 07:16 AM.

[Franktalk]

Mariner, on 01 May 2012 - 03:57 AM, said:

The electromagnetic field is mediated by the exchange of photons. Electrical charge is conserved in a closed system (electric charge cannot be gained or lost in a closed system). This means that for any closed space in which charge is created (including a space filled with your current favorite form of matter, plasma) the net electrical charge will be zero. (One of the definitions of a plasma, which I suggested that you look up earlier in this thread, is that it is electrically neutral overall.)

How interesting to talk about closed systems.  Are you telling me that magnetic fields have a strength at some distance that goes to zero?  Are you really going to tell me that and all the people reading this thread that magnetic fields drop to zero at some distance from the source?

Please show me in the following formula where B goes to zero at some R.

B = u i / 2 pi R

http://www.netdenize...maxwellonly.htm

And please don't use that old trick of saying that at big valves of R the effect is practically zero.  If you try that you would then have to apply the same to gravity.

F = G m1 m2 / R^2

http://www.universet...avity-equation/

And you would have to explain why it is that gravity drops off at the square of R and B drops off at R and you embrace one and not the other.  I know the infinite wire is not closed by the way.

I want you to think about Gravity waves for a second.  Do they seem like a point charge in the sense that they go off in all directions and the net wave is zero if considered in a closed system?  How do you feel right now? If you wish to talk about closed systems then I am all fine with that.  Please consider the following.

Now in your closed system does gravity extend beyond the closed system?  I mean if we enclosed the entire universe in a big box would gravity have effect outside the box?  Does gravity need the fabric of space in order to do its work? Or is gravity magic?

If you take two suns and place them in a box what is the net effect of the gravity?  Is it zero?

I look forward to your response.

You said"BTW: What does your little story about telescopes and cars have to do with anything that is being discussed on this thread?"

My response - nothing at all apparently

Edited by Franktalk, 01 May 2012 - 07:03 AM.

[Mariner]

Franktalk, on 01 May 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

How interesting to talk about closed systems.  Are you telling me that magnetic fields have a strength at some distance that goes to zero?  Are you really going to tell me that and all the people reading this thread that magnetic fields drop to zero at some distance from the source?

Please show me in the following formula where B goes to zero at some R.

B = u i / 2 pi R

http://www.netdenize...maxwellonly.htm

And please don't use that old trick of saying that at big valves of R the effect is practically zero.  If you try that you would then have to apply the same to gravity.

F = G m1 m2 / R^2

http://www.universet...avity-equation/

And you would have to explain why it is that gravity drops off at the square of R and B drops off at R and you embrace one and not the other.  I know the infinite wire is not closed by the way.

I want you to think about Gravity waves for a second.  Do they seem like a point charge in the sense that they go off in all directions and the net wave is zero if considered in a closed system?  How do you feel right now? If you wish to talk about closed systems then I am all fine with that.  Please consider the following.

Now in your closed system does gravity extend beyond the closed system?  I mean if we enclosed the entire universe in a big box would gravity have effect outside the box?  Does gravity need the fabric of space in order to do its work? Or is gravity magic?

If you take two suns and place them in a box what is the net effect of the gravity?  Is it zero?

I look forward to your response.

You said"BTW: What does your little story about telescopes and cars have to do with anything that is being discussed on this thread?"

My response - nothing at all apparently

Franktalk,

You are really wasting a lot of my time (and yours).

First of all the conservation of charge (related to the fact that there can be to no net charge from creation of charge in a closed system) has nothing to do with magnetic fields (separation of charge creates electric fields) or with gravity.

Magnetic fields, electric field properties of an infinitely long wire, and two suns in a box have nothing to do with the net electrical neutrality of plasmas or separation of charge in a closed system.

Bottom line here, Franktalk: you apparently don't even know enough to ask relevant questions or provide facts relevant to the discussion.

[Franktalk]

If indeed we had a big bang and as you say we have no net charge then what about matter?  Is there a netting of matter?  You know like matter and antimatter. Where is all of the antimatter?  And about gravity, was it there in the beginning before the big bang?  Is gravity eternal?  Or was gravity part of the unfolding universe?  If gravity was not in the beginning how is it netted like the rest of the stuff?  I mean we certainly can't make something from nothing can we.  Oh that's right we are talking about the big bang.

[thesometimesaint]

Franktalk:

There was a 1 in 1,000,000,000 bias towards matter.

At the present time it is unknowable from science about any time before time began. For that you need religion.

Nothing of matter, and gravity is a function of matter, in this universe is eternal. But 100 trillion trillion trillion years is so long into the future that I'm not going to loose any sleep over it.


Gravity was pretty quick after the Big Bang started.

It wasn't nothing, but it was something very very small.

Edited by thesometimesaint, 01 May 2012 - 09:38 AM.

[Mariner]

Franktalk, on 01 May 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

If indeed we had a big bang and as you say we have no net charge then what about matter? /

What does one have to do with the other?

Quote

Is there a netting of matter?

Clearly there was, at least locally, or you and I would not be having this exchange. Right?

Quote

You know like matter and antimatter. Where is all of the antimatter?

It would appear that very little anti-matter survived the rapid inflationary expansion of the universe. If religion has the answer as to why this is the case, I would love to hear it.

Quote

And about gravity, was it there in the beginning before the big bang?  

There was nothing in this universe before the big bang because this universe did not exist before the big bang. You should at least know that much about cosmology.

Quote

Is gravity eternal?  Or was gravity part of the unfolding universe?

Gravity in this universe is not eternal in that it came to be very soon after the big bang some 13.75 billion years ago. The thesometimesaint already explained this to you, but I guess you are not paying any attention to him either.

Quote

If gravity was not in the beginning how is it netted like the rest of the stuff?

Nonsense question. Why does gravity have to be "netted"? What would it be "netted" against or in comparison to?

Quote

I mean we certainly can't make something from nothing can we.  

Depends on what you mean by nothing If, by nothing, you mean an absolute vacuum in space, then I am afraid that (against your intuition), there is energy there. Particles can even appear therein (normally in short-lived particle / antiparticle pairs.) This latter phenomenon can be readily observed. In fact, there are some fairly simple experiments that have been done to detect and measure the interactions of these particle pairs with stable ordinary matter.)

The best (conservative) number that we have for the energy in a vacuum (also known as the cosmological constant) is something on the order of 6 ^ -10 joules per cubic meter, which is equivalent to a mass density of about 7 ^ -27 kg per cubic meter (this using recent measurements from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy probe.)

Quote

Oh that's right we are talking about the big bang.

I am -  you perhaps not so much.

Edited by Mariner, 01 May 2012 - 03:14 PM.

[Franktalk]

Mariner, on 01 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

  It would appear that very little anti-matter survived the rapid inflationary expansion of the universe.

But why?

Mariner, on 01 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

There was nothing in this universe before the big bang because this universe did not exist before the big bang.

I see this is the from nothing to everything argument.  In Scientific American they laid out this idea very well.

"Nothing is unstable. In his new book, A Universe from Nothing, cosmologist Lawrence M. Krauss attempts to link quantum physics to Einstein’s general theory of relativity to explain the origin of a universe from nothing: “In quantum gravity, universes can, and indeed always will, spontaneously appear from nothing. Such universes need not be empty, but can have matter and radiation in them, as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity [balancing the positive energy of matter], is zero.” Furthermore, “for the closed universes that might be created through such mechanisms to last for longer than infinitesimal times, something like inflation is necessary.” Observations show that the universe is in fact flat (there is just enough matter to slow its expansion but not to halt it), has zero total energy and underwent rapid inflation, or expansion, soon after the big bang, as described by inflationary cosmology. Krauss concludes: “Quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from noth­ing—meaning ... absence of space and time—it may require them. ‘Nothing’—in this case no space, no time, no anything!—is unstable.”"

http://www.scientifi...o-about-nothing

But the best scientific line was:

"Even if God is hypothesized as the creator of the laws of nature that caused the universe (or multiverse) to pop into existence out of nothing—if such laws are deterministic—then God had no choice in the creation of the universe and thus was not needed. In any case, why turn to the supernatural when our understanding of the natural is still in its incipient stages? We would be wise to heed this skeptical principle: before you say something is out of this world, first make sure that it is not in this world."

So much for science not having any opinion on God.  Is this the junk we send our kids to school to learn?  But I guess this would be your opinion as well so you might support the godless agenda.

Mariner, on 01 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Gravity in this universe is not eternal in that it came to be very soon after the big bang some 13.75 billion years ago.

My favorite theory comes from SED that sees point energies interacting with the ZPE.  This explains away much of quantum mechanics and makes a simple explanation for gravity.  One SED explanation is called Gravity and the quantum vacuum inertia hypothesis. Here is a good article on the subject.

http://www.calphysic...avity_arxiv.pdf

Normally the quantum guys don't like SED for some reason.  I guess it makes physics to simple.

Mariner, on 01 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Nonsense question. Why does gravity have to be "netted"? What would it be "netted" against or in comparison to?

Because if the sum of everything is zero then everything has to have an opposite.  I thought for sure you would understand that much.

Mariner, on 01 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

Depends on what you mean by nothing If, by nothing, you mean an absolute vacuum in space, then I am afraid that (against your intuition), there is energy there. Particles can even appear therein (normally in short-lived particle / antiparticle pairs.) This latter phenomenon can be readily observed. In fact, there are some fairly simple experiments that have been done to detect and measure the interactions of these particle pairs with stable ordinary matter.) The best (conservative) number that we have for the energy in a vacuum (also known as the cosmological constant) is something on the order of 6 ^ -10 joules per cubic meter, which is equivalent to a mass density of about 7 ^ -27 kg per cubic meter (this using recent measurements from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy probe.) I am - you perhaps not so much.

You seem to feel that the WMAP settled many things.  I happen not to agree.  But there are those who analyze the data and come to different conclusions.  Here are two.

"Tegmark suggests a torus geometry is the most probable shape consistent to his analysis of WMAP CMB maps."

http://en.wikipedia..../Donut_universe

But NASA says:

"WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

So I guess even your WMAP reference is subject to interpretation.  I think you may have confused the ZPE with real energy of space.  I am not sure about your numbers.

For the ZPE I normally see this as the reasoning:

"In quantum field theory, the fabric of space is visualized as consisting of fields, with the field at every point in space and time being a quantum harmonic oscillator, with neighboring oscillators interacting. In this case, one has a contribution of from every point in space, resulting in a calculation of infinite zero-point energy in any finite volume; this is one reason renormalization is needed to make sense of quantum field theories. The zero-point energy is again the expectation value of the Hamiltonian; here, however, the phrase vacuum expectation value is more commonly used, and the energy is called the vacuum energy."

So I am confused by the low energy you listed.  I think you are talking about two different things.  One is the ZPE which has particle pairs coming into existence for a short time.  The other being the real energy / mass of the vacuum of space.  The ZPE is infinite for any finite space.  I assume by  6 ^ -10 joules per cubic meter you mean 6 x 10^-10 joules which is pretty far from infinite.  You will have to explain your self.  Unless I missed the ZPE being readjusted (which I doubt).

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

It would appear that very little anti-matter survived the rapid inflationary expansion of the universe. If religion has the answer as to why this is the case, I would love to hear it.
Actually very little percentage wise of matter and even less antimatter was left over, but it was enough. I don't know as religion addresses it at all. But I believe it can be summed up in "Let there be light".

[Cobalt-70]

Franktalk, on 30 April 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

You seem educated so perform the following calculations.  Take the mass of a penny and divide it in half and separate it by 100 m.  Then calculate the force of gravity between the two halves.  Write that number down.  Now take that same penny but now separate the charges in the penny.  All of the plus in one place and all of the negatives 100 m apart.  Now calculate the force between the two parts, one plus and one negative.  Write that number down.  Tell me, what do you notice about the amount of force from the same penny?  I am sure many on this thread would enjoy the answer to this question.

The very fact that this force is so great makes impossible your suggestion of separating a half-penny's worth of positive mass a half penny's worth of negative mass. You could not perform such a separation before a huge electrical arc equalized the charge. We don't see such huge electrical arcs in our telescopes. If electromagnetism were operating at long distances, the universe would be inhabitable because the electrical current would fry us all.

Quote

Since you seem to have answers about many things in the universe maybe you can answer a few more questions.  After all you seem very definite in your opinion about how things work.  I would think that to be that definite would require some kind of complete knowledge instead of guess work.  I have been reading about the sun and have found what I consider an anomaly.  You see the theory is that the sun is very hot inside and gets cooler as you move to the surface.  We of course have not measured the internal temperature of the sun but we can measure the temperatures at the surface and in the gas that surrounds the sun.  So my first question deals with why is it that the gas gets hotter the farther away it is from the surface?  Around 6000 on the surface and a million or so farther away?  Second question - why is it that sun spots in which we can see deeper inside the surface of the sun are cooler than the surface?  The third question is related to the first.  In order to supply an energy source to heat the gas that surrounds the sun many have theorized that the sun's magnetic field supplies the energy.  According to this theory how does the magnetic field transfer the energy to the gas to heat it up?  From what I read it is a mystery.


So the theory that the sun is hot in the middle and cools towards the surface is completely opposite of what we measure.  In the face of that bandaids are added to the theory and called unknowns.  But the theory remains fact for most of science.  Does that strike you as odd?  It does me, but hey I am just some dummy and if I was real smart then I would know that theories are supposed to have data that comes out completely opposite of projections.  Go figure.

It's not really a mystery, and it's not a bandaid. The magnetic field lines emanating from the surface of the sun heat up the coronal region to very high temperatures. Magnetic fields can do that. But such magnetic fields cannot warp space time like gravity does. Therefore they cannot replicate the gravitational lensing effect of dark matter.

Quote

So let me get this straight.  Science has theories.  The data does not agree with the theory.  So bandaids are added to try to explain the conflicting data.  But no one dares to consider the theory wrong.  So the bigger the theory the bigger the bandaid.  Like galaxies.  They don't move around like the theory says so we make the biggest bandaid in the universe.  We add 99% more of everything and we tell people we can't see it or can't measure it, but trust us it is there because we certainly can't change our theory.  Did I get that right?

And to top it off anyone who dares to disagree is stupid or uneducated.  Did I get that right?

While those who don't understand the theory are not as educated as an astrophysicist, they are not necessarily stupid. You can't be expected to understand the physics of a star. Astrophysicists go to school for many years to learn how a star works. The heating of the corona is fully explained by standard physics.

Edited by Cobalt-70, 01 May 2012 - 10:46 PM.

[Franktalk]

Cobalt-70, on 01 May 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

The very fact that this force is so great makes impossible your suggestion of separating a half-penny's worth of positive mass a half penny's worth of negative mass. You could not perform such a separation before a huge electrical arc equalized the charge. We don't see such huge electrical arcs in our telescopes. If electromagnetism were operating at long distances, the universe would be inhabitable because the electrical current would fry us all.

Thank you for this response.  So a very small charge is more powerful than gravity.  That was my point.  Some do believe that some types of events in space are indeed electromagnetic in nature.  I know you are not one of them.  But I read many opinions and find the plasma universe very interesting.  You may not.

Cobalt-70, on 01 May 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

It's not really a mystery, and it's not a bandaid. The magnetic field lines emanating from the surface of the sun heat up the coronal region to very high temperatures. Magnetic fields can do that. But such magnetic fields cannot warp space time like gravity does. Therefore they cannot replicate the gravitational lensing effect of dark matter.

You say the gas surrounding the sun heats up because of a magnetic field.  That is very easy to say and it sounds great.  It sounds as though you and some others have figured it out. But have you?  You see in order for me to accept your statement I need to know some more details.  Like how?  According to what I read it is still a mystery.

"The magnetic field carries energy, which is liberated as heat when it emerges into the atmosphere. How magnetic field energy is transferred to the coronal plasma remains a major unsolved mystery in solar wind physics, although theories such as reconnection or turbulence have been proposed."

http://spacephysics....ind/sw/sw1.html

If you know how the magnetic field energy is transferred to the coronal plasma maybe you can give the guys at the University of California Riverside a call.  Or maybe their site just needs to be updated.

Yes it does appear that gravity bends light.  But I have read a few things that also talk about changing the direction of light.  Like when light goes through different densities of material like glass and air.  Light takes on a new direction.  Or if light travels near an object close to the size of the wavelength of the light it may change direction as well.  And of course a mirror works well at changing the direction of light.  I am sure you know all about this.  I just have a problem leaping to conclusions that gravity must be the answer and we need a whole lot of stuff added that we can't measure.  You may feel all this dark stuff is great.  I see it as a bandaid.  So we have a difference of opinion.

Cobalt-70, on 01 May 2012 - 10:46 PM, said:

While those who don't understand the theory are not as educated as an astrophysicist, they are not necessarily stupid. You can't be expected to understand the physics of a star. Astrophysicists go to school for many years to learn how a star works. The heating of the corona is fully explained by standard physics.

So I guess we are back to implying I am some kind of ignorant idiot who can't find his own backside with both hands.  Would you do me a favor oh wise one.  Just post a copy of the letter you will be sending to the University of California Riverside so they can update their solar wind page.  And while your at it please fix these others as well.

"One of the most puzzling features of the Sun is what has been dubbed "the solar corona problem." There is a region around the Sun, extending more than one million kilometers from its surface, where the temperature can reach two million degrees."

http://imagine.gsfc...._l1/corona.html

"The exact mechanism by which the corona is heated is still the subject of some debate, but likely possibilities include induction by the Sun's magnetic field and sonic pressure waves from below (the latter being less probable now that coronae are known to be present in early-type, highly magnetic stars)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corona

And don't lean on spicules and alfven waves.  Even the guy who wrote the article in Nature says this:

"We still don't perfectly understand the process going on, but we're getting better and better observations," says McIntosh. "The next step is for people to improve the theories and models to really capture the essence of the physics that's happening."

http://www.nasa.gov/...fven-waves.html

Seeing a wave does not equate to how much energy is transferred.  And it also does not explain the powerful burst as well.  Also the waves may be too close to the surface. You know he almost sounds like one of those global warming guys.  We know its true and it is just a matter of time before we prove it, so trust us.  Geez

[Franktalk]

I wanted to add some general comments about the acquired knowledge of man and how I deal with the natural perception of reality.  If we go back in time we could go to a time when man did not have much in the natural processes understood.  There was the obvious world and the unseen forces which shaped man's world.  Many things were considered magic or were left to the power of what ever god man dreamed of.  Then over time man observed nature and found relationships among the parts.  Man made tools that could see the very small and the very large.  Man made devices that brought the very heavens into view.  Most of this was to understand man's God.  This work was done for the most part by men who loved the God of the Bible.  They looked upon the creation as a wondrous work of God and enjoyed the puzzle of figuring outs its mysteries.  But man was not satisfied with that path.  The ego of man took the acquired knowledge and started to raise the knowledge above the very God who made the creation.  Many pushed God aside and placed nature itself as the god of man.  And why did he do this thing?  Because man is viewed by the wise of this world as the crown jewel of natural evolution.  So with a wink wink and a nod man becomes a god in this limited world of nature.  But the limited view of nature has some ideas which frighten men.  They see with worldly eyes and hear with worldly ears.  So they can't see beyond this world.  They see death and see it as an end.  So man becomes a god in the sense of a continuous chain of life.  The individual is sacrificed on the altar of natural knowledge.  But many cry out and seek to know the answers to questions that nature can't begin to explain.  Why are we here?  What is our purpose?  What happens next?  For those who seek beyond the bounds of nature there is a path and there is additional knowledge.  There is an experience beyond the boundary as defined by the natural man.  But few take that path.  It requires that this world be cast off and the ideas of men be considered worthless.  Few will take this path.  Most will remain in this world and will embrace the natural man.  They will retain the fear of death.  Even the idea that one day the individual ceases to exist is not powerful enough to cause them to seek.  Because death is always tomorrow.  And tomorrow never comes to those who refuse tomorrow.  In the end the mystery of God will end one day and God will reveal Himself to man.  But even then some men will fight God.  They will take up arms against God.  Here is the conversation between Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Psa 2
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

[thesometimesaint]

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.