- Thank you received: 0
Eternal Energy
22 years 1 week ago #3407
by Jim
Reply from was created by Jim
The universe was much like it is now 50 billion years ago. Energy transforms to mass as in e=mc2 and also the other way round too.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 1 week ago #3411
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
I assume you talking about the BB model in terms I don't fully understand or are you not? If so what would you suggest that would stop the expansion and generate the big mess that you predict or see?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 1 week ago #3413
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
Can this problem be examined from a thermodynamics angle, i.e. entropy (explosions) and anti-entropy (collections). In this manner, supernovas and galactic explosions and star formations continue in an unending chain of energy redistribution.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 1 week ago #3441
by Jim
Replied by Jim on topic Reply from
I don't know the laws of physics all that well to advise as to violations. The statement e=mc2 works is both directions at the same time so mass is in balance with energy in my opinion.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MarkVitrone
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
22 years 1 week ago #3443
by MarkVitrone
Replied by MarkVitrone on topic Reply from Mark Vitrone
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
If you were to take a balloon, and inside, put vinegar and baking soda then tied the balloon quickly, what would happen? For a while, the balloon would expand with gas(creation of space), and continue to expand for as long as the chemical reaction takes place. Once the reaction ends, and, over time, the gas will dissipate and you will be left with the same basic ingredients you started with, a balloon and a goopy mess of vinegar-baking soda.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Nothing is being created or destroyed in the experiment above. From a chemical standpoint the original ingredients, vinegar and baking soda each had a certain area due to their phase (one a solid, the other a liquid) The gas created from the reaction takes up space in the balloon and then the balloon basically leaks (an ideal balloon would not). The balloon expands in real space (i.e. it doesn't create space, it merely fills it). Most importantly however is the fact that the original ingredients are not vinegar/baking soda goop, they are now water and a sodium acetate, in other words the reaction released energy that was stored in the bonds of the vinegar and baking soda. This ex nihilo nothing was created in the chemical reaction. Instead bonds rearranged in a fashion that stabilized already destabilized matter. In essence the reaction was meant to happen the moment that energy allowed the creation of the acid and the base rendering them unstable and reactive. Even at our understanding of the atomic model, chemistry will predict this relationship including the approximation of the behavior of the released gas. Additionally, this example helps support the MM in that current theory does not correctly interpret the gas laws that we would use to describe the CO2 in the balloon.
Upon further thought, I am curious if the distortion observed between the ideal gas law pv=nRT and the Real Gas derivations is a product of gravitational shielding in the gas causing inaccurate interpretations of the actual mass present. Hmm. In essence, we cannot make correct predictions about the behaviors of gas at our normal temperatures and pressures. If there are thermodynamical implications to this problem, perhaps the MM can assist. Tom?
If you were to take a balloon, and inside, put vinegar and baking soda then tied the balloon quickly, what would happen? For a while, the balloon would expand with gas(creation of space), and continue to expand for as long as the chemical reaction takes place. Once the reaction ends, and, over time, the gas will dissipate and you will be left with the same basic ingredients you started with, a balloon and a goopy mess of vinegar-baking soda.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
Nothing is being created or destroyed in the experiment above. From a chemical standpoint the original ingredients, vinegar and baking soda each had a certain area due to their phase (one a solid, the other a liquid) The gas created from the reaction takes up space in the balloon and then the balloon basically leaks (an ideal balloon would not). The balloon expands in real space (i.e. it doesn't create space, it merely fills it). Most importantly however is the fact that the original ingredients are not vinegar/baking soda goop, they are now water and a sodium acetate, in other words the reaction released energy that was stored in the bonds of the vinegar and baking soda. This ex nihilo nothing was created in the chemical reaction. Instead bonds rearranged in a fashion that stabilized already destabilized matter. In essence the reaction was meant to happen the moment that energy allowed the creation of the acid and the base rendering them unstable and reactive. Even at our understanding of the atomic model, chemistry will predict this relationship including the approximation of the behavior of the released gas. Additionally, this example helps support the MM in that current theory does not correctly interpret the gas laws that we would use to describe the CO2 in the balloon.
Upon further thought, I am curious if the distortion observed between the ideal gas law pv=nRT and the Real Gas derivations is a product of gravitational shielding in the gas causing inaccurate interpretations of the actual mass present. Hmm. In essence, we cannot make correct predictions about the behaviors of gas at our normal temperatures and pressures. If there are thermodynamical implications to this problem, perhaps the MM can assist. Tom?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
22 years 1 week ago #3446
by makis
Replied by makis on topic Reply from
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Is the universe just a finite amount of energy continually converting/transforming from one form to another and back again?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That's also Friedrich Nietzsche's view. If that is true, evolution is a hellical motion made of big circles and a forward speed.
This notion of the Universe was very popular amongst Atheist movements in late 19th and early 20th century. Most of them Existentialists. Einstein gave them a good punch and since then it hasn't been revived. It will come back some day stronger and with good arguments, I think. It may have some merrit and resolve the "infinite" puzzle.
Is the universe just a finite amount of energy continually converting/transforming from one form to another and back again?
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
That's also Friedrich Nietzsche's view. If that is true, evolution is a hellical motion made of big circles and a forward speed.
This notion of the Universe was very popular amongst Atheist movements in late 19th and early 20th century. Most of them Existentialists. Einstein gave them a good punch and since then it hasn't been revived. It will come back some day stronger and with good arguments, I think. It may have some merrit and resolve the "infinite" puzzle.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.239 seconds