between3and26characterslon

So then I remembered incorrectly or I remembered correctly the wrong information. I thought the bonds that are created when water freezes required energy and these bonds were created at about 4oC The amount of energy needed to make the bonds took the water down to 0oC. That was my understanding. I also thought, going slightly off topic, that turning water at 100oC into steam at 100oC required energy for the same reason but perhaps I'm wrong there as well. I would be grateful if you could set me sraight.

True, but... wouldn't it freeze eventually ie. if you cooled it enough. Then when you warm it back up again the temperature at which it melts will be 0oC

Getting back to the original question (I gave up reading all the replies because I wanted to say this, so I apologise if this has already been said) I think the point you're missing is that curved spacetime, general relativity etc... are not how the universe works. They are models which describe observations to a high degree of accuracy. Asking why does mass curve spacetime is a nonsence question, we start with the postulate that mass does curve space time (this postulate being based on the logical conclusion of previously accepted ideas) and we find it give results that agree strongly with observation. As Einstein said, in Euclidean geometry a straight line is defined as the shortest distance uniquely determined by two points situated on it. You can not ask if this is true, you can only say this is the rule we use. So in physics there are rules we use, these rules may or may not be correct and they certainly do not describe what is happening or why it is happening, but these rules describe what we observe and they have stood the test of time and are therefore considered good models. If we interpert these rules in the correct manner we will find they have inevitable conclusions, if these conclusions agree with observation then it further supports the rules we use. Einstein also said, "I wished to show that spacetime is not necessarily something to which one can ascribe a seperate existance, independantly of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spacially extanded. In this way the concept of empty space looses its meaning." So spacetime could only be truely flat if there was no mass to distort it but, if there was no mass, there would be no spacetime. So to answer your question we can not answer why, we do not need to know why and we will never know why. All we can do is theorise models, which are the logical conclusions of the rules we accept as true and use these models to describe observations and make predictions.

Take a very small amount of ice at standard pressure, when it melts that's 0oC BTW if I remember correctly water freezes at about 4oC, melts at 0oC and doesn't exist between 0-4oC this is due to the energy used or released during the phase transition between solid-liquid and liquid-solid. A mixture of ice and water will give an average temperature of 2oC (for instance)

cheese.

'If' - I think you answered your own question there. Isn't current theory that the universe will end up in many blackholes all of which will, through Hawking radiation, evaporate to nothing. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate and at some point in time distant regions of the universe will loose communication with each other. They will be receding faster than the SOL and so gravity will not be able to cause all matter in the universe to fall into one blackhole. Our laws of physics can be extrapolated to describe the interior of a blackhole, you're saying that if you were in a blackhole you would simply be in another universe. If this is true then either our laws of physics are wrong or the laws of physics are different inside a blackhole than they are in the universe that black hole is in. A blackhole, in terms of its mass and energy, is small compared to the universe it is in. You are making the assumption that all the energy of the universe will end up in one blackhole (which is contrary to current theory). You assume that the laws of physics are the same on the inside as they are on the outside of a blackhole even though you assert that different things are happening (which to me would suggest that the laws of physics are different) I can not then fathom a universe where the laws of physics are different and yet still creates a blackhole (this is not speculation, it's a logical arguement). You also assume that each blackhole contains a universe though there is no proof and no way of knowing and you are sidestepping the issue by not explaining which came first, the universe or the blackhole. I start from 3 propositions/axioms 1) energy is zero 2) energy is finite 3) energy is infinite any one of which I hold to be true and see where they go, I make no assumptions. This leads to 3 questions 1) if energy is zero because gravity and mass cancel then why are gravity and mass finite, or more broadly are they finite? 2) if energy is finite what caused it to be finite? In your model of universes in blackholes the energy of the universe is not constant and you haven't ruled out the possibility that energy is infinite. 3) if energy is infinite do we only experience a finite amount of it? one region of space can only be in communication with a finite amount of space, space itself though could be infinite.

I was just adding my 2 cents, like I said I had no hidden agenda nor was I promoting any new and wonderful theory so I don't think it was necessary to apply any critical rigour to develop the question into a reasonable set of parameters. Also I didn't state anything as fact, if I had your critisism would have been completely justified, however your analysis and critique seemed disproportionate to the nature of my post IMO. Perhaps though you enjoy the debate and maybe I took it the wrong way. If our universe is inside a blackhole in another universe where did that universe come from? What reason or mechanism is there for that universe? Where did its energy come from and how did it develop? And would not blackholes inside blackholes ad infinitum suggest infinite energy? What about stuff that falls into blackholes, wouldn't that mean the energy of our unverse is increasing? or loosing energy due to Hawking radiation? Is mass and energy inside a blackhole the same as mass and energy outside of it? Why are the conditions inside a black hole different depending on whether you view it from the inside or the outside? That would suggest that the laws of physics are different depending on whether you are inside or outside, in which case you can not know the physics of the universe that contains the blackhole we live in and therefore can not describe a mechanism for a blackhole to develop in that universe for us to exist in. If our universe has 100bn galaxies each with 100bn stars each of which are 1 solar mass then our universe is 1021 solar masses and the biggest black hole we know of is only18bn solar masses, that blackhole would make a very small universe. As for deus ex machina the same could be said about macro neutrons or blackholes inside blackholes, starting from axioms and seeing where they take you is one way of thinking but you have to work out all the rules first. Starting with the proposition that energy is infinite and working out how it came to be is not the same as saying a magic crystal exploded and infinite energy poured out of it deus ex machina. When I have more time I will look up macro neutrons. If something's constantly being generated it can't be infinite because it must have started at zero and will take an infinite amount of time to get to infinity, or, if if is infinite and still being generated then it must have been infinite to start with. Your post I've highlighted in bold contradicts the question you posted after it. I just felt we were arguing for arguements sake, I didn't rule out the possibility people were getting bored with me.

I would recommend this one http://www.amazon.co...77&sr=1-1-fkmr1 It's a popular exposition by some bloke called Albert Einstein, you may have heard of him. It is actually quite difficult to read but well worth the effort.

But there was no matter in the universe to begin with, it was too hot. It was only when the universe expanded and had cooled down enough that matter started to form. I have the feeling that if I had said the I think there is a finite amount of energy in the universe you would have taken the opposite view and would have argued just as much. I can not explain further than I have already, I am not creating 'macro neutrons' or black holes inside black holes inside black holes ad infinitum or 'resorting to deus ex machina'. What I am saying is either energy existed before TBB or it was created at the instant of TBB and I do not understand a mechanism whereby there would be a finite amount of energy in either case. If the energy of the universe is zero because gravity and mass cancel then an infinite amount of mass and an infinite amount of gravity would cancel to zero as well. It's a very simple concept, there was no hidden agenda and it's not based on some radical new theory that's going to change the world, I simply suggested it as a possibility. I think this discussion is now exhausted, I'm sure other people are getting bored with it. smiley so you know I'm not having a go.

If you have two magnets sitting on a table then you will see exactly what you describe but if you have two magnets floating in space and some more sensitive equipment than your eyes then you will see that they do not get closer before they deflect, they will deflect less at the same distance the faster they approach, so essentially what you're saying is electrons get bigger with time. see above. Maybe but I think that's several levels above my comprehension.

This might explain a bit about what is going on http://www.vega.org.uk/video/programme/45 skip the first 25 minutes or so because it's all just preamble and isn't necessary, though if you have the time it is good to watch Feynman, he can be quite amusing

But the force is proportional to distance, so if one of your magnets is fixed and you put your other magnet 10cm away the force between the magnets will be x and if you put the magnets 5 cm appart the force will be say 2x. The force is the same at the same distance whether the magnets are moving or not. Then you have the problem of 3 particles ie. electrons a, b and c, a is staionary relative to b but c is moving towards b at some speed therefore b is smaller relative to c than it is relative to a. Also the fastest you could fire 2 electrons together is SOL so either at SOL their volume is zero (r=0) or the electrons repel each other before their volume reaches zero (r≠0) and therefore they have a fundamentaly smallest possible size.

You posted two irrefutible facts in my name and you think I'll get banned, I laugh in your face Hahaha (see). Not quite, my understanding (which may be wrong) is that all the energy in the universe was created at the instant of TBB. It wasn't a process that started and went on for a bit and then stopped it's simply that first there wasn't energy and then there was energy, all of it in one instant. Whether that energy was created or existed before I don't know. Krauss said that it would be very satisfying if the energy of the universe was zero and I agree. If the universe is infinite in size or if there are infinite universes then there must be infinite energy. The universe may be finite in size (in which case it would have finite energy) but it may be part of something bigger (in which case there could be infinite energy) I will add to Krauss and say that IMO if the energy of the universe was infinite it would also be satisfying albeit that we only experience a small part of it.

I really couldn't be bothered to think of a name so just wrote what it said, it amused me a little and no that's not my password. (Damn!... changes password) Back to the question, I'm not trying to put forward some ground breaking theory, just some thoughts I've had based on what I've watched and read. I don't believe energy is constantly pouring into the universe, as I understand it the amount of energy in the universe is constant and was fixed at t=0. I don't know if current theory suggests that energy was created at TBB or if it existed 'somewhere' 'before' TBB but it seems completely arbitrary that there should be a finite amount. Why would a finite amount come from nothing? or why would a finite amount exist before TBB? If, as Krauss said, mass = positive energy and gravity = negative energy and therefore the net energy of the universe is zero my question is why would zero break into finite amounts? I'm asking a question not stating a theory.

As I understand it the energy of the universe is constant, it can not be created or destroyed therefore energy is not being created right now. However much energy there is in the universe it is constant so either that energy was created at TBB or it existed before TBB. My question is why would this be a finite amount? The amount of energy in the universe was fixed at t=0 and hasn't changed since. Why would a finite amount come from nothing or why would a finite amount exist before TBB? I wouldn't like to speculate in the wrong forum but if the universe was infinite in size (and therefore had infinte energy) but we were confined to only a small part of it (which had a finite amount of energy) it would make sense to me. But that a finite amount of energy was created at t=0 does not make sense IMO. BTW when I signed up to the forum it said my username "should be between 3 and 26 characters long" so yes I just followed directions, as you can see though, I can't count.

You may find this interesting I think it's the right one but it is part of a series http://www.vega.org....eo/programme/45 This doesn't quite make sense to me; a magnet has mass, if you apply a force to a mass it accelerates therefore if you apply a force to a magnet it will accelerate, but the force between two magnets is dependant upon the strength of the two magnets and the distance between them. The net force between two atoms is zero, this is because the net charge on an atom is zero (otherwise it would be an ion) but one side of the atom might be slighty negative δ- compared to the other side of the atom (which conversely would be slightly positive δ+) so yes only a tiny part of the electrons' charge goes towards the magnet. Put two bar magnets together and they will turn, as their opposite poles attract, and snap together. Two polar atoms would also turn as their opposite poles attract, I must concede though that they too would probably snap together (which is not what I said originally). I don't understand the last two sentances you wrote. EDIT: I just watched that link I gave, takes a while to get going but is interesting. It doesn't mention that particles can not have r=0 but I'm sure I heard Feynman say it, perhaps in one of the other lectures http://www.vega.org.uk/video/subseries/8

My understanding is that if particles were truly point like then their radius wold be zero and if r=0 then their field strength would be infinite, however like in massive objects such as the Earth as you go below the surface the net effect is that gravity decreases and is zero at the centre, then the net effect is that the field strength at the centre of a particle is also zero. The point is I saw a lecture where Richard Fynman said, "particles are point like, well not truly point like otherwise their field strength would be infinite". Also the field of a particle extends to infinity which would make the particle infinitely big in your view. As for the magnets v electrons arguement I think if you had say 5g of electrons repelling 5g of electrons the force would be incredible but if you have two 5g magnets (each having as many protons as electrons) then all you have is the net effect of slightly polar particles. ie. Two electrons would repel each other and they would fly apart but in two H atoms the net force between the atoms is zero but they would turn as protons repel protons but attract electons and electrons repel electrons and attract protons

Then my work here is done.

not if an infinite amount was created

I think for the Earth it's more like 17,500 mph but that's not the speed you need to get into space or orbit. The escape velocity is just one definition of massive objects. The escape velocity of the Earth is the speed you need to be going at the surface, travelling radially away from the centre in order to come to rest at infinity. This is ignoring air resistance and remembering that once past the surface your vehicle is unpowered. From that you can work out what speed you need to break orbit at the height you are at which is basically what lemur said. So at 10mph you could get into space but I don't think you would break orbit.

I don't think it is continuously being created, I'm just wondering why there would be a finite amount.

I would have replied sooner to this topic but as I'm using wifi it's taking a couple of hours for the signal to travel the 24 feet to the reciever. What's really annoying is that I've got the radio on and all I get is yesterdays news. On a brighter note it's going to be sunny tomorrow so I'm going to go out now and get a tan, after all the UV, which travels that much faster, is already here and I can work on my new theory of gravity, spacetime isn't flat it's downhill

My belief is that the energy of the universe must either be zero or infinite. If energy was created during TBB (ie. there was no energy before TBB) then why was a finite amount created? If energy existed before TBB, again, why was there a finite amount?

Are you thinking about red shift and blue shift, if you are then it depends on the speed of the object emmiting or recieving the light not the speed of light itself (which is always constant). If the speed of different colours of light were different then you would see this during an eclipse

Does light accelerate? If you apply a 1N force to a battle ship for one second you won't notice any acceleration at all, if you apply a 1N force to a H atom for one second it will accelerate incredibly fast because it has less mass. Light, which has no mass, can only travel at the speed of light, never slower and never faster so it doesn't accelerate. Going back to the OP the light will take 1 and 1/3 seconds to reach the ball travelling at 1/3c and it will take 1 and 2/3 seconds to reach the ball travelling at 2/3c.