It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

All the Laws of Physics distilled down to one Fundamental Law.

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 



Gravity has negative potential energy, but it's debatable whether that equates to the actual negative energy required to produce a zero-energy universe. I'm more inclined to believe that dark energy is what supplies the negative energy because dark energy exerts a negative pressure on space and causes the universe to expand as if it was negative matter.

It is not a question of belief. It is physics.

When you add energy to matter, the space between atoms increases. With dark energy, the space itself inflates. Both are positive. Gravity causes the space between atoms to contract. That's negative energy. Very simple; end of story.




posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by KrzYma
 



Let me say it simple as possible. If I see something that is not confirming my theory, I let the theory go and look for a better one. What scientists do, is adding more and more unknowns into the equation instead of rethinking it

MOND wouldn't exist if scientists weren't trying to think of other explanations. But theories like MOND always prove to be wrong and at the end of the day all the evidence strongly indicates that there is some type of invisible mass surrounding all galaxies. But if you bothered to read my other post under the one you replied to you will see even I have an alternative theory to explain dark matter which describes it as a gravitational illusion. It can even help explain why dark matter cores can separate from galaxies so easily.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Astyanax
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


Dark energy is not negative energy. Gravity is negative energy.

Oh, and the OP said:


I'm stating that a Zero state of energy within the universe is impossible. As in NOTHINGNESS is impossible...

Agreed that pure nothing cannot exist; but science recognises this. And the total energy of the universe is zero.

Zero-energy universe


edit on 13/1/14 by Astyanax because: of zero.


The total energy of the universe being 0 is the most absurd thing. What does E=mc^2 mean to you? Is there not an equivalence between mass and energy? Will there be a time where there is 0 mass, matter, and energy? Has there ever been a time (logically, not according to your quick toting of loose unthought theories)? Are you talking about total kinetic energy? Total potential and kinetic? If the entire universe, was brought to a standstill, no vibrations of anykind, and it stayed completely still and frozen for an eternity, no 'change/time', no transfers of energy, no movement or decay, this is the type of 'zero' energy potential you refer to, in that thought experiment the total energy of the universe would be 0? And that is the way in which you say that the total energy of the universe is 0, because you assume all the movement that exists did not always exist, and will stop, and the arch of activity from non existing energy, adding the total all existing energy, is equal to all the existing energy subtracted by all the existing energy no longer existing, and this is how you say that the total energy of the universe is 0?



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



When you add energy to matter, the space between atoms increases. With dark energy, the space itself inflates. Both are positive.

That is a completely invalid comparison for a start. Negative matter (assuming it could exist) would produce negative gravity and cause space to expand exactly like dark energy does. The whole idea that dark energy is a positive energy exerting a negative pressure is dependent on certain theories concerning vacuum energy but doesn't apply if we consider dark energy to actually be a form of negative matter.


Gravity causes the space between atoms to contract. That's negative energy. Very simple; end of story.

No it's not that simple. There is a difference between negative potential energy and negative energy. And even if you could count gravity as negative energy it's far from clear that it would provide enough negative energy to balance out the positive energy of matter.


This negative energy can balance the positive energy needed to create matter, but it’s not quite that simple. The negative gravitational energy of the earth, for example, is less than a billionth of the positive energy of the matter particles the earth is made of.

en.wikipedia.org...


That wiki page contains no math to actually prove the claim that the negative energy of gravity is enough to balance out the negative energy of matter, and it makes no distinction between negative energy and negative potential energy. It's a very ill-defined theory and is far from being a solid scientific principle as you would like to think.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Panic2k11
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


In absolute terms zero does not exists, there is always something present, even time and space or if you go back to the 0 apples our understanding is that in a parallel universe apples did fall, but that is complicating the subject. If we look at the absence of something as not 0 but simply a non-realization of a potential in our observed reality. For instance one can say that no apples did fall but the apples are still there. That is basically what is defended when the discussion goes to the destruction of information in black holes.

Like 0 in reality there aren't negative numbers, they are an abstraction and any applicability to reality is only valid in regards to abstract scales. This also lead to the unreality of infinite in physical terms, there is nothing infinite, but on the human super large scales can escape enumeration. Of course this can be complicated like stating that one can for instance trace an infinite line on the surface of a sphere or trace the contour of a circle but that can only be possible in a reduced reality (since components process can't exist in infinity, for starts one would run out of ink/pencil etc or in the extreme entropy would win a the universe would have ended).


Time is infinite.



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Panic2k11
 



Like 0 in reality there aren't negative numbers, they are an abstraction and any applicability to reality is only valid in regards to abstract scales. This also lead to the unreality of infinite in physical terms, there is nothing infinite, but on the human super large scales can escape enumeration.

Without negativity energy we cannot have a zero-energy universe, and it's obvious that a zero-energy universe is the only logical explanation for why we have something rather than nothing in the first place. And if we do live in a zero-energy universe it means that space-time is infinite and flat. There is a lot of good evidence to indicate the universe is infinite and flat, that's why it's the most prevalent model accepted among physicists now.
edit on 13/1/2014 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)


Why is it obvious a zero energy universe is the only logical explanation for why we have something rather then nothing? Can you describe what a non zero energy universe would be like?



posted on Jan, 13 2014 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Why is it obvious a zero energy universe is the only logical explanation for why we have something rather then nothing?

Because it allows for a conservation of energy during the big bang period. If there is an equal amount of negative energy to balance out the positive energy then the laws of energy conservation are not being broken. If only positive energy was created during the big bang it's very difficult to explain how that energy was able to appear from nothing. A zero-energy universe solves that problem and allows energy to appear from nothing without violating any laws of physics.


Can you describe what a non zero energy universe would be like?

Well for a start the energy of the universe would cause space to be curved since there would be no negative energy to balance it out and flatten space-time out. And if it was curved that also means the universe would be finite because space-time would eventually curve back in on its self. So it means we would be living in a curved finite universe and not a flat infinite universe. We may live in a curved universe but I highly doubt it.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




Time is infinite.


No it isn't time time-space is relativistic dimensional scale.
edit on 14-1-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


It seems you about the only one on here who has some real knowledge. It should of been you writing this thread. Not the current OP!!

I can not say if what you are saying is correct (lack of knowledge on this subject matter) but I do like reading your posts here!



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   

ChaoticOrder
reply to post by ImaFungi
 



Why is it obvious a zero energy universe is the only logical explanation for why we have something rather then nothing?

Because it allows for a conservation of energy during the big bang period. If there is an equal amount of negative energy to balance out the positive energy then the laws of energy conservation are not being broken. If only positive energy was created during the big bang it's very difficult to explain how that energy was able to appear from nothing. A zero-energy universe solves that problem and allows energy to appear from nothing without violating any laws of physics.


Can you describe what a non zero energy universe would be like?

Well for a start the energy of the universe would cause space to be curved since there would be no negative energy to balance it out and flatten space-time out. And if it was curved that also means the universe would be finite because space-time would eventually curve back in on its self. So it means we would be living in a curved finite universe and not a flat infinite universe. We may live in a curved universe but I highly doubt it.


I would also like to add that it also negates the need of a singularity.... Which is a big problem solved!!

Korg.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:24 AM
link   

projectbane
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


It seems you about the only one on here who has some real knowledge. It should of been you writing this thread. Not the current OP!!

I can not say if what you are saying is correct (lack of knowledge on this subject matter) but I do like reading your posts here!


Yet another insulting comment...

Both ChaoticOrder and myself concur on many aspects of this theory, and I might add have done so many times previously in many other threads, yet you discredit me at every possible juncture.

Either contribute to the thread content or shut the hell up!

Korg.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Korg Trinity

projectbane
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


It seems you about the only one on here who has some real knowledge. It should of been you writing this thread. Not the current OP!!

I can not say if what you are saying is correct (lack of knowledge on this subject matter) but I do like reading your posts here!


Yet another insulting comment...

Both ChaoticOrder and myself concur on many aspects of this theory, and I might add have done so many times previously in many other threads, yet you discredit me at every possible juncture.

Either contribute to the thread content or shut the hell up!

Korg.


was not meant as an insult, just an opinion by a layman. The way chaosorder explains things and actually goes into detail in their posts is proof that they have some prior knowledge. Those who continuously write one or two line nonsense, too me anyway seem like they could be googling their limited answers.

Don't you offer up some papers you wrote or something to that effect? Patiently waiting to see. Always waiting.
May i ask what is taking so long? If they have already been written surely it can not be that hard to provide them?



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:42 AM
link   

projectbane

Korg Trinity

projectbane
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


It seems you about the only one on here who has some real knowledge. It should of been you writing this thread. Not the current OP!!

I can not say if what you are saying is correct (lack of knowledge on this subject matter) but I do like reading your posts here!


Yet another insulting comment...

Both ChaoticOrder and myself concur on many aspects of this theory, and I might add have done so many times previously in many other threads, yet you discredit me at every possible juncture.

Either contribute to the thread content or shut the hell up!

Korg.


was not meant as an insult, just an opinion by a layman. The way chaosorder explains things and actually goes into detail in their posts is proof that they have some prior knowledge. Those who continuously write one or two line nonsense, too me anyway seem like they could be googling their limited answers.

Don't you offer up some papers you wrote or something to that effect? Patiently waiting to see. Always waiting.
May i ask what is taking so long? If they have already been written surely it can not be that hard to provide them?


Some of us have more time than others... and if you don't see that your comments are insulting then I think you better take a long hard look at yourself!

Korg.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder
"When you add energy to matter, the space between atoms increases. With dark energy, the space itself inflates. Both are positive."
That is a completely invalid comparison for a start. Negative matter (assuming it could exist) would produce negative gravity and cause space to expand exactly like dark energy does. The whole idea that dark energy is a positive energy exerting a negative pressure is dependent on certain theories concerning vacuum energy but doesn't apply if we consider dark energy to actually be a form of negative matter.



So is the only difference between the term negative and positive when discussing energy, push and pull? If I make a wave in water by pushing my hands away from me, and it pushes a floating object away, thats an example of positive energy, and if I take my hands in the water at a distance away from me and drag them towards me, compelling a floating object in the water to be brought towards me, that is negative energy? And we can agree that in both cases, energy is energy as energy is energy, it is just a relative classification in which the term negative and positive is brought about, perhaps for convenience in describing what causes what and how?



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:31 PM
link   

ChaoticOrder

Because it allows for a conservation of energy during the big bang period. If there is an equal amount of negative energy to balance out the positive energy then the laws of energy conservation are not being broken. If only positive energy was created during the big bang it's very difficult to explain how that energy was able to appear from nothing. A zero-energy universe solves that problem and allows energy to appear from nothing without violating any laws of physics.

It is impossible to explain how energy appeared from nothing. Impossible, wrong! If you think something came from nothing you are wrong.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Panic2k11
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




Time is infinite.


No it isn't time time-space is relativistic dimensional scale.
edit on 14-1-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


Time never began and will never end. Time is infinite.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   

ImaFungi

Panic2k11
reply to post by ImaFungi
 




Time is infinite.


No it isn't time time-space is relativistic dimensional scale.
edit on 14-1-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)


Time never began and will never end. Time is infinite.


depends what you define as time



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

ImaFungi

ChaoticOrder

Because it allows for a conservation of energy during the big bang period. If there is an equal amount of negative energy to balance out the positive energy then the laws of energy conservation are not being broken. If only positive energy was created during the big bang it's very difficult to explain how that energy was able to appear from nothing. A zero-energy universe solves that problem and allows energy to appear from nothing without violating any laws of physics.

It is impossible to explain how energy appeared from nothing. Impossible, wrong! If you think something came from nothing you are wrong.



I'm afraid you're quite wrong on one level and quite right on another.

You are wrong in that it has already been proven that matter springs into existance all the time... Virtual particles apear along with thier anti particle partners and then anhilate each other.... Caused by the very rule I discussed in my opening post.

And you are right in so much as space-time itself is infinate and as such all the energy and matter that came from what we call the big bang will expand out until space-time becomes as in active as possible before the values are flipped and we have another big bang.

The only constant is the Value Zero cannot exist at any point.

Now you may say but where does space-time come from then?? Right??

This very question is what led me into physics in the first place and one which will keep me along with many many others ocupied fully for a very long time!

Peace,

Korg.



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


You can't make that claim, for what we understand time-space began with the universe (whatever theory you subscribe, all indications point to a time-space start) as for the end time-space may end (or at least cease to be time-space) but it is doubtful that it will be endless. Note that time-space only as meaning within itself.
edit on 14-1-2014 by Panic2k11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2014 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 


In our reality nothing does not exist, emptiness has only existence if observed and as soon as it is observed it ceases to be empty.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join