Summations Only

I'm not a physicist, and I can't offer you a persuasive paper. I can offer a badly designed home webpage of a physics tutor which gives back of an envelope calculations. See hereTo summarizepositive energy content = mc²
negative energy content = m M_u G / R _uThe little m's can be ignored so now we getpositive = c²
negative = M_u G / R _uAll you need to do is know the speed of light, the mass and radius of the universe and the gravitational constant. The web page gives some numbers for this and we end up withpositive energy = 9 x 10¹⁶
negative energy = - 9.77 x 10¹⁶And so positive energy ≈ -negative energy. Obviously we don't know the exact radius and mass of the universe so it seems reasonable to consider the possibility that it balances out equally.Of course I need to repeat my non-physicist status so that might all be bollocks but it is the most accessible resource for explaining this that I can find. Physics papers tend to give more complex, but probably more accurate, descriptions - for example: ON THE ZERO-ENERGY UNIVERSE, Berman, 2009

quote:

---

The zero result for the spatial components of the energy-momentum-pseudotensor calculation,
are equivalent to the choice of a center of Mass reference system in Newtonian theory,
likewise the use of comoving observers in Cosmology. It is with this idea in mind, that we are
led to the energy calculation, yielding zero total energy, for the Universe, as an acceptable
result: we are assured that we chose the correct reference system

---

Hope that proves to be of use, but I've no idea if it'll prove 'persuasive' to you.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I can see why not understanding the physics could render the paper unpersuasive to you. I propose that given that you don't know what a pseudo-tensor is, that this topic may simply be beyond your expertise to fully grasp.

It's beyond me too, so no I can't. As far as I can tell negative energy is related to the gravitational field. Positive energy is energy as we generally use it. Not quite. They say the positive energy content of the universe is essentially cancelled out by the negative energy content of the universe.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I think it's safe to say that the author knows what m stands for. A superior argument would be that the m in the first equation is referring to something subtly different than the m in the second equation.What you really probably should be saying is that the m in Einstein's equation is really the same as M_u in the gravitational equation when we're talking about energy content of the entire universe.I believe that in the gravitational equation, when M is actually M_u then I'm not sure m is actually the mass of. This may be what is being said when he talks of it being hypothetical. But I don't think it's hypothetical in both equations and that might be where the problem is.As far as my limited physics knowledge goes the gravitation equation calculates the gravitational energy between two masses. So maybe the thought is that when calculating the gravitational energy of the universe it has to be compared with the mass of a hypothetical particle.Those were my thoughts at least, when I hinted that the calculations might be bollocks. I assume you misspoke here. It's not a matter/energy equivalence its a mass/energy equivalence.

Right.A neutron is made of an up quark which has a charge of +²/₃e and two down quarks each with a charge of -¹/₃e.There is charge, but a neutron has no net charge. The idea is that the energy is comprised of negative and positive energy. The question is, what is the net result of those negatives and positives in the universe at large? Some physicists believe that the net result is zero, just as with the charges in the neutron.

I don't think that's quite right. It certainly acts against gravity, but so do rockets.

quote:

---

This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion", which is a colorful but possibly confusing expression. In fact a negative pressure does not influence the gravitational interaction between masseswhich remains attractivebut rather alters the overall evolution of the universe at the cosmological scale, typically resulting in the accelerating expansion of the universe despite the attraction among the masses present in the universe.

---

from wiki. Have you calculated the gravitational effect of the other types of energy? Have you calculated it for dark energy?Remember energy and mass are equivalent. So energy has an associated mass just like mass has an associated energy. Where there is mass there is gravity. The negative pressure of dark energy may be greater than the associated gravity its mass produces, but that doesn't mean that the negative energy isn't cancelled out by the positive energy.

It was an analogy designed to show how something can have a net zero value while being composed of positive and negative values. Which is why I said in Message 32 that

quote:

---

negative energy is related to the gravitational field. Positive energy is energy as we generally use it.

---

But this confused Chuck and he replied I was attempting to show him how there can still be (positive) energy even if the net energy is zero. I used the analogy of charge. Dr A used the analogy of mutual debt in Message 35. Can you come up with a better analogy to explain it to Chuck?

Because dark energy has negative energy associated with it because as far as I know it has an associated mass that 'creates' a gravitational field. The zero energy postulate suggests that the negative energy as the result of the gravitational field cancels out the positive energy content of the stuff in question.Is your problem with this that you do not think that dark energy has an associated mass? Do you have any sources which indicate that dark energy is massless?The fact that dark energy has negative pressure which acts against gravity is irrelevant.

Rather, it has a negative pressure. No, you are confusing matter and mass. Energy has an associated mass. I see no reason to suppose that Dark Energy does not have an associated mass. Do you have one? My point is that dark energy may also have normal gravity. Just because it exerts a negative pressure that acts against gravity, does not mean that it is massless and does not have an associated gravitational field. It's not anti-gravity it is a negative pressure that acts against gravity in the evolution of the cosmos. I quote wikipedia again

quote:

---

This accelerating expansion effect is sometimes labeled "gravitational repulsion", which is a colorful but possibly confusing expression. In fact a negative pressure does not influence the gravitational interaction between masseswhich remains attractivebut rather alters the overall evolution of the universe at the cosmological scale, typically resulting in the accelerating expansion of the universe despite the attraction among the masses present in the universe.

---

Negative pressure is not 'anti gravity' in the technical sense (which may require negative mass) - only in a colloquial sense. It's easy to get confused on that, though.