[morgsboi]

We know that as well as energy we have negative energy which was created in the big bang. So for example your digging a hole in the ground. When you are digging, it the mass from in the ground will pile up while as you dig, the hole will loose mass as the pile gains mass. The principals of this give us which is the the universe (as we know from . Now there must also be a hole which is which can only be negative energy, as mass is energy. So if you add the two together it makes nothing. So the whole universe together must be nothing.
But the thing is, energy is used and negative energy isn't so if the universe is loosing energy all the time whereas negative energy is not changing so the balance is upset so therefore when we say universe, we actually should mean negative universe as more of it is negative than positive.................. well, that's how I see it.
Does it make sense?
And if it does, can it explain anything?



Contains an indirect reference from a section of "Into the Universe" by Prof. Stephen Hawking. (The digging a hole part.)

[granpa]

universe is losing energy all the time???

energy is conserved.

[imatfaal]

Agree with Granpa. Also not sure about your first claim about negative energy - are you saying that antimatter somehow has a different signed energy than matter, do some particles have -ve kinetic energy and others +ve? We call PE -ve because we set zero at infinity - but this is more bookkeeping than a difference in quality. The hole does not lose mass - the portion of the earth which is not the pile loses mass, the portion of the earth that is the pile gains mass; it is merely double-entry accounting - a credit somewhere appears as a debit elsewhere

[granpa]

hes talking about gravitational potential energy.

its hawkings theory.

[morgsboi]

granpa, on 6 December 2011 - 09:36 AM, said:

universe is losing energy all the time???

energy is conserved.

What I mean by this is for example, our bodies. We have to use energy to spend it and that energy is used so it is gone. I don't see how it wouldn't make less energy in the entire universe??

[granpa]

energy is conserved.
it just changes form.

the energy 'lost' from work generally becomes heat

[morgsboi]

granpa, on 6 December 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

energy is conserved.
it just changes form.

the energy 'lost' from work generally becomes heat

And what about when the heat is cooled?

[granpa]

how do you think it cools?

it cools by radiating the energy as infrared light.

the total amount of energy is not changed.

[morgsboi]

granpa, on 6 December 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

how do you think it cools?

it cools by radiating the energy as infrared light.

the total amount of energy is not changed.

Ah, okay I understand now. I should have thought what happens to the energy a bit more. Thank you.

[Widdekind]

According to Dr. Michio Kaku, in Sci-Fi Science - How to Build a Starship, "negative energy" is generated, in the Casimir effect, by the "exclusion" of virtual photons, from the cavity, between two conducting plates. Inside that cavity, ambient vacuum energy is excluded, creating a region of relative "negative energy".

[swansont]

Widdekind, on 8 January 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

According to Dr. Michio Kaku, in Sci-Fi Science - How to Build a Starship, "negative energy" is generated, in the Casimir effect, by the "exclusion" of virtual photons, from the cavity, between two conducting plates. Inside that cavity, ambient vacuum energy is excluded, creating a region of relative "negative energy".

Relative being the key word. There is less energy there than outside. Nothing more.

Beware pop-science books.

[I think out of the box]

why would you set zero to infinity???? doesn't zero represent an empty space though??
I think that zero empty space could only represent "that" empty space in which it is being evaluated... E= mc squared "must" represent something squared in relation to energy "spaces."

If not then the whole universe would have been " demolished" when it was first tested.... Surly this must be a wrong concept in relation to y not x only backwards, as in negative energy that represent the negative of that infinitive space much like standing wave models versus propagation of waves and or Doppler effects. These are all within domains of their calculations, and in no way can represent a whole of infinity....

Also, singularities hold true "only" from the perspective of this "area" of multiple infinities beyond this "limitation."

imatfaal, on 6 December 2011 - 12:04 PM, said:

Agree with Granpa. Also not sure about your first claim about negative energy - are you saying that antimatter somehow has a different signed energy than matter, do some particles have -ve kinetic energy and others +ve? We call PE -ve because we set zero at infinity - but this is more bookkeeping than a difference in quality. The hole does not lose mass - the portion of the earth which is not the pile loses mass, the portion of the earth that is the pile gains mass; it is merely double-entry accounting - a credit somewhere appears as a debit elsewhere

If energy is truly conserved then their must be somewhere that takes place for this transportation to occur or merging to occur. Some would rather refer this to 1, or 0. Some also refer to this as nodes, "areas" even volume, pressure, phase shifts...

I think in order to truly understand the "why" of this relation, we must use the same principles of conservation in a mathematical sense. The math evolved will then be synchronized thus will allow calculations for precession to the extreme. Withing this precession cycle I strongly believe that energy and mass are one """"""AGAIN"""""" For the time being for that instant they are not..

granpa, on 6 December 2011 - 05:32 PM, said:

energy is conserved.
it just changes form.

the energy 'lost' from work generally becomes heat

Your answer is quite simple...... The person digging this hole works as the medium between the pile and the hole. This person is the node in between the work. For every "shovel" of dirt there is a relative movement that lays in-between the hole and the pile.

In this there is a precession going on because the pile gets bigger and the hole gets deeper. Yet our modern ways of understanding precession and the curvature of space time work in a rigid linear method which still connot be understood for what it is, strong nuclear forces is a good example.. The precession cycle no matter how long or how short, is this area in where the conservation of energy transforms through a 3rd position in time and space confused as singularities in the belief that nothing can travel faster then the speed of light...... If this was the case, the entire universe would be encapsulated in a static c x c cube, and we would all be much closer together than we think!

Pi ratio for example can be used as the person doing the digging. Surly this "number of pi ratio" must also have an inverse - twin then right????????


How else can that circumference be held then??????In empty space of nothingness???? This is where the Higgs Field Comes In..
But I will save that for later....

However, every circle has a precession, completion, association with time, and etc.
Looking deeper at this though, pi "also" represent empty space too.
The answer is in precession and being able to detect it with pure "Static" mathematics..

morgsboi, on 5 December 2011 - 11:19 PM, said:

We know that as well as energy we have negative energy which was created in the big bang. So for example your digging a hole in the ground. When you are digging, it the mass from in the ground will pile up while as you dig, the hole will loose mass as the pile gains mass. The principals of this give us which is the the universe (as we know from . Now there must also be a hole which is which can only be negative energy, as mass is energy. So if you add the two together it makes nothing. So the whole universe together must be nothing.
But the thing is, energy is used and negative energy isn't so if the universe is loosing energy all the time whereas negative energy is not changing so the balance is upset so therefore when we say universe, we actually should mean negative universe as more of it is negative than positive.................. well, that's how I see it.
Does it make sense?
And if it does, can it explain anything?



Contains an indirect reference from a section of "Into the Universe" by Prof. Stephen Hawking. (The digging a hole part.)

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 10 January 2012 - 06:35 AM

[morgsboi]

I think out of the box, on 10 January 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

why would you set zero to infinity???? doesn't zero represent an empty space though??
I think that zero empty space could only represent "that" empty space in which it is being evaluated... E= mc squared "must" represent something squared in relation to energy "spaces."

If not then the whole universe would have been " demolished" when it was first tested.... Surly this must be a wrong concept in relation to y not x only backwards, as in negative energy that represent the negative of that infinitive space much like standing wave models versus propagation of waves and or Doppler effects. These are all within domains of their calculations, and in no way can represent a whole of infinity....

Also, singularities hold true "only" from the perspective of this "area" of multiple infinities beyond this "limitation."




If energy is truly conserved then their must be somewhere that takes place for this transportation to occur or merging to occur. Some would rather refer this to 1, or 0. Some also refer to this as nodes, "areas" even volume, pressure, phase shifts...

I think in order to truly understand the "why" of this relation, we must use the same principles of conservation in a mathematical sense. The math evolved will then be synchronized thus will allow calculations for precession to the extreme. Withing this precession cycle I strongly believe that energy and mass are one """"""AGAIN"""""" For the time being for that instant they are not..




Your answer is quite simple...... The person digging this hole works as the medium between the pile and the hole. This person is the node in between the work. For every "shovel" of dirt there is a relative movement that lays in-between the hole and the pile.

In this there is a precession going on because the pile gets bigger and the hole gets deeper. Yet our modern ways of understanding precession and the curvature of space time work in a rigid linear method which still connot be understood for what it is, strong nuclear forces is a good example.. The precession cycle no matter how long or how short, is this area in where the conservation of energy transforms through a 3rd position in time and space confused as singularities in the belief that nothing can travel faster then the speed of light...... If this was the case, the entire universe would be encapsulated in a static c x c cube, and we would all be much closer together than we think!

Pi ratio for example can be used as the person doing the digging. Surly this "number of pi ratio" must also have an inverse - twin then right????????


How else can that circumference be held then??????In empty space of nothingness???? This is where the Higgs Field Comes In..
But I will save that for later....

However, every circle has a precession, completion, association with time, and etc.
Looking deeper at this though, pi "also" represent empty space too.
The answer is in precession and being able to detect it with pure "Static" mathematics..

Well if we go with the theory that the universe is a dodecahedron, then what is outside of that and why is it separated and sealed off. Maybe the energy outside of there is negative which is what creates the barrier between the universe as we know it. Also if we look at dark flow, maybe the galaxies are "magnetized" in some kind of way much like north and south poles. I think that it is possible that galaxies and matter can simply pop out of this "barrier" and be instantly annihilated like a much larger version of what happens with particles in quantum mechanics.

[DrRocket]

swansont, on 8 January 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Beware pop-science books.

Particularly those authored by Kaku.

[JohnStu]

One cannot be brief when talking about science terms/observations. The law of Universal Conservation of Energy is says that the energy is conserved within the target system assuming no energy escapes from the system. Now, to understand that, one has to have the same definition of energy. Most people don't consider light as energy and that's where they see the law as flawed.