Creation Ex Nihilo

Meta,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Do you really want to know where the so called anti-matter is? A Scientific American magazine article contained the quote of a scientist, back in the 1980's or thereabouts...it said

"Electrons are anti-matter"

So thats where the anti-matter is.

So much for that.

Meta</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Actually show me where anybody is talking about anti-matter here. It seems you are missing the point of the +/- concept. It is not matter and antimatter that is being discussed.

The current thinking is that if matter and energy represent +s then gravity is -s. This conforms to the N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) concept in that calculations have been done which show that the matter and energy is exactally equal (within the limits of observation) to the negative energy of gravity.

The universe as a whole has "Zero"net energy even as we speak.

We are on borrowed time here on borrowed energy by bifurcating "Nothingness" into equal +/- components.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32)

---

mac

always there!!
______________________________________________________________________
There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from.<font color="yellow"> The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.</font id="yellow"> (Hawking, 1988, 129) [thanks to Ross King for this]
______________________________________________________________________

mac

in order to have a balance!!there must be something TO balance.this zero,is deceiving,you can't balance "nothing" with "nothing.that makes absolutely no sense.therefore something is the essence of balance,which is of course infinite!!

NORTH,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>in order to have a balance!!there must be something TO balance.this zero,is deceiving,you can't balance "nothing" with "nothing.that makes absolutely no sense.therefore something is the essence of balance,which is of course infinite!!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: If what you claim had been said is what had been claimed then your statement would be absolutely true. It would be ludricrous.

However, what has actually been said (and it is not I saying it) a calculation has been made of the matter/energy in the universe (+s in my view) is exactly equal to the amount of negative gravitational energy (-s in my view) and that the net energy of the universe is therefore currently and always has been exactly "Zero".



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>in order to have a balance!!there must be something TO balance.this zero,is deceiving,you can't balance "nothing" with "nothing.that makes absolutely no sense.therefore something is the essence of balance,which is of course infinite!!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: If what you claim had been said is what had been claimed then your statement would be absolutely true. It would be ludricrous.

However, what has actually been said (and it is not I saying it) a calculation has been made of the matter/energy in the universe (+s in my view) is exactly equal to the amount of negative gravitational energy (-s in my view) and that the net energy of the universe is therefore currently and always has been exactly "Zero".
______________________________________________________________________

mac

therefore this calculation is to do with "balance",but an invalid argument for the idea of "something" from "nothing".

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>therefore this calculation is to do with "balance",but an invalid argument for the idea of "something" from "nothing".</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

1 - mass/energy is +s

2 - gravity/time is - s

3 - +s = -s

4 - (+s)-s) = 0

N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s)

You do have a funny way of looking at things. It is all but proof of the concept. It shows not only that we could have come from nothing but that in fact we are in existance as nothing.



"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />north,

<b>therefore this calculation is to do with "balance",but an invalid argument for the idea of "something" from "nothing".</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

1 - mass/energy is +s

2 - gravity/time is - s

3 - +s = -s

4 - (+s)-s) = 0

N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s)

You do have a funny way of looking at things. It is all but proof of the concept. It shows not only that we could have come from nothing but that in fact we are in existance as nothing.
______________________________________________________________________

mac

the formula is meaningless and proves in reality,well "nothing".it only proves that math can do anything that reality can't!!