Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...
Posted

Wow... I always just assumed there was such thing as negative energy, and now I read this...

 

In my ever-pessimistic view of the universe, the entirety of everything ammounts to exactly zilch. It seems like commonsense to me, that in a universe surrounded by nothing, with a whole bunch of something in it, that there was some sort of antiverse (not anitmatter universe but something in the universe that could account for the sudden emergence of energy/matter). What does everyone think of that? Seems like everythings natural state is equilibrium to me.

Posted

heh, a further thought...

 

If the universe is indeed made up of nothing, the center of the universe might be comprised of (is that the right word for what im about to say?) negative energy. If that were the case, the universe might have further reason to expand forever, seeing as negative energy also has negative gravity (that was my understanding of it anyway).

 

Edit---------------

 

Might gravity have the ability to draw energy from nothing, producing negative energy?

Posted

if the universe was created by the big bang, the site of the big band would be the center, as that is what everything is moving away from

Posted

how so?

 

and if thats the case, how come every galaxy we can see is accellerating away from us.. like an expanding sphere?

Posted

You're assuming that we're the centre of the universe. We're not. Every galaxy is accelerating away from every other galaxy.

 

If there's a centre of the universe, then not all rest frames are equivilent, which rather kills special relativity, which is a very nice theory and everyone assumes its true and to the best of our measuring it is.

 

ps.

 

Empirically, of course, there isn't a center of the universe EITHER because we can never find the edges.

Posted

what about the cyclic universe theories? if there is no center of the universe, where is everything supposed to converge?

Posted

Well, under current reckoning the universe won't converge, so that's pretty immaterial. They also don't have to collapse around a centre, just around any point which may or may not move. The final point doesn't have to have been the centre.

Posted

well thats assuming that the original explosion wasnt uniform.. and it wasnt so i guess that makes sense.. i do like the idea of myself appearing an infinate ammount of times for the rest of time... but also, as ive read, if the universe doesnt converge as matter, it will eventually disperse into pure energy when it then again gravitates towards a single point, and the process repeats itself...

 

is that anything close to what you are learning now? this was a fairly recent document by some really accomplished physicists

Posted
Originally posted by alt_f13

hahaha, ive just done a song similar to what we are talking about now

 

http://www.djglacial.com/red.html

 

its there if you like trance, but its unfinished and dont make fun of my voice, it was 4am i recorded it haha

 

I've just made an A-team spoof, but you'd not know what it's referring to and I haven't recorded it anyway.

Posted

Well what you think about my theory of the Universe equalling zero? If that were anywhere near true, it would also be creating extra energy that would push the total mass of the Universe above zero. Thats what I got from that document above anyway, a positive energy biproduct.

 

Perhaps im wrong there, I saw something about how it doesn't violate conservation of energy. I'm taking another look.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.