Summations Only

Please enlighten me. Not what I'm saying. I'm saying colliding branes is a theory which will never become accepted because cosmologists of all religious or anti-religious persuasions will never embrace a theory which is purely theological with no observational support. I think I understood you quite well. If you think I did not, please explain my error. I'm quite capable of admitting an error when it is pointed out, but you haven't done that.

It is my understanding that massless particles are subject to gravitational attraction from other massive bodies but massive bodies (or massless particles) are not subject to attraction to massless particles. If you believe this is incorrect, please provide a reference or link.

Atheists such as Krauss and Hawking have used this particular claim as evidence that a Creator God is not needed at the start of the universe. Did you watch the video of Lawrence Krauss?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOL_oGgRVkIt was given at Atheist Alliance International in 2009.

You ask me to show my working so I will restate it.When the average person looks at the universe, he or she would see only positive energy. But a form of negative energy also exists in the form of gravitational field energy. Gravity is the weakest of the four forces (but acts over large distances). On the local level, gravitational field energy is quite small - for example, the gravitational field energy for the earth is about one billionth the rest energy of the mass of the earth. However, it is claimed that on larger scales the negative energy of gravity can be equal to all of the rest energy in matter - meaning the universe has zero net total energy.Richard Feynmann appears to have been the first to make this estimation back in 1962/63, when it was still thought the universe might end in a Big Crunch. In 1974, Allan Sandage discovered the expansion of the universe was accelerating and then Gunn published a famous paper in Nature in 1975 based on his data titled "An Accelerating Universe." However, the scientific community was not really persuaded until another paper came out in 1998 which showed the same result (and the authors were awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics).The accelerating universe shows another force is at work - an antigravity force - known as dark energy. We now know dark energy accounts for 74% of the energy in the universe. Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) See #6. Dark energy is far more abundant and more forceful than gravity. If gravity was as abundant as dark energy and the rest energy of matter combined (as is claimed by Krauss and others), then the universe would end in a Big Crunch.Since we know the universe is expanding and the expansion is accelerating, we know the universe has net total energy which is strongly positive. Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

Here is what we know about the universe based on the latest and best cosmology from WMAP.- 74% Dark energy
- 22% Dark matter
- 4% AtomsContent of the Universe ImageFeynmann calculated the force of gravity at about equal to the rest energy of atoms. I'm not certain that is correct, but let's grant it for the sake of this illustration. Since that time we have discovered dark matter and dark energy, both positive energy. Dark matter definitely creates a gravitational field. Let's assume it creates a gravitational field energy equal to itself. Again, I'm skeptical of this but willing to grant it for illustration.But dark energy is different. It is an anti-gravity force. It appears to cancel out gravity and have lots of energy left over. The galaxies are growing further away from each other at an accelerating rate.So we have Atoms (4%) and gravity - cancel out.
Dark matter (22%) and gravity - cancel out.
Dark energy (74%) and not enough gravity to cancel it out.Of course, this ignores other types of energy in the universe such as thermal energy and kinetic energy of galaxies which shows the net total energy to be even more positive.

Thank you for a helpful post. Anytime someone can point me to new information which can correct and clarify my thinking, I appreciate it. While Wikipedia articles themselves may not be reliable sources, they often provide quality sources.My limited understanding of physics and cosmology has been gained through informal education and there are bound to be gaps in my knowledge. I am surprised radiation is considered to warp space. I cannot help but wonder (based on my limited understanding) if this view may be controversial at all?Regarding the central claims of this thread, I have provided references. I have not seen anything yet which has overturned the central thesis I put forward in the OP.

What is being discussed has nothing at all to do with the charge or even the spin of particles. All atoms and subatomic particles have positive rest energy. Even antimatter has positive rest energy, just an opposite charge (electron/positron).The negative energy comes from the gravitational field. Because a body in gravitational orbit, such as the moon around the earth, must have positive energy to remove it from its orbit - for that reason it is said to have negative energy. It is an interesting concept and I'm skeptical of this also but this concept is not what I'm challenging in this thread.However, just to demonstrate how one might challenge the concept of negative gravitational energy - imagine a thrown baseball from a pitcher. The ball has energy. The batter swings and hits it, applying positive energy in the opposite direction. Is it required to say the thrown baseball prior to being hit has negative energy? I don't think so.I'm quite comfortable in saying my grasp on this subject matter is very tenuous, but it is a subject I intend to study more closely.Edited by designtheorist, : No reason given.

I do believe in God. My belief would not be damaged if it was determined that net energy was zero. Such a finding would not disprove God even though it would open the door (in the minds of some) that the world may have come into existence without God.Positive energy is easy for us to observe. Negative energy is difficult to observe or quantify. The local effects of gravity do not even come close to the rest energy of the matter involved. But gravity does have a long reach. It is claimed that on cosmological scales, the negative energy of gravity can equal the rest energy of atoms. I am skeptical of this, but even if it were true - the net energy of the universe would not be zero because there are so many other types of energy in the universe. The most important of these is anti gravity of dark energy.While the claim of zero net energy might have made sense in Feynmann's day, it makes no sense in light of dark energy.So, yes, it is about the physics. The physics, when rightly understood, do not allow the poor arguments poor forward by the atheists.

Allow me to rephrase. The impetus and motivation for the colliding branes theory is purely theological. Surely this is not the first time you have heard this criticism?Stanford University has a fine website on these issues. See Cosmology and Theology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Hawking, one who is never reluctant to discuss the theological implications of his thoughts, tried to claim the idea of the multiverse was not motivated by theological necessity: I disagree. And I'm not alone. Many physicists, including atheist physicists, see colliding branes as nothing but a notion arising from atheistic motivations. Actually, I think the thread is going wonderfully. I've learned a few things which improve my understanding, which is what this is all about. More importantly, the central thesis of the OP has stood up quite well. I've not seen any evidence contradicting the central point. I was concerned that someone might be able to point to a paper which includes dark energy and some other form of negative energy I did not know about to show the notion of net zero energy was still viable. But that has not happened.

Probably not. I am still skeptical that gravitational field energy has to be considered negative as I mentioned in Message 92.Dr. A's analogy was correct in that it created no net wealth (because the exchange created both an asset and a liability at the same time), but I'm not convinced physics can work that way.Taking the baseball concept I used earlier, we can imagine the moon moving through space (positive kinetic energy) when the gravitational field of the earth captures the moon and forces it into an orbit. It seems to me the gravitational field can be considered a positive energy which only changed the course of the moon's trajectory. I don't see why this necessarily has to be considered as offsetting to the positive energy of earth's rest energy.

You might be interested to study the contributions of amateur scientists in the history of science. Sometimes a fresh look at the problem is exactly what the field needs.In praise of amateurs | The Economist

General relativity has been a very successful theory for a long time, one of the most successful theories we have had. General relativity was not a notion formed out of an atheistic motivation like colliding branes.But we now know General Relativity is not as descriptive or predictive as we once thought and needs to be modified. GR predicted an expanding universe. Einstein was uncomfortable with that and so he inserted his "cosmological constant" notated with a lambda (sorry I do not know to type Greek characters here). The cosmological constant was designed to keep the universe from expanding. When Hubble learned the universe really was expanding, Einstein said the lambda was the biggest mistake of his career. Now we know the expansion of the universe is accelerating due to dark energy. GR did not predict dark energy or an acceleration of the expansion. Instead of the lambda, we need a symbol to represent dark energy. Instead of preventing the universe from expanding, it needs to accelerate the expansion.A new and more precise theory of gravitation and cosmology may arise to replace GR. We don't know when this will happen or who will work out the issues involved, but we do know it is needed.

You claim to have never heard the criticism that colliding branes was born of purely atheistic motives. Forgive me for being skeptical. Did you happen to read the Stanford website I linked. It quoted a number of physicists talking about the theological motivations for several theories thought to do away with God. You asked for names. The names are right there for you to read. I don't mean to say everyone who has ever worked in the area is an atheist. But it is the kind of thing only an atheist would conceive of initially.I have not see any evidence contradicting the central thesis of the OP. Unsupported assertions are of no use to me. I asked for a paper which would account for dark energy and show the data and methods used to calculate zero net energy. You have not provided such a paper or even attempted to explain how the calculations could be made and include dark energy. If you want to convince me, stop beating your chest and provide some evidence.

I will try again. Einstein was slow to accept the ramifications of his own theory of general relativity. His theory indicated the universe was expanding. Einstein did not think this was so. He held to the static universe theory - that the universe had always existed and always would exist. Therefore, Einstein had to insert the idea of a "cosmological constant" - an unknown force which would keep the universe from expanding. To represent this idea in his equations, Einstein used a letter from the Greek alphabet, a lambda.I'm sorry if I wrote a little too informally there and confused you.Does this clear it up for you?

According to WMAP: See WMAP- Cosmological Constant or Dark Energy