Summations Only

You are talking pure gibberish again. Renormalisation (a process typically used in quantum field theory) has nothing to do with the calculations that Feynman was performing (purely classical, i.e. non-quantum). If you are going to use big words from physics, please ensure you know what they mean and how they are used.Talking of gibberish... By whom? No, they are mathematical entities used in calculations. Do you also object to vector components as they are also not based upon "observational comsology"? Who are these "many people"?What do you mean by them "rejecting" pseudotensors?What do you mean by pseudotensors not "applying" to General Relativity, given that it is precisley in the field of General Relativity where pseudotensors are used Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

1) That wasn't John's site, it was Bradford's.2) Bradford's mass of Universe figure is way out. Once corrected, you will see he will get equivalent negative mass ~ positive mass, as already shown by Feynman, Modulus, and just about everyone else.This is getting really tedious now.

What the hell are you gibbering about now? Feynman worked on many things in his life. At the moment, we are talking about a classical back-of the-envelope calculation he performed that has nothing to do with quantum theory. So who are these "some people"? I note that no reference is given so you simply have a single unattributed comment from Wikipedia, which goes on in the same sentence to point out why these "some people" are wrong!! And from this, you have the gall to state:

Here's the relevant part:If now we compare this number (total gravitational energy M²G/R) to the total rest energy of the universe, Mc², lo and behold, we get the amazing result that GM²/R = Mc², so that the total energy of the universe is zero. It is exciting to think that it costs nothing to create a new particle, since we can create it at the center of the universe where it will have a negative gravitational energy equal to Mc². Why this should be so is one of the great mysteriesand therefore one of the important questions of physics. After all, what would be the use of studying physics if the mysteries were not the most important things to investigate. Clearly Every calculation and paper presented you have desperately dismissed despite your blatent incomprehension. You really are clutching at any available straw to be able to claim that you are right and Feynman, Hawking, Guth, Krauss, etc are wrong. You are hilarious. I really couldn't give a shit about anything you find.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Really? Throughout this thread we have seen examples of designtheorist making dogmatic statements of "fact", only to be shown each time that he is incorrect; making accusations of errors, each time only revealing ignorance of the subject.There is no disgrace for ignorance in this subject area - it is complex and immensely counterintuitive - and questions and requests for explanations will be treated with respect and courtesy by many here. But the hubris being shown by designtheorist is off the scale. Why on earth would anyone want to discuss physics with someone showing such characteristics? Sides? I'm sorry, I don't see any sides. Unless a blind man declaring that the sky is orange is a "side".

Ah, ok - sorry, yes I thought you were talking about the net zero calculation. The infinity answer to the cubic meter of empty space is simple quantum mechanics, and gives you one of the five answers that Baez presented. It is completely meaningless for this current topic. Baez's point about the zero-point energy best being considered as undetermined by quantum theory is the right way forward on that particular issue. Feynman was pointing out what a naive application of quantum mechaincs would produce. But how do you measure the effective negative gravitional energy of the Universe from observation? You cannot. It requres taking observationally determined parameters and feeding them into the theory - General Relativity in this case. Without the theory, you would still think you were living in a Newtonian universe. No, it is not. That is a recreation of the Feynman net-zero calculation, but has the mass of the Universe off by three decimal places. Once corrected, this makes the positive and negative energy contributions equal up to order of magnitude. As Feynman demonstrated.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Wrong, that approach works with a cosmological constant, , whatever its value. So it works with no dark enegy - - and it works with dark energy - .