I'm not in any way familiar with cosmology or physics (beyond the basics) so maybe I can explain to you why m can be disregarded.
If the total net energy in the universe is zero then, the positive energy content = the negative energy content so the equation can be written as,
mc2 = m Mu G / R u
Simplifying, we can cross out the m on either side of the equation. To illustrate, 2ab=4b, therefore simplifying gives 2a=4, a=2, Basic algebra tells you that whatever you do to one side of the equation you must do to the other. As jar would say, it really is that simple.
That's the point that is being made. Please bear in mind I'm not arguing one way or the other for a net energy of zero, I'm just explaining why basic algebra allows little m to be removed from both sides.
It is NOT a circular argument, try to keep up with stuff I learned as an 11 year old.
Positive energy = E=mc2
Negative energy = m M u G / R u
IF positive energy = negative energy
THEN mc2 = m M u G / R u
Now you substitute values for the terms in the equation and see if really do equal each other!
Trixie uses the word "if." The word "if" is required. She is assuming the two equations are equal. i deny this
The word "if" means I am assuming nothing!!!! That's what "if" means! IF the two equations are equal then when you plug in values for the terms you will get the same answer for each equation. IF they are not equal you'll get different answers!
The auther of the website in question doesn't say that E=c2. He is dividing both sides of the equation by a common term, namely m.
If you leave the minus sign in front, then the sum of the two sides of the equation will equal zero IF the equations are equal. If you remove the minus sign, then subtracting one value from the other will equal zero if the equations are equal.
Can we at least agree that the following is true?
IF 2ab=4b THEN a=2
4+(-4) = 4-4
If you're struggling with algebra as basic as this and think that this basic algebra is circular reasoning why on earth do you think you are able to determine if theoretical physicists are wrong?
Anytime I am not persuaded because I don't understand something, I think the honest thing to do is to state what I don't understand. Perhaps someone can explain it to me and increase my understanding. I also provided evidence to show why the portion I did understand indicates the author is wrong.
Note the part that I bolded. Has it occurred to you that if you only understood a part of what the author is saying, then you don't actually understand what he is saying in toto? If you don't know what he is saying, i.e., what case he is making , you have no way that you can objectively determine whether he is right or wrong.
But I did present an argument about why Berman was wrong and why the author of the website was wrong.
Your argument about why the author of the website was wrong was based on not having a clue about very basic algebra. Your argument was proved to be wrong and, for once, the word "proved" can be used because we're talking mathematical (or algebraic) proof.
I only butted into this topic to see if I could help you understand why removing m from both sides of the equation was valid. Given my lack of knowledge in cosmology I'm not equipped to debate the actual topic per se. Given that lack of knowledge, I have no way to tell if cosmologists are right or wrong, other than them making a case which I can understand in it's entirety.
Do you now understand that didn't use circular reasoning and that it's valid to remove m from both sides of the equation? If you do, that's my mission completed successfully.
I see Vimsey's parable as showing what happens when someone who knows nothing about a subject, but thinks they do, is confronted by someone who does know about the subject. The man in the parable knows so little that he doesn't actually understand what the mechanic is telling him, (even though it's exactly what the man thinks himself), but is determined that it is wrong.
It's been brought up before in this thread. If you don't understand what someone is telling you, there is no way you can know whether they are right or wrong.