Take that easy…nothing in life is hard to explain if you have the passion for science and willing to learn.
To me its like an everlasting balance, you get positives and negatives [or minuses] so the zero sum is the neutral. I would be more disturbed if the scales didn’t balance perfectly! I see no problem with the idea that more and less matter, multiplies with more and less energy in varying amounts ~ but always balanced [resulting in zero].
This works neatly into the idea that under certain conditions the whole thing can go pop and cease to exist I.e. become zero with no fluctuations rather than zero with fluctuations. …just as it can go bang! [and you then have the fluctuations again].
If you didn’t have a point where there is nothing, then in my mind you get all manner of problems with infinite universes etc [which I don’t want to go into here but did make a thread about some time ago], it’s the perfect way to halt causality then start it up again.
It’s a paradox, you have beginnings and endings but also eternity [because it continues forever], and hence no beginnings nor endings [both instances apply].
Hmm that seams to leave a gap, as if something is pulling the strings and there must be more. I can only presume that there is an infinite expression that it all ties into.
OooOooOooooh?
We havn’t solved anything about the concept of gravity, not even what keeps a galaxy together, and all known theories of gravity only accounts for 1/10th of what keeps a galaxy together.
Sorry I can’t find anything admissable in this elaborate scribble.
I know intuition counts for nothing in science, but maybe the gravity was there in the early universe and everything was formed then. Galaxies could simply be floating around in space upon the momentum gained from that early drive, indeed if they had gravity it would be unlikely galaxies would crash into each other, but instead would orbit one another.
Just a thought.
You miss the point, when speaking of “keeping a galaxy together” it means that the spin causes centifugal powers, which with our current understanding would make a galaxy disperse, therefore astronomers are obsessed with this “dark matter”.
Oh I see, well that’s out of my depth. Perhaps the 1/10th gravity is enough to hold what may be very weak centrifugal forces, and dark matter adds to that as a kind of soup providing an aggregate against its expansion [stopping the spin off]. I thought galaxies are expanding anyways.
I think at this point in science, dark matter is more than just an obsession.
Because only something = something.
It’s the gravitational potential energy that is negative. Example: If you lift a weight against Earth’s gravity, you give it potential energy (which would be released if it fell). That energy comes from you (the lifter), so it can be said that after the lifting, you possess relative negative gravitational potential energy (related to the thing you lifted).
The Universe (via the Big Bang) did the ‘lifting’ that is the expansion, so the matter in it possesses gravitational potential energy, which is negative with respect to the space around (‘beneath’) it. That is claimed to be enough to balance the energy implicit in all the baryons and leptons - including the antimatter annihilated early on, which was converted into EM radiation; the ‘cosmic afterglow’.
Negative energy example: Think of the increasing tension in a balloon skin created by blowing it up and thereby separating painted dots on it’s surface. This is negative energy with respect to the balloon and its dots, which when released (let the balloon deflate) will shrink the distance between the dots; restoring energy equilibrium.
I have no idea whether the Universe energy balance is true - I suspect it comes from a desire for an elegant solution, and dark energy and dark matter are not properly incorporated into the theory AFAIK. Also, we have no idea of the true size of the Universe - we can only see the ‘Observable Universe’ which could be unrepresentative, and/or a tiny fraction of the whole kaboodle.