Universe zero net energy Videos

Matter is never created or destroyed. It only changes form. We obviously werent nothing lol science my friend science. Haha

+Fadumo Jama Well, I believe that I was nothing and I know I was nothing before I was born. Where were you in the year 1500?

+Zane Cornelius how would you KNOW that we were nothing for BILLIONS OF years?? and i don't believe that a accidental explosion in the universe made us.

Well I know I was nothing for billions of years before I was sperm and in my mother's womb. Sorry to get technical, but yeah, lol.

You hope you are right that would be awesome to see.

You can believe in the spiritual or supernatural realm but until that is demonstrated to exist it doesn't exist. We don't go by faith we go by theories such as germ theory atomic theory etc

+David HellerI believe god is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Since it is everyone's creator and the source of all universes. But not a conscious creature. But since it is believed by many scientists that it is likely that there are infinite universes. I find it also almost a certainty that being would evolve and develop technology to the point to where they would hit what is called the technological singularity and basically be like gods or what some would consider deities. They would not be THE god but a mode of it from the source.

Nobody can prove their God or gods exist science has proven that god is finally unnecessary for the universe to exist so yeah.

+David Heller Whatever the creator of everything is, is god whether a conscious being or not. In Pantheism nature is god, although not a conscious creature. Pantheism has three substantial terms Substance, attributes and modes. Our universe and your body are temporary modes of god. The source of this substance is Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. But there could very well be beings that are deified or considered deities within our own universe that are sufficiently advanced from evolution and technology making Atheism wrong. The very fact that this is a very real mathematical possibility makes atheism a poor stance for anyone that is serious about science.

There is no religion in atheist believe there is non God's lol.

+David HellerWe did it we proved the Atheist and all the earth based gods wrong!!!As a pantheist this actually proves god for me. Atheism is a faith based religion in the negavitve averment. This proves Einsteins sum total as god. Look up Spinoza's Ontological Argument for the Existence of God, Part 1 of 2 on youtube.What happens in Atheism if a being reaches the technological singularity and makes themselves Immortal and almost of unlimited power and then they simulate whole other universes in quantum computers?

@Dhorpatan I said could be -not is. I'm not answering the question of whether or not it is, just that considerations from energy conservation do not disallow it. As for stating the "universe" I did make a rhetorical blunder. I noticed this same blunder at the end though as I was making it, and corrected myself with "physical universe." The issue of "univ. vs. phys. univ." is really about semantics though as the physical part of reality is the only part containing physical units like energy.

Oh, How groovey! I want to quote some ancient BS too! "Thou shalt exist for millions of millions of years, a period of millions of years.I am Shu the god of unformed matter. My soul is God, my soul is eternity. Soul to heaven, body to earth. Thy essence is in heaven, thy body to earth. Heaven hath thy soul, earth hath thy body." Oh, that feels so special, let me do some more: "The wicked stepmother kept Hansel and Gretel under lock and key all day with nothing for supper but a sip of water."

This seems to me like just a paradox, not a definitive proof. o.O Granted, my background is in philosophy, not in physics, so I'm a dummy when it comes to these things. Could we not just say that energy is only a relatively meaningful concept and leave it at that? I get the impression that we may be committing the fallacy of division by claiming that, just because there is no energy "of" the space-time fabric itself that there is no energy "in" the universe. I hope that makes sense.

@Dhorpatan I'm a physicist Dhorpatan, as you I once saw you say to someone else: "Dr. Hawking is a Theoretical Physicist, and these people are often VERY sloppy... ...with their language." I was just being sloppy with my language. I was meaning in the physical sense in terms of mass/energy etc. that the universe is made of "nothing." Is it really on an ontological level though? No I didn't mean it to come off like that. I would agree it's made of some kind of ontological stuff.

Better brush up on your geometry. The cartesian coordinate system is the be-all of geometry. For example: a curve that is expressed as 0 -2 -2 0 0 +2 +2 0 0 -2 is a 2 inch circle. And if you total that circle up you will find that correct geometry always equals zero. Why not energy? Same with time. If time has no beginning and has no end it must be instantaneous; meaning it equals zero. The ONLY way you can experience time or energy or geometry is through movement - Relativity.

@TheScienceFoundation Oh I see. Causality is a physical law, so there is no sense in talking about causes outside of physics? That makes sense. I often thought that propounders of the Kalam should be careful about how they talk about causality. What about sufficient reason though? Lastly I'm going to throw you a curveball (one that gets some classical theists rattled as well), what would you say to the prospects of a naturalistic deity? Universal Orch-OR: watch?v=Kj8UdHuP5l8

@JohananRaatz @Dhorpatan "Instead of admitting that the Universe is eternal, " I didn't say that the universe isn't eternal. I said that the PHYSICAL universe isn't eternal. ;) The Universe -as in reality- is eternal, but the universe =/= the physical universe. Remember I'm a panentheist so in a sense you could think of my view as "pantheism-plus." In which case I don't have a reconciling problem as other kinds of theists might.

and while 0 is the biggest number possible, the numbers 1;2;3 ... are separate eternities, you can count them abstractly but they are only a part of one universal volume.it would be funny if there was an infinite number of those universal and all-uniting volumes that are their own loop as well. Looks like we don't exist, we are only a possibility, just like the electrons!

I don't really get the negative energy thing. I read that some say gravity is negative energy. But I don't quite understand how gravity cancels out the energy of something. Such as, 1 g of water has 8.99 x 10^13 joules of energy. How exactly is this energy cancelled out? That's what I don't understand. Where and how can I measure -8.99 x 10^10 joules of energy?

@JohananRaatz The argument wasn't specifically for conservation, it was regarding the fact that the only two possibilities, physics either applying or not, invalidates cosmological arguments. If it can be applied to the period before expansion began then the sum of energy has remained constant. if it can't, then trying to apply causality is taxi cabbing.

Continued @JohananRaatz Also, you made the mistake of claiming the Universe is made of nothing, which is appalling thinking and also a huge philosophical and Ontological error. Just because the Universe is energetically balanced, does not mean it's made of nothing. It just means it's balanced, and therefore, doesn't violate conservation law.

@JohananRaatz You committed a critical philosophical blunder at 2:05. Instead of admitting that the Universe is eternal, you decided to commit a bare assertion fallacy and claim unargued that the Universe could be created out of, or come from nothing. Which is a collosal philosophical blunder, because from nothing, nothing comes. Continued

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

Think of it like a "hole" in space-time. Yes it sounds weird, but modern physics is full of weird stuff like this, space-bending, time slowing down, particles being in two places at once, and the universe being a giant hologram. In fact they've actually experimentally confirmed the existence of negative energy between Casimir plates.

@LaserBlowFish Model Dependent Realism? Looks like you are spouting Professor Hawking's nonsense from the Grand Design. That book was horrendous Philosophically and Ontologically from what I've studied of it, and Professor Hawking did considerable damage, intellectually, in my view, with the things that were written in it.

Nice, this is something I've questioned since I heard that the universe had an energy of 0. So energy can come into existence but an equal amount of negative energy would also need to come into existance right? But than that would mean nothing changed. So whats the difference? I dont know!

An elastic creates the potential field itself when stretched. Heat or temperature is another expression of the inner kinetic energy. Neither of both energies is equal to zero, just think about this comparisons. Or simply tell me, where this negative energy is. Sry for my english.

as a child back in the early1980s I read an article in a science magazine that said matter could just be "structured nothingness". Man I thought back then it was a load of bullcrap "STRUCTURED NOTHINGNESS"?? WTF? Could that article have been right?? even 30 years ago?

You go off track when you equate the energy of the universe with the entirety of the universe. Energy in and of itself is not the universe so saying the net content of energy is zero because the universe is stationary in reference to the universe is a bait and switch.

Chuck Missler who's a Genius scientist & Pastor actually brings that up about the Hologram possibility I'm watching your recommendation now, ty, fun so far... here you might enjoy this; watch?v=CvDqrSTCcmA&list=FL6XVufx2eT20ubf6_m82VzQ&feature=mh_lolz

how the hell can there be "negative" energy? thats like having negative DISTANCE, negative numbers are not used in geometry and the same applies to energy, how the hell can you have less than zero energy? hogwash the universe is full of energy.

@JohananRaatz It's not good to divorce the description that laymen can understand from the discoveries and development that lead to them. And I don't think you mentioned gravity, which is sort of completely key to this 'narrative of physics'.

@JohananRaatz I'm not sure. Generally when media hyped physicists mention the net energy of the universe, and that given our models the universe could have formed from nothing they also mention how key gravity would be to all of this.

@UncannyRicardo Internal structure. Reality is just nesting isomorphic russian dolls all the way down -and all the way up. It's the structure internal to these isomorphisms that we see as meaningfully complex.

A little inaccurate. The negative energy is actually gravity. This is because gravity counteracts other kinds of energy. If you lift something, you are restricted by gravity. Just to clear up.

@JohananRaatz RIGHT!............... ok, I kinda dont get it. Like I said im not the most knowledgable in math, but as my studies continue i'll learn more. Anyway great video.

@TheScienceFoundation This is true, but it's not relevant to the argument you were making regarding energy conservation.

@dookiecheez All physicists -especially those involved in cosmology- do this -not just the weird ones.

@skycocaster It's stored in the vacuum -possibly some of what we call "dark energy."

it is a body that is built to withstand the fire and the torment the harnest of the all energy light wisdom all that is nature. I will tear hurt laugh and spin but it will assure that those evil ones will feel the light energy as darkness is transformed to light to destroy darkness.

This energy will die with the flesh of those who gathered to bring it to my heart it will die here and there.