Creation Ex Nihilo

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Hint: Mac has merged the concept of forms with the concept of properties of forms. Forms cannot be infinite, but their properties certainly can be, as in the examples of slope and countability. In Mac's reasoning, which he applies to objects and not just their properties, if +5 apples are combined with -5 oranges, the result is zero. But that is absurd on its face. The net count (a property) goes to zero, but ten physical entities (forms) remain in existence, whether they are positive or negative. -|Tom|-</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Actually I don't believe I am guilty of adding apples and oranges.[]

In the case being considered both are "Energy" but opposite forms of Energy and it seems to me it is valid to combine them just as Prof Tryon also did to result in net zero energy.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Tom,
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
Tryon's theory states that when matter accelerates due to gravity the "negative" gravitational potential energy lost is converted to an equal amount of "positive" rest energy. Let y be the initial gravitational potential energy of an object and x be its initial rest energy, where x + y = 0 (as you insist).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This setup is okay even though it uses a non-standard term: "rest energy". Perhaps Tryon explains why he chooses to call it that? In standard physics, we call this "kinetic energy". Then potential energy and kinetic energy are being continually exchanged back-and-forth by the force of gravity, with total energy remaining constant.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
There is another term used, "mass energy", but the two seem to be the same. It refers the the mass energy equivalent from E = mc^2.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">After undergoing gravitational acceleration over a certain distance d the gravitational potential energy is y', where y' = .5y. After the distance d, let x' be the rest energy, where x' &gt; x.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Your first sentence here does not specify whether the object is rising or falling in the gravitational field. But your second sentence requires that it be falling. This makes the first criterion impossible because y' must be more negative than y as the object falls. For example, you might have specified y' = 1.5y.

But in that case, everything works out correctly in the end.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
<font color="red"><b>Tom gets the prize!</b></font id="red">

Of course all that Tryon has done is (possibly) verify the 1st Law. The "zero energy" is the amount of excess energy, not the total energy as he claims. It is akin to a company Balance Sheet. The Assets and Liabilities always balance, but it is only when they are both zero can the company reasonably be said to not exist. It is not a proof of creation ex nihilo, it mearly says that if creation ex nihilo happens then there must be a balance - if matter is created, the corresponding gravitational energy must be created also. Also, it should be noted that the quantum vacuum from which Tryon theorizes matter/energy may be created, is not at all the same as "nothing". It has properties and rules. So he really hasn't proved what he claims, and in that sense has he shown his theory to be nothing.


JR

Tom,

Just an aside, but do you know if the GR equations will work properly if gravitational potential is a negative value? Can the GR equations even be reformulated to work this way?


JR

jrich/Tom

thanks for jumping in here because i have no idea who prof tryon is or his thoughts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />ANS: Actually I don't believe I am guilty of adding apples and oranges.[]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">If mass and energy are apples, and time and gravity are oranges, then you are quilty as charged. Since these things you wish to combine to get zero do not even have the same physical units, they cannot cancel one another in any meaningful way.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the case being considered both are "Energy" but opposite forms of Energy and it seems to me it is valid to combine them just as Prof Tryon also did to result in net zero energy.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As I said, you are failing to distinguish objects and properties of objects. Energy is a property. It has an arbitrary zero point. I can declare a speeding bullet to be the zero standard for energy and develop a sensible physics around that because the bullet's energy is zero in its own inertial frame. There is no such thing as "absolute energy" because energy is a property, a concept. Concepts exist, but are not physical entities.

By contrast, if you have P physical entities having positive properties and wish to combine them with N physical entities having negative properties, you will have P+N physical entities no matter what value you get for their net properties.

Some of us see it as a principle of physics (i.e., a matter of logic, not experiment or observation) that something cannot become nothing and vice versa. You have stated clearly that you do not agree; and if you leave it at that, I think others here will leave you in peace. But you keep trying to defend your belief as if it could be reached by logic, and that attempt is guaranteed to draw continued criticism unless you can find a way to defeat logic with better logic.

As things stand, your strongest case seems to be that mainstream astronomy also ignores principles of physics (logic), and allows creation ex nihilo, singularities, the finite becoming infinite, time reversal and other causality violations, energy conservation violation (the BB does not conserve energy as space expands), and instantaneous action at a distance. So you are in excellent company in having beliefs that violate such principles of physics. But that does not make any of these things logical or possible, and this MB is an especially bad place to argue otherwise because Meta Research exists to point out these illogical elements in mainstream science wherever they surface.

I do admire your fortitude in making the effort despite so many opponents. I am reminded of the scene in "Raiders of the Lost Arc" where Harrison Ford falls into a pit of hissing vipers. [] -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by jrich</i>
<br />Just an aside, but do you know if the GR equations will work properly if gravitational potential is a negative value? Can the GR equations even be reformulated to work this way?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Sure they can. In fact, astronomers consider it quaint and a bit counterproductive for relativists to use potential as a positive quantity. Astronomers use the convention that potential is -(GM/r). That way total energy is the sum of potential energy and kinetic energy -- which makes much more physical sense than the relativists' way. But all the equations are equally valid with either convention.

This merely serves to underscore how arbitrary the properties and concepts we attach to bodies can be. But nobody ever suggested a "negative physical body". If ordinary (positive matter content) physical bodies exist, and "zero physical bodies" (zero matter content) means non-existence, then a "negative physical body" would have to be in a state of less than non-existence. That leaves the arena of logic and enters the twilight zone. -|Tom|-