Re: a musing
John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> The Big Bang must have been one whale of a violation of Conservation
> of Energy.
Not neccessarily. Gravitational energy is negative (because it takes
energy to separate masses). If you add up all the negative
gravitational energy, it can balance the positive mass-energy of the
matter.
Or, maybe there was another universe made out of some exotic matter
with negative energy...
Or, maybe the universe is like a virtual particle.
--
John Devereux
.
Relevant Pages
- Re: space, time, mass, energy
... "Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon its Energy ... Not only mass, ... Thus there was no need to consider a gravitational energy. ... > mass of the universe using the equations given above. ...
(sci.physics.relativity) - Re: Cold Fusion warms up?
... John Larkin wrote: ... the required energy levels aren't ... > fusion-based neutron sources for industrial and scientific uses. ... several orders of magnitude simpler and cheaper than the hot fusion guys ...
(sci.electronics.design) - Re: overcharging a ceramic cap
... John Larkin writes: ... >>and the 10 uF will certainly store enough energy to see to the eventual ... >>total destruction of the capacitor. ... > I'd be surprised if a ceramic cap could store enough energy to ...
(sci.electronics.design) - Re: Nanotube Supercapacitors
... In article, John Larkin wrote: ... > breakthrough in energy production or a cure for cancer. ... > in energy density or cost, ... to fabricate electrodes for supercapacitors of high power density." ...
(sci.nanotech) - Re: Theoretical limit for loud music??
... >John Larkin says... ... >velocity and the mass of the medium. ... >the positive limit is a matter of pouring more and more energy ... I wonder what's the SPL close to one of those exploding ...
(sci.electronics.design) |
|
