Mister Agenda, thanks for the comments (in italics)! Some responses below (non-italicized)...
Matter and energy only transforming and never being created or destroyed is a principle that applies within the cosmos and does not necessarily apply to the cosmos. An H2O molecule is not 'wet' but enough of them together at the right temperature are, the whole of a puddle of water has properties that the molecules it is composed of do not.
OK, so matter and energy can be created and/or destroyed to the cosmos themselves but not within the cosmos. On a macro level (outside of cosmos or to cosmos themselves) creation/destruction occur, but on a micro level (within the cosmos) it does not and cannot. Am I understanding that correctly?
You've also asked about the origin of positive energy. It appears that there's considerable leeway for localized 'non-zero-ness' as long as the total is zero. As Alex K pointed out, it looks like the net energy of the cosmos may be zero...if it's not, it's very close to it. 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0. If the laws of the cosmos have a main requirement of the total sum of energy not being more or less than zero, it appears to be within budget.
If the net of an equation is zero, for example, 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0, there are still positive entities within said equation (6, 3, 2, 6 in this example). I’m trying to figure out what the origin of those positive entities (in this case, energy)? Or for an illustration, if I have a beer in my hand (+1) and then consume it (-1) that beer still existed at some point (nevermind that the properties of the beer still exist in my stomach, just humor me here). What is the origin of that beer? Apologies if that example is clear as mud… or a Guinness.
And a pro-tip: Someone not knowing the answer to a question does not affect the probability that another answer is correct in the slightest. All explanations must stand or fall on their own. Using someone else's lack of answers to prop up another answer is the logical fallacy known as an Argument from Ignorance. If no one has an explanation that stands up to careful scrutiny, the only honest answer is 'We don't know.'
Yes, of course.
Matter and energy only transforming and never being created or destroyed is a principle that applies within the cosmos and does not necessarily apply to the cosmos. An H2O molecule is not 'wet' but enough of them together at the right temperature are, the whole of a puddle of water has properties that the molecules it is composed of do not.
OK, so matter and energy can be created and/or destroyed to the cosmos themselves but not within the cosmos. On a macro level (outside of cosmos or to cosmos themselves) creation/destruction occur, but on a micro level (within the cosmos) it does not and cannot. Am I understanding that correctly?
You've also asked about the origin of positive energy. It appears that there's considerable leeway for localized 'non-zero-ness' as long as the total is zero. As Alex K pointed out, it looks like the net energy of the cosmos may be zero...if it's not, it's very close to it. 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0. If the laws of the cosmos have a main requirement of the total sum of energy not being more or less than zero, it appears to be within budget.
If the net of an equation is zero, for example, 0=6+3-12+2-5+6=0, there are still positive entities within said equation (6, 3, 2, 6 in this example). I’m trying to figure out what the origin of those positive entities (in this case, energy)? Or for an illustration, if I have a beer in my hand (+1) and then consume it (-1) that beer still existed at some point (nevermind that the properties of the beer still exist in my stomach, just humor me here). What is the origin of that beer? Apologies if that example is clear as mud… or a Guinness.
And a pro-tip: Someone not knowing the answer to a question does not affect the probability that another answer is correct in the slightest. All explanations must stand or fall on their own. Using someone else's lack of answers to prop up another answer is the logical fallacy known as an Argument from Ignorance. If no one has an explanation that stands up to careful scrutiny, the only honest answer is 'We don't know.'
Yes, of course.
