1. What charges are you talking about, there's no electrical or magnetic element to this discussion? The discussion is dealing with the relative magnitudes of positive energy from mass and negative potential energy. Zero total magnitude does in fact mean zero total energy.
2. Two non-rotating balls can end up spinning in equal and opposite directions.
The bold words you quoted might make more sense to you if you read the words in between them. It should be clear I'm talking about two balls that start out non-rotating, and end up rotating.
3. For example if they collide in such a way that they act on each other with a torque (the torque would be internal to the system of the two balls) they will impart rotation to each other. Each ball will then be rotating in opposite directions to each other. You are arguing that a vector sum can only be zero if all the components of that sum are zero. This is not true, a vector sum of equal and opposite non-zero vectors will be zero.
The angular momentum is a vector quantity and the vector sum of the angular momenta of the parts of an isolated system is constant. This puts a strong constraint on the types of rotational motions which can occur in an isolated system. If one part of the system is given an angular momentum in a given direction, then some other part or parts of the system must simultaneously be given exactly the same angular momentum in the opposite direction.
4. This is saying that if you have a system with 0 angular momentum, any part of the system that starts rotating, must also involve another part of the system starting to rotate in the opposite direction. The total angular momentum remains 0 despite distinct parts now having angular momentum. The conservation laws only require the net amount of the entity being conserved to remain constant, they do not prohibit equal and opposite values of that entity from occuring.
5. I underlined the part of your definition that shows that two opposite spinning objects can be counted as not spinning. The angular momentum of a system containing two opposite spinning objects is equal to the angular momentum of a system with no spinning objects.
6. If you want to make the claim in bold then you can't claim that matter being created from nothing violates the 1st law since by your claim there would be no 1st law to violate prior to the universe existing.
7. There's no limit on flat space existing forever so there's no need for it to originate from anything. Some versions of the big bang have spacetime being created at the big bang which would also mean that there was no time when the universe didn't exist. This is very similar to the claim that there's no time where god didn't exist and therefore god does not require a cause. Other versions have space time existing eternally. Neither case involves violating the 1st law.
8. I explicitly stated there was a difference between nothing in the physical sense and nothing as a philosophical concept so I'm not equivocating.
9. The only way for "there was nothing before the big bang" to make sense is if you are assuming time existed prior to the big bang, at which point you are discussing physical nothing similar to a quantum vaccuum.
10. If philosophical nothing includes no time, then there would be no time when the universe did not exist and therefore no moment where mass/energy did not exist. Philosophical nothing means essentially that the universe always existed and that 'always' consists of about 12 billion years.
11. Energy creates gravity according to relativity. As far as gravity is concerned there's no difference between mass and energy. The point is that the gravitational potential energy caused by the rock is equal and opposite to the mass/energy of the rock.
But the implication that energy contributes to gravitational mass can be rather counterintuitive. Students are often willing to accept the idea that potential energy has weight—after all, potential energy is a rather mysterious quantity to begin with—but many balk at the application to kinetic energy. Can it really be true that a hot brick weighs more than a cold brick?
We can thus tell our students with confidence that kinetic energy has weight,not just as a theoretical expectation, but as an experimental fact.
1. Firstly you have failed to state how gravity can be considered to negate the chemical energy within mass, you have also failed to account for all the other forms of energy, (light, sound, kinetic etc).
Until you do so you have no basis for your claim. I won't go into the other irrationalities since there is no point until you have supported your claim.
Secondly you have failed to support your claim in that having equal positive and negative energy allows energy to be created without breaking the first law. Keep in mind that I am the one with reality on my side, you are the one attempting to defy natural laws hence you are the one with the burden of proof as to how the laws can be defied. Furthermore keep in mind that this also hinges on the assumption that the there are exactly equal amounts, (of which there is no empirical evidence).
2. And? How does this mean that you can create energy without creating energy? If anything it is a silly analogy since it explains nothing.
3. Even if the vector sum of the balls rotations equal zero the balls are STILL considered to be spinning which is my point. Even if the energy can theoretically negate itself there is STILL considered to be energy.
4. And how does momentum have anything to do with energy considering that there is no law stating that "momentum cannot be created nor destroyed only conserved", meaning that you are actually comparing apples to oranges, since they have different functions and laws based on their application in reality. Perhaps stick to energy and not attempt to muddy the subject with false analogies.
5. Even if the net momentum is zero the objects are still spinning which is our point.
6. Under that same logic there would be no law of gravity with which to do the things you are claiming. Hence either you have no premise (gravity) or you defy the 1st law. Take your pick, either way your claim fails.
7. Yes there is. Nothing is NOTHING, meaning no space. Therefore there is a limit. If you are positing space existing as nothing then that is clearly not nothing, in which then you would additionally need to demonstrate where did the space originate. Furthermore as I said the BB theory makes no claim or need for additional space outside of the singularity hence you are stating this ad hoc.
8. And can you demonstrate this difference, (with EVIDENCE). In my mind the physical nothing should be ABSOLUTE nothing and the philosophical nothing should be what you are stating since philosophy deals with metaphysics.
9. No I have never stated that, so don't put words in my mouth and then use them to support your own claims. As I said a quantum vacuum is not nothing since it contains space, time, energy (radio waves / random heat energy via entropy). That is not absolute nothing. Perhaps watch the video of John Lennox's lecture he is a Mathematician and a Philosopher so it perfectly suited to this issue.
10. And? We are asking from where did it come from?
11. You haven't done what I asked.
I asked HOW does gravity NEGATE mass energy, light energy, sound energy, heat energy etc. Ever since I have asked you this you've said nothing to demonstrate how gravity can negate energy. You've only demonstrated gravitational potential energy and how it is a different form of energy, that is it.
Furthermore are you now worried about a horse spontaneously popping into existence exactly like the "natural" phenomena. If it occurs naturally who is to say that it doesn't occur again? (in fact this is what we would expect if your claims were true...)
Additionally you do realise that if you claim that no energy exists in the universe at all, then you are claiming that nothing exists. Do you see how absurd such a claim is? As William Lane Craig has put it, (paraphrasing) 'at least I know I exist since if I were to doubt my own existence then who is there to do the doubting? I doubt therefore I am'.
Are you claiming that nothing exists? Since this is the logical follow through of your claims. Does this mean that people should go and commit suicide since they actually don't exist anyway? In fact why do we even have laws of thermodynamics since if energy doesn't exist then there would be no laws to describe energy since it doesn't exist, furthermore why are there laws about matter- ie- Boyles Gas law since if energy doesn't exist then matter also doesn't exist since matter is made up of energy.
A refutation to your claim can be thus.
Premise 1: Gravity is an effect cause by matter
Premise 2: Matter is essentially made of energy
Premise 3: Gravity can be observed to be in effect in the world
Premise 4: Therefore matter exists as the cause of this effect
Premise 5: Therefore energy exists within matter.
Another thing to ponder is what was the initial cause of the creation of the universe?... (oops the universe doesn't exist so I can't call it that, sorry).. If you claim no cause then you are breaking the law of cause and effect.