2 betas 1 real

[dleviwing]

Nobody;
It should be understood that the use of negative and positive in terms of energy and mass is nothing more than a scalar reference. If you have a true zero reference then all your scalars are positive. Our environment does not allow for such a reference though some attempt to provide a calculated one. It all boils down to mathematical FM.

[N0B0DY]

It is not a true zero reference though, Dave, just like there is no observable true vacuum. So the inference is based on planck to zero, and planck to macroscopic observations.

It could be calculated if the planck horizon is the transitional point of positive and negative masses. It is synonymous to a backward trace of observable time and energy, not a going below absolute zero.

[dleviwing]

You are arguing a mute point Nobody. It is possible to manipulate the state of a hydrogen atom to a negative degree Kelvin but this is still a scalar sliding. You’re wasting your time and mine. You are wrong no matter how far into the uncertainty you go. Beyond the Planck horizon is an undetermined quantity; once it is determined it cannot be less than the absolute zero. Do you understand this or not?

[N0B0DY]

The only absolute I would reference, Dave, would be the absolute-zero density of the universe where the total negative gravity plus positive mass equals zero - as Alan Guth has suggested.

I am not complicating things, but simply equating positive mass with negative energy, and negative mass with positive energy. In other words, the negative rest mass of a photon is equivalent to its energy; the high-energy collisions convert the positive energy/negative mass into negative gravitational energy/positive mass.

So there is no mention of absolute zero, unless you're referring to the absolute point of annihilation/creation where there is no motion. That point always remains at zero kelvin, similar to the exterior void you propose and the absolute center of the universe.

[dleviwing]

You're just being foolish Nobody! If you don't want to take the time and effort to learn then this discussion is going nowhere. Do you really think I don't know what I'm talking about???

BTW: zero kelvin only refers to atomic matter and not a true absolute zero motion.

[N0B0DY]

I know you know what you're talking about, but I don't think you know what I'm talking about. I paid attention to your uniform motion, but I equate that motion to absolute non-motion. I also equate that non-motion to matter, which is different than mass/energy and therefore it would have nothing to do with the conversion of negative mass (which is positive energy or radiation pressure) into positive mass (which is negative energy or gravity).

To a mainstream scientist it is foolish, I agree, but perhaps not to one aiming at keeping universal symmetry.

So there's no need to flash our doctorates, Dave. This isn't rocket science. I'm merely expressing my picture of the puzzle.

To picture it another way, consider a cumulative Casimir Effect as the cause of the gravitational effect and quantum chemistry based on the Huygens Principle.