Mark Peaty wrote: > No. I don't know of any cosmogony that postulates a massive > central point. They generally assume zero mass-energy. > > Well, OK, put that into plain-English. I think that in doing so > you have to explain why the e=m.c^2 mass-energy 'equivalence' is > not a problem. You can 'assume zero mass-energy' to start with, > but straight after that you did have mass and energy to spare.

No you don't. In these calculations material mass-energy is cancelled by the negative potential energy of gravity. However, it is not clear that there is any meaning to "the total energy" of the universe. Even though the energy is zero in local comoving coordintes and is zero when summed up assuming asympotically flat spacetime, there is no invariant way to sum up total energy for the universe we appear to have, c.f. gr-qc/0607103, gr-qc/0701058 Brent Meeker --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---