I don't believe this debate about "negative energy" (whatever that is?) is in any way related to the difference between SR and GR, but rather what you are *choosing* to do with GR in a very subjective way, much like the inflation/DE additions.
Well, you're wrong. Which, again, isn't in the least bit surprising. You don't even seem to realize that gravity is the ENTIRE difference between SR and GR.
"Decreased" does not mean "negative", it simply means "decreased" as in not yet zero, but less than what it was.
But it
must mean negative, because there is no lower limit (in contrast, there is an upper limit). This is freshman physics, and you're failing even after your mistakes are pointed out to you. Unless you want to define gravitational potential as always being infinitely positive (which, really, is unworkable), then it MUST be able to go negative. So if it can sometimes be negative (and again, this MUST be a possibility), what's wrong with having it always negative? The only problem is it offends your sensibilities. You have no other objection. Certainly you cannot point to any physical consequence of gravitational potential being negative which is contradicted by any experiment.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Try it: do the volume integral for the field squared for two infinitely separated identical massive spheres (high gravitational potential), and then for those same two spheres overlapping each other (low gravitational potential). What happens to that integral? It's larger in the second case, exactly like I said, and completely independent of where we want our zero defined - hell, we didn't define our zero at all in this case. So you are quite simply wrong. Don't believe me?
Do the math. If you can. But I doubt you can.
It is still the same *physical* universe, and it there is energy in this universe regardless of what math formula you wish to use.
And what, exactly, do you think energy
is? It's not some substance, you know. We cannot measure energy directly. All we have is the math formulas. That's the entire point, actually: the math formulas tell us something important, namely that there's this mathematically defined quantity which doesn't change. There's absolutely no requirement that its total be nonzero.
You're using Lambda-CDM theory
This is getting really annoying: once again, I'm not using Lambda-CDM theory
at all. So stop this pathetic attempt at a diversion.
The universe has energy or you and I would not be here today discussing it.
That's an unsupported claim.
Your assignment of anything being 'negative energy' would be utterly arbitrary.
Not at all. In simple terms, it comes from the fact that gravity is unique in having like charges attract.
What is "negative energy" in physical terms?
This too I already told you: it's simply the fact that the volume integral of the field squared increases as our potential decreases. This is
only true for gravity. For all other forces, it's the other way around. There's nothing arbitrary about that.
They don't apply here in this case or in the real *physical* universe.
Nonsense. You have yet to formulate ANY real objection to negative potentials. You keep saying that it's unphysical, but you can't actually say why. It offends your sensibilities, but then, your sensibilities about the physical world are absurd to begin with, as evidenced by your iron shell model of the sun, and your ridiculous comparison of that model to water bubbles in freefall.
