Cancellation or generation of positive energy by negative energy and vice versa is so often brought up by very serious physicists (e.g. A. Guth, A.V. Fillipenko) as the argumentation for the possibility of the generation of our universe out of “nothing”, that I hardly dare to question this. As an example or metaphor for it is most often used the so called cancellation of (so called positive) kinetic energy by the (so called negative) gravitational energy. But, to me, energy will never be cancelled it will always be exchanged. Let me pose here some (as I hope) clarifying questions: 1) If one “drops”/puts a massive sphere just in the middle of a pipe which goes straight through the earth from the north-pole to the south-pole, then this sphere will stay at rest and will never get kinetic or gravitational energy. 2) A harmonic oscillator in static equilibrium will never oscillate as long as no energy is supplied to it. 3) An electric L-C network not loaded with electric and or magnetic charge will never swing as long as no energy is induced. Without the existence of energy (e.g. vacuum energy or ZP energy), I don’t see a reason for generation of anything equivalent to energy. (Intuitively I can’t accept the ”free lunch”). To me “nothing”= nonsense. Can anyone explain me the contrary? Where can I find a “proof” (SR, GR, QM, in particle physics experiments, in cosmological observations) or even a clear indication for “nothing”= no nonsense? My simple reasoning (too simple?) helps me more than high sophisticated mathematical reasoning in string theory or in LQC (Loop Quantum Cosmology) which theories, I suppose, are only understood by maximum a few thousands, who even don’t always agree among themselves. This thread can also be seen as my further contribution to the threads: “Singularity or Planck density?” “Is a zero universe a consequence from FRLW equations?” “What existed before the big bang?” “Eternal universe” “Multiverse” “Inflation” I must say that PF is a very valuable source for finding all kinds of ingredients in the many threads so nicely sustained by advisers like Chronos, Garth, Marcus, Space Tiger and many others that maybe this thread is superfluous, but I felt a need to concentrate on just this question. Further remarks: 1) The use of the terms positive and negative, well used in other cases and disciplines, seems to me misused where it concerns energy. 2) Never understood that Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle was meant to generate energy. 3) E=mc^2 does not imply that E only means kinetic energy, does it?