My "mad" theory is that all energy in the physical world is conserved.
This includes the energy in the form of mass following E=mc².
This has some complex consequences.
Electron circles around a proton.
While the electron circles it pulls the proton towards its position. The electro-static field
moves with the speed of light. After half a circle rotation, the changed position would reduce the speed
of an electron a bit. Meaning it loses energy and spirals slowly towards the proton. But it does not..
The main reason is magnetism. It stabilizes the position.
Secondly the electron often has no fixed position around the proton and is in a quantum-state at which
it is on all sides of the proton in certain bands. If it is everywhere there is no pull effect.
Still an atom is usually vibrating a lot, to compensate that it probably transmits and receives
heat-waves, keeping everything in balance again.
Gravity gives change of frequency of light.
If we send a beam of light upward from the earth's surface, we can theoretically convert its energy to mass.
And we can drop this mass and it will give us kinetic energy. We can convert the mass to energy again and
send it up. This is "free energy", but does not work because gravity removes energy from the light as it goes up.
The frequency of the light becomes lower (redder), and its energy is conserved.
Super-conductivity is complex.
Then we make a "free-energy" machine using super-conductive material. We have a magnet above it. The s-c material mirrors the magnet and it keeps it above it. We make the temperature higher of the s-c material until the superconductivity stops. The magnet drops. Then we lower the temperature, then the magnet should go up again. It does not. Firstly the mirror effect mostly stabilizes the vertical position of a magnet. Superconductivity is a complex phenomenon. Secondly (according to a specialist I know) the s-c material has very strange thermal properties, probably blocking other free-energy possibilities.
So my theory could be a general rule!
Let's look at the universe..
and make some bold assumptions
The idea that from nothing suddenly comes something, simply means that the conservation of energy is broken.
So the big-bang is a free-energy theory, and according to my conservation theory not correct.
And if big-bang should somehow exist, why is there no free-energy now?
Gravity pulling objects in?
Does the sun move when the earth revolves around it? Is this movement immediate or does it
depend on the speed of light? If it is not immediate it would mean some energy is lost!
(just like the proton and electron example)
I'm no specialist in gravity to answer this question, but any answer is interesting.
Even if I look at the Higgs-field as a carrier of gravity the problem is similar.
According to my theory there must be some other phenomenon that compensates or prevents
this energy loss if it happens. Some kind of expansion maybe?
What about black-holes (if they exist), what is there to conserve energy?