Did the creation of the universe violate the laws of conservation?

[ding]

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of mass states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

If the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang not violate the laws of conservation?

 

[mamooth]

If the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang not violate the laws of conservation?

Short answer: We don't know.

"We don't know" does not lead to "therefore, God did it.". That's the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

 

[ding]

Short answer: We don't know.

"We don't know" does not lead to "therefore, God did it.". That's the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

Oh we know alright. The answer is no.

I guess it's just you and alang1216 who doesn't know.

 

[mamooth]

Oh we know alright. The answer is no.

I see.

Tell us more about your Nobel Prize, the one you got for figuring out what nobody else has figured out.

Oh, never mind. You're just angry because I cut off your dumb argument before you could use it.

 

[ding]

I see.

Tell us more about your Nobel Prize, the one you got for figuring out what nobody else has figured out.

Oh, never mind. You're just angry because I cut off your dumb argument before you could use it.

You think that is my idea? You're an idiot. It's the basis of the Big Bang, dumbass.

 

[Votto]

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of mass states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

If the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang not violate the laws of conservation?

If God did violate any laws, it has to be at least a felony.

Democrats have already rounded up a prosecutor in New York.

They would use an assassin instead, but it is kind of hard to shoot an immaterial and all-knowing being.

 

[ding]

Oh, never mind. You're just angry because I cut off your dumb argument before you could use it.

What argument did you think I was going to make? That the net energy of the universe is zero?

 

[mamooth]

You think that is my idea?

Of course not. You're not smart enough to even think up the dumb argument you failed with. You just parroted some other mouth-breather.

What argument did you think I was going to make?

I already pointed it out, so quite dishonst of you to pretend I didn't.

But I'll point it out again. You were going to claim that since some physical laws were supposedly violated (and they weren't, as far as we know), God musta done it.

No, the first law was not violated, because it applies to closed systems, and the Big Bang is not a closed system.

Also, the first law applies to classical physics, which does not apply to the singularity.

 

[Oddball]

You think that is my idea? You're an idiot. It's the basis of the Big Bang, dumbass.

He's just here to troll.

 

[ding]

He's just here to troll.

She.

 

[Oddball]

She.

it

 

[Leo123]

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of mass states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

If the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang not violate the laws of conservation?

There were no laws before the BB?

 

[ding]

Of course not. You're not smart enough to even think up the dumb argument you failed with. You just parroted some other mouth-breather.

And by some other mouth breather you mean to say pretty much every cosmologist and physicist on the planet?

It's hilarious that you think this isn't well known and well understood. Just shows how ignorant you are about science.

 

[ding]

it

They

 

[ding]

There were no laws before the BB?

Given that the creation of the universe was in accordance with the laws of conservation, quantum mechanics and special relativity it would seem that there were.

 

[ding]

I already pointed it out, so quite dishonst of you to pretend I didn't.

But I'll point it out again. You were going to claim that since some physical laws were supposedly violated (and they weren't, as far as we know), God musta done it.

Well, no. You're wrong. Again.

 

[ding]

No, the first law was not violated, because it applies to closed systems, and the Big Bang is not a closed system.

Also, the first law applies to classical physics, which does not apply to the singularity.

Both incorrect. Which you being wrong yet again is not surprising. Care to try again?

 

[Cassandro]

Short answer: We don't know.

"We don't know" does not lead to "therefore, God did it.". That's the "God of the Gaps" fallacy.

Which "God" are you referring to? An old man with a white beard? Maybe we/you don't know. Have you considered that possibility?

 

[Cassandro]

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of mass states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

If the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang not violate the laws of conservation?

From what I have read mass and energy are interchangeable, and may coexist in an undefined form in otherwise empty space.

 

[para bellum]

Energy is not conserved in General Relativity. This is well known.

In GR, space is elastic and dynamic. In the case of dark energy, the energy density of dark energy in a given volume of space remains constant, but the space is expanding. The total energy in that volume of space = energy density x volume. That is an increase of energy, IOW energy is being created.

In the case of a photon moving at light speed, it undergoes red shift in an expanding space, which is a loss of energy. If you take a given number of photons in a volume of expanding space, the number does not change, but they all lose energy. Losing energy is as much a violation of conservation as gaining energy.