The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

Fort Fun Indiana said:
So it is absurd to think the universe possibly "came from nothing".

But believing a magical, invisible sky daddy "came from nothing" and cares if the peeners touch is perfectly reasonable.

Let me look up and check which section I am in, again...
Click to expand...
It's actually quite logical once you realize God is no thing.
 
Fort Fun Indiana said:
Show us that law, professor. Since it is science. A link will do.
Click to expand...
Physics calls that law: "conservation of matter," although since Einstein it's more appropriately called "conservation of energy" where matter is just another form of energy.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

However, creation of the universe would violate the principle.
 
bripat9643 said:
Physics calls that law: "perseveration of matter," although since Einstein it's more appropriately called "preservation of energy" where matter is just another form of energy.
Click to expand...
More to the point, conservation of energy.

So, if the universe has net zero energy, which may be the case, "a universe from nothing" would not violate that law.
And even if the numbers we know don't produce the "net zero energy universe" result, we would still be in a position of ignorance where we can't definitively rule it out. As we don't know everything, yet.
 
Fort Fun Indiana said:
More to the point, conservation of energy.

So, if the universe has net zero energy, which may be the case, "a universe from nothing" would not violate that law.
And even if the numbers we know don't produce the "net zero energy universe" result, we would still be in a position of ignorance where we can't definitively rule it out. As we don't know everything, yet.
Click to expand...
How can the universe have zero net energy? Every atom is a bundle of energy.
 
Fort Fun Indiana said:
Hmm, not really. It's just that we realized we cannot know what happened before the inflationary period, so the Big Bang has been limited in its scope. Now it basically refers to inflation.

Note the important part: "we don't know".
Click to expand...

Hypothesis, testing, falsification, refinement.

We took mathematical observations which suggest an expanding universe and extrapolated an elaborate central event. There is nothing to suggest such an event, it's just speculation based on the suggested expansion of the universe.

Now, even that is in question.

Because of the distances and timescales involved, we cannot observe. We extrapolate based on mathematical models.

Data from Kepler suggests that the universe more likely pulses - that is expands for a period, then contracts for a period, in an endless cycle. But again, this is based on extremely limited information gathered from tracking stars and other bodies. We see more based on Kepler, Hubble, Webb, et al. than we did in the 1930's, but our knowledge is still infinitesimal and what we this we know is little more than fantasy.
 
bripat9643 said:
Physics calls that law: "conservation of matter," although since Einstein it's more appropriately called "conservation of energy" where matter is just another form of energy.

Conservation of energy - Wikipedia

However, creation of the universe would violate the principle.
Click to expand...
Assuming I correctly understand what you mean by "creation of the universe," the law of conservation of energy has absolutely no bearing on the matter; that is to say, the universe coming into existence ex nihilo does not violate the principle. The principle strictly pertains to the substances of the closed system that is our universe, not to any substances or forces of agency beyond the universe.
 
Last edited:
bripat9643 said:
How can the universe have zero net energy? Every atom is a bundle of energy.
Click to expand...
Precisely!

The sum total of energy in our universe is zero; that is to say, the energy of matter is positive, and the energy of gravitation is negative. They always add up to zero. But a sum total of zero energy does not mean the universe is literally composed of nothing. The negative energy of the universe stored in the gravitational attraction between all of the positive-energy particles balances (or cancels out) the positive energy. Hence, there is both positive and negative energy in different places in the universe and an overall zero-sum of energy in the universe at the same time. But matter and energy and things. A huge amount of energy balanced against a huge amount of matter is a doubly huge amount of something. Nevertheless, the backdrop of this zero-sum total of energy in today's universe was the boost behind the cosmic inflation of the early universe: the special state of matter believed to have existed at extremely high energies which would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a violently repulsive force rather than an attractive force.
 
Last edited:
Ringtone said:
Precisely!

The sum total of energy in our universe is zero; that is to say, the energy of matter is positive, and the energy of gravitation is negative. They always add up to zero. But a sum total of zero energy does not mean the universe is literally composed of nothing. The negative energy of the universe stored in the gravitational attraction between all of the positive-energy particles balances (or cancels out) the positive energy. Hence, there is both positive and negative energy in different places in the universe and an overall zero-sum of energy in the universe at the same time. But matter and energy and things. A huge amount of energy balanced against a huge amount of matter is a doubly huge amount of something. Nevertheless, the backdrop of this zero-sum total of energy in today's universe was the boost behind the cosmic inflation of the early universe: the special state of matter believed to have existed at extremely high energies which would turn gravity upside down, rendering it a violently repulsive force rather than an attractive force.
Click to expand...
Actually there’s slightly more matter than anti matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Is it possible to clone a dinosaur? Live Science

< Previous Thread

Scientists Discover New Evidence of the Asteroid That Killed Off the Dinosaurs

Next Thread >

Similar threads

munkle
AI Now Doing Federal Hiring, Will Replace Professionals Overnight, Get Ready for 40% Unemployment, Universal Basic Income Based on Vaccine Status
Replies
11
Views
320
John Edgar Slow Horses
John Edgar Slow Horses
daveman
Met Office Shock: More Non-Existent UK Weather Stations Discovered Reporting Invented Data
Replies
3
Views
220
toobfreak
toobfreak
BackAgain
Maybe these are the two big questions.
Replies
9
Views
245
Ava
Ava
catatomic
2nd stump speech for 2028
Replies
8
Views
215
catatomic
catatomic
Michigan Swampbuck
Zone1 Heaven VS Hell! Where does that leave us?
7 8 9
Replies
175
Views
4K
Z99
Z99

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom