Cap'n Refsmmat

Mass and energy are two sides of the same coin, so they can be converted into each other. (This is why nuclear bombs can convert mass into incredible amounts of energy, for example.) Hence one hypothesis is that the gravitational potential energy, which is negative, balances out all the positive energy and mass, making the net energy zero. The big bang didn't have to create anything. But a more realistic answer at the moment is that we simply do not yet understand the very first moments of the universe, and so until we collect more evidence and develop better theories, we can't know how the conservation of mass/energy applied or if it even did.

Please do not simply copy directly from Wikipedia without attribution; you are in violation of Wikipedia's copyright license, which requires attribution for adaptations of its text.

I think I'll let Mr. Cuthber get the last word here. Also note the speculations forum rules.

I got it, but haven't gotten a chance to reply yet. (I get email notifications, and it doesn't notice if I read the email but not the PM on the forum)

That image is merely a record of the tracks of various particles. It is not a picture of those particles; it's like a map or a diagram of a battlefield, showing where the troops moved. One could draw it with purple lines, or green dashed lines with shading, or anything else -- it's a representation of information, not a picture of atoms.

The only restrictions we have in place currently are on the Philosophy, Religion, and Politics forums, which require a member to have 30 posts before participating. They are the forums that attract the most incivility and anger, so the waiting period forces members to learn a bit about our rules and posting style before joining in. We do have a policy of warning against logical fallacies, yes. Generally we prefer debates without threats, but fallacious logic is persistent by its very nature -- it does not follow the ordinary logical rules, so it can't be easily rebutted with ordinary logic. Strawman arguments are insidious because you cannot argue against someone who is arguing against a made-up position. Years of experience in the Politics forum shows us that discussions generally go very badly if members can make up logic willy-nilly. If you have any questions about SFN and how it works, please do feel free to ask. I hope you enjoy your stay.

Any photograph you see of a collision of atoms is colored by the physicists after the fact, so it makes sense to a viewer. You can't detect individual subatomic particles in a collision with visible light -- it's physically impossible.

Not across all reference frames, no. That would be because you are taking it too literally. In the metaphor, viewing the statue from a different angle is like viewing the Earth from a different reference frame. What reason do you have to claim it "more accurate" apart from the notion that it's all we've ever measured it to be from our reference frame?

I want to see your wedding pictures.

Why? Color is already explained by showing how atoms reflect light of different wavelengths differently. I thought people had tried this, in particle accelerators, and found matter.

Why?

Ah. You misread it, then. That's why I asked. Some quotes: http://www.uchospitals.edu/news/2011/20110711-limb.html These quotes refer to genetic "switches," which do not code for limbs or limb features but control the expression of other genes that do. The research does not say that fish have the genes to code for legs; it says that fish genes which regulate fin-making genes can also regulate leg-making genes in mice. So the genetic switch for fins was reused for limbs. Fish do not have genes for legs. Mice do, and if you give them a genetic switch from a fish, it can turn on their leg genes.

I can, if I amend them: Earth is nearly spherical in its own reference frame. Earth does not change shape within a given reference frame. Earth is flattened between the poles in my reference frame as I fly past at 0.5c. Earth is flattened through the equator in my reference frame as I fly past at 0.5c in a different direction. I stand on one side of a statue and look at it. Then I stand on the other side. It's different. It never changed. My observations in one reference frame correspond exactly to observations in another frame, like my observations from one side of a statue correspond to those on the other side. Subjective idealism holds only the mind to be fundamental, and hence there's no reason in subjective idealism for my observations to correspond to anyone else's.

Although I really enjoy having a bunch of extra pockets when I wear a suit. Makes it easy to carry extra decks of cards when you want to do magic.

Why not? When I sit in one reference frame, I will never see Earth change shape. The shape is only different between reference frames.

But you said red weighs more than blue. If the spectrum goes from red, heavy, to blue, light, and that trend continues, gamma should be the lightest of all, and radio waves incredibly heavy. How does it work that shorter wavelengths (bluer colors) are lighter than red light, until they get to gamma rays, when they become heavy again?

Which ones weigh more, gamma rays or radio waves?

Could you please just answer my questions directly? Your website is very difficult to understand.

It's my understanding that you can get away with dry cleaning a suit only every few months, while washing the shirts you wear under it more often, since the shirts will bear the brunt of the grunge for you. There are also iron-free dress shirts, although sometimes they look rather shiny and weird. Perhaps they're getting better at it these days. I'd similarly be slightly suspicious of machine-washable suits, in case they're made of polyester or something. Of course, some day in the future we'll all just have personal robots that dry-clean our clothes and shine our shoes automatically. Then we'll just have to complain about how the robots aren't dishwasher-safe.

Which ones weigh more, gamma rays or radio waves? And what does their weight mean for how far they can travel?

And what about things like infrared light, gamma rays, and radio waves?

Wow, I hadn't realized there had been so much work on the subject already. My cursory Googling didn't come up with any of this. Unfortunately I don't have the time anymore -- I have some other pet projects to work on, so the poetry has to wait. Perhaps the next time I'm bored I'll take another look through. Thanks for the links!

Which part of the article supports this hypothesis?

How does that article support your hypothesis, exactly?

Why not?