Sayonara Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Then I guess the question is: is that a reply to me or to the OP?
Martin Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) ...my belief, that the Universe could not come from nothing according to the laws of physics as we know them. We have no evidence that any mass or energy could come from nothing and we know they had to come from somewhere because the Universe is full of both. That makes you a mainstream conformist in that regard, does it not? Your basic belief is what ordinary cosmologists apparently assume as well---since BB theory does not postulate that before BB there was nothing. If anything distinguishes your thought individually, would it then be that the reasons you give are different, or a possible delusion as to the novelty and interest of what you are saying? doG, I've written a brief little essay about the "something from nothing" ploy. Up in the BB misconceptions thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=459763&postcount=6 Would you care to take a look? Edited January 12, 2009 by Martin
doG Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) Then I guess the question is: is that a reply to me or to the OP? My initial reply was to the OP and subsequent replies regarded swansont's response to that initial reply and the apparent support of his remarks. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergeddoG, I've written a brief little essay about the "something from nothing" ploy. Up in the BB misconceptions thread. Would you care to take a look? Sure. will do. Is this the thread you're referring to? Edited January 12, 2009 by doG Consecutive post/s merged.
Martin Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Sure. will do. Is this the thread you're referring to? No, here's what I was referring to: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=459763&postcount=6 Sorry I forgot to include this link (got called to supper). I'll go back and edit it in.
swansont Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 Can you clarify? I've heard this before (something about it only applying in chemistry, but not physics), yet there are articles like the below, so I'm not sure which comment to accept. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass Sayo's correct. The law of conservation of mass in chemistry is a macroscopic approximation — the energy difference in a chemical reaction is on the order of eV, meaning the mass difference in a reaction is on the order of 10^-9 the mass of a Hydrogen atom. We can safely use the approximation on the chemical level as long as we aren't measuring/calculating masses to 9 or 10 places past the decimal.
north Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 Well that's what you need to prove. At the very least, you need to provide some basic substantiation for this claim. That's why it's in speculations. Go ahead and prove this is mainstream science, and your post will go back to the mainstream forum. actually its not about " mainstream science " at all mainstream figures that the Universe has been created from BB however I say not I say that the Universe is fundamentally contructed from Cosmic Plasma I know that mainstream cosmology is looking at Quasars as being ejected from the galactic core of galaxies your thoughts
doG Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I say that the Universe is fundamentally contructed from Cosmic Plasma OK. You've made the claim now let's see you support it.
Moontanman Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 I know that BB theory is the accepted theory and that BB makes no attempt to say what became before. On the other hand there are some hypothesis that do attempt to give some ideas about what came before. Brane theory does give some ideas about what came before. Colliding Branes contained in a multidimensional Bulk does give us some ideas about the possibilities. While we have no tests that would currently show evidence for this there is no evidence that would contradict this either. Since this is posted in P&S I don't have a problem bringing it up.
north Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 (edited) I say that the Universe is fundamentally contructed from Cosmic Plasma OK. You've made the claim now let's see you support it. well now in the mainstream thought , they are looking at Quasars being ejected from some galaxies your thoughts Edited January 12, 2009 by swansont fix quote tag
swansont Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 OK. You've made the claim now let's see you support it. First I think north needs to explain what that means.
north Posted January 12, 2009 Author Posted January 12, 2009 First I think north needs to explain what that means. " what that means " ? be specific
swansont Posted January 12, 2009 Posted January 12, 2009 " what that means " ? be specific The remark to which doG responded. I hadn't thought it would be that hard to figure out, sorry: I say that the Universe is fundamentally contructed from Cosmic Plasma Oh, and I believe Martin has asked — twice — for citation(s) that support the contention that The standard BB model defines the pre-bigbang state as being... nothing... no energy, no matter, no space-time. As an interested observer I'll second that request.
Sayonara Posted January 13, 2009 Posted January 13, 2009 I say that the Universe is fundamentally contructed from Cosmic Plasma OK. You've made the claim now let's see you support it. well now in the mainstream thought ' date=' they are looking at Quasars being ejected from some galaxies your thoughts[/quote'] Gibberish. Closing thread.
Recommended Posts