In the beginning...

[Darkstorn]

My question…, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion?

He already answered this question.

And it should be obvious to even non-scientists that your very question betrays your understanding of the subject matter.

I cannot find any science related link that makes the claim a nuclear explosion creates matter and you did not tell me what matter was created.

No one made such a claim. It's merely you not understanding the subject matter. This thread is an effort in futility, you are simply not equipped with the correct faculties to actually debate this in an effective manner.

Consider this friendly advice.

 

[Super Universe]

This isn't a matter of GUT, it follows from GR quite well.

Recall that you claimed the theory of gravity doesn't allow for the claims made. That theory *is* GR.

Now, either show how GR doesn't allow for the effects claimed or admit that you are wrong.

It isn't a matter of the GUT? Sure it is. Things don't jive and they have to.

I claimed that the theory of gravity doesn't allow for the claims made? I claimed that gravity does not repell. I don't care what your understanding of GR, gravity doesn't reverse or become pressure or become inertia.

I also claimed that scientists have prematurely and without verification determined the age of the universe based upon observations that can only see 13 billion years so they went with that number.

Now I have to either show how GR doesn't allow for the effects claimed or admit that you are wrong? Okay, I admit it, you are wrong.

 

[Valjean]

The most reliable argument for the universe having a beginning and therefore God as the explanation is the time line. Based on laws of entropy we know the universe progresses forward, it is not circular and it doesn't repeat itself. Because science cannot explain how something comes from nothing, God is the only explanation.

 

[Polymath257]

My question…, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion?

This was in the context of, “in the beginning”

Is this your answer to my specific question or is it only a response?

“But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also. For example, if you collide two electrons together at high energy (kinetic energy), they will often produce extra matter by conversion of the kinetic energy into mass. What is produced depends on the energy level of the collision, but it is quite possible to produce protons and anti-protons (which are each 1800 times as massive as an electron).”

The problem is, I cannot find any science related link that makes the claim a nuclear explosion creates matter and you did not tell me what matter was created. Can you provide such a link and if not, then you did not answer the question as it was asked, you only responded to it, big difference. I also fail to see how protons can be considered as matter although I found where they can interact with matter.

I notice that you skipped the part where I pointed out that nuclear explosions do not convert energy into mass, but instead go the other direction.

So, are you being deliberately dishonest or simply didn't actually read what I wrote?

 

[Polymath257]

It isn't a matter of the GUT? Sure it is. Things don't jive and they have to.

I claimed that the theory of gravity doesn't allow for the claims made? I claimed that gravity does not repell. I don't care what your understanding of GR, gravity doesn't reverse or become pressure or become inertia.

I also claimed that scientists have prematurely and without verification determined the age of the universe based upon observations that can only see 13 billion years so they went with that number.

Now I have to either show how GR doesn't allow for the effects claimed or admit that you are wrong? Okay, I admit it, you are wrong.

Sorry, but the current theory of gravity, GR, *does* have those effects (accelerating expansion from a cosmological constant). So, either you have to show where the mathematical derivation that shows that fails OR you have to admit *you* were wrong.

 

[Super Universe]

Sorry, but the current theory of gravity, GR, *does* have those effects (accelerating expansion from a cosmological constant). So, either you have to show where the mathematical derivation that shows that fails OR you have to admit *you* were wrong.

Current theories do not provide a full grand unified theory that explains everything. The standard model describes some aspects but has built in problems.

There's a snake in your vehicle and you know it and you're still driving down the road.

 

[Polymath257]

Current theories do not provide a full grand unified theory that explains everything. The standard model describes some aspects but has built in problems.

There's a snake in your vehicle and you know it and you're still driving down the road.

No GUT is required for this. The current theory does quite nicely, thank you.

Now, if you are not going to address *your* claim that the theory of gravity has to be 'turned off' for the BB to happen by showing *exactly* where that is required in GR, then I will accept your admission that you are wrong.

Until you do that, I will not answer your posts on this topic. YOU have to back up your claims.

 

[Super Universe]

Einstein came up with math that is more accurate for figuring the effect of gravity on objects but the description of it not being a force is incorrect. Inertia does not accurately describe the affect on objects that gravity (being a contracting force) does. If I stand on the earth and jump inertia would cause me to continue floating upward but that's not what happens because gravity pulls me back down.

I can show you math, 1+2 = 3, that is correct, but if I say that 1 is the sun and 2 is a black hole and 3 is universes it doesn't make sense, still, the math is correct.

 

[Ted Evans]

OK, apparently I did not see your answer to these two questions because you do not have one, I can accept that.

Since the OP refers to in the beginning and as far as I know, there were no nuclear weapons at that time so how did energy create matter, in the beginning? What was the source of that energy, what was the trigger?

Once again, we do not know the specifics about 'in the beginning'

 

[Super Universe]

No GUT is required for this. The current theory does quite nicely, thank you.

Now, if you are not going to address *your* claim that the theory of gravity has to be 'turned off' for the BB to happen by showing *exactly* where that is required in GR, then I will accept your admission that you are wrong.

Until you do that, I will not answer your posts on this topic. YOU have to back up your claims.

The current theoy does quite nicely? Thinking the earth was the center of the universe did quite nicely for a long time. Newton's theory of gravity did quite nicely. What happened to them?

My theory that gravity has to be turned off? It's not possible to turn off gravity. It doesn't have to be turned off because the big bang is not the way galaxies formed.

Until I follow your rules you won't answer my posts? Darn.

 

[sayak83]

If I spin a bucket of water over my head, what keeps the water in the bucket? Inertia resists the force of gravity but gravity does not reverse. Inertia is not repulsive gravity. Pressure is not repulsive gravity.

No. Tension causes repulsive gravity just like mass causes attractive gravity.

 

[sayak83]

The current theoy does quite nicely? Thinking the earth was the center of the universe did quite nicely for a long time. Newton's theory of gravity did quite nicely. What happened to them?

My theory that gravity has to be turned off? It's not possible to turn off gravity. It doesn't have to be turned off because the big bang is not the way galaxies formed.

Until I follow your rules you won't answer my posts? Darn.

If you have a new theory of physics, go write a paper and get it published in a scientific journal. Forum discussion is not the place for it.

 

[leibowde84]

I do not see where you answered my questions, why should I answer yours? Which I would have no problem in doing but I can be unreasonable that way.

Your question is not relevant. I am not a cosmologist or a physicist, so I'm not the best person to ask about whether matter can be created. But, since the singularity before the big bang WAS matter, it isn't relevant to this conversation to ask about matter being created from nothing.

In other words, you seem to be assuming that, because we don't know where the matter in the singularity came from, it must have been created. You are glossing over the most likely explanation ... that we just don't have a full understanding of what happened during the big bang and there is a perfectly reasonable natural cause for it.

 

[leibowde84]

so you DO believe.....substance has it's own volition!!!!!!
and dead material can replicate in huge quantities....
just because it 'wants to'

the dead do not beget the living

Do you understand the difference between "dead" and "non-living"?

 

[leibowde84]

OK, do you have any specifics, relative to the OP in this thread, that you can share?

What are you asking for specifically? Evidence supporting the theory of evolution?

 

[DavidFirth]

Your question is not relevant. I am not a cosmologist or a physicist, so I'm not the best person to ask about whether matter can be created. But, since the singularity before the big bang WAS matter, it isn't relevant to this conversation to ask about matter being created from nothing.

In other words, you seem to be assuming that, because we don't know where the matter in the singularity came from, it must have been created. You are glossing over the most likely explanation ... that we just don't have a full understanding of what happened during the big bang and there is a perfectly reasonable natural cause for it.

I take that a step further and say there probably was no big bang.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I take that a step further and say there probably was no big bang.

Okay, fair enough. But what science do you bring to the table to refute all the science that suggests that there was?

Or are we just supposed to accept that you are both a genius and divinely inspired, and believe you on that basis?

 

[DavidFirth]

Okay, fair enough. But what science do you bring to the table to refute all the science that suggests that there was?

Or are we just supposed to accept that you are both a genius and divinely inspired, and believe you on that basis?

Well, how much proof do you have for the big bang? Or do you have any besides what some Ph.D. thinks?

 

[Super Universe]

No. Tension causes repulsive gravity just like mass causes attractive gravity.

So it's the same "force" with two different forces acting at the same time? Nope.

 

[Thief]

Do you understand the difference between "dead" and "non-living"?

really?