In the beginning...

[Thief]

It seems like you don't. You describe non-living matter as "dead", which is incorrect.

I was taught very young.....life has certain qualities

apparently you had a different instructor
with some other set of 'rules'

enlighten all of us watching

 

[Thief]

There is no mention of anesthesia (inducing sleep chemically), cloning (using dna to create an embryo ... not a developed adult human, which would be magic), etc. You are merely using incorrect meanings for those terms.

maybe you should read the account again

and try stepping up to sheep herder mentality

 

[DavidFirth]

Why do you think there was no big bang?

To think that the orderly universe we observe now was once a huge unexplained explosion seems ludicrous to me. I don't buy into all the theoretical jargon, there are too many "heroic" leaps in the faith of believing in the big bang.

 

[leibowde84]

I was taught very young.....life has certain qualities

apparently you had a different instructor
with some other set of 'rules'

enlighten all of us watching

You claimed that there was "dead material" that replicated itself at the beginning of the universe, claiming that the material was at one point living. The material you are referring to at the beginning of the universe was never living.

 

[leibowde84]

maybe you should read the account again

and try stepping up to sheep herder mentality

What does this mean? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

 

[Thief]

You claimed that there was "dead material" that replicated itself at the beginning of the universe, claiming that the material was at one point living. The material you are referring to at the beginning of the universe was never living.

nay.....
to believe as YOU do

the dead must replicate of its own will

 

[leibowde84]

To think that the orderly universe we observe now was once a huge unexplained explosion seems ludicrous to me. I don't buy into all the theoretical jargon, there are too many "heroic" leaps in the faith of believing in the big bang.

What "heroic leaps" are you referring to specifically?

 

[leibowde84]

nay.....
to believe as YOU do

the dead must replicate of its own will

That certainly isn't true. But, why would you think that?

 

[Ted Evans]

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.

Really, you noticed that eh? Well, I noticed that you paid no attention to what you wrote, or, you cannot comprehend what you wrote.

I am aware that folks like to deflect from questions when they have no evidence supporting their answers, apparently, they count on confusion and the one asking the question forgetting the original question. Admittedly, that works quite well most times. But I am going back to the “beginning” to prove my point.

Thanks for the comments and that makes the point of my OP, science cannot answer the question where those four components came from, “in the beginning”.

To which you responded.

I assume you have heard of nuclear weapons? They are based on this equation

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

I would ask you to read that paragraph carefully, especially the phrase, “in the beginning” also, the question, “what matter is created. Now look at your response.

Other way around, actually. Mass is converted into energy in nuclear weapons. That is why they have such a large yield.

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).

“Mass is converted into energy in nuclear weapons”

Did I ask anything about what created energy, or was the question about how was matter created in the beginning?

Did you not also say,

“But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also.”

Are you suggesting that matter can create energy and energy can create matter, with your assertion? That is certainly what I see you suggesting.

Now, can you quote, specifically, your answer to the question, “So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion” just as it was asked and, in the context which it was asked, can you do that?

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

There is the history, all quoted and in context so, when you say, “I *have* answered your questions” are you “being deliberately dishonest” or, were you mistaken? In your mind, is “answering” a question and “responding” to a question one and the same?

BTW, before I get, “I answered your questions, you just do not like my answer”. That is correct, I do not. I tried that tactic on an instructor once when he gave me a failing grade on a quiz and I asked him why he did that. His response was, “you did not answer the questions” to which I replied, “I answered the questions, you just did not like the answers” and his response was, “you are correct, I do not like the answers….and you still fail the quiz”.

Moral of the story, if the answers cannot be verified as being correct, then the question is not answered, only an opinion has been given.

 

[Thief]

you would make an average lawyer
not ever a good statesman....

now.....let's go back to the beginning
like you should have......and choose

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Polymath257]

Same force arising from mass, various types of energy, tension and pressure.
Yep. The equation is

Ricci tensor * (Ricci Scalar) * (Metric Tensor) = ((8 * PI * G) / c4) * (Stress Energy Tensor)

Ricci Tensor
Ricci Tensor in the field equation defines the deviation of the n-dimensional volume of the space in a curved space-time from the flat Euclidean space. For instance in a flat space time, Pythagoras theorem holds good for a right angled triangle, whereas on the surface of a sphere the relationship between hypotenuse and the other two sides of a right angled triangle do not obey the Pythagoras theorem. Ricci tensor defines this amount of deviation in terms of volume in a curved space from that of flat space.


Stress-Energy Tensor
This tensor is the source of the space-time curvature. It describes the energy density and the momentum at the given point in space-time. The value of this tensor is zero at points where there is no energy density.
Just like the the metric tensor, the stress energy tensor is just a set of 10 numbers in 4D space-time.

One number defines how much mass-energy density is there at the point.

Three numbers define the momentum of the matter at that point.

Next three numbers define the pressure in each of the three spatial directions at that point.

Last three numbers define the stress in the matter at that point.



Demystifying Einstein’s Field Equations on General Relativity

Correction: In your equation, that first multiplication should be a subtraction. Also, it should have 1/2 of the Ricci scalar
times the metric tensor. The 1/2 is missing. It is incorrect in your link also.

Einstein tensor - Wikipedia

/E: The correct equation should read

(Ricci tensor)- (1/2)*(Ricci scalar)*(metric tensor)=(8*pi*G/c^4)*(Stress/energy tensor).

 

[leibowde84]

you would make an average lawyer
not ever a good statesman....

now.....let's go back to the beginning
like you should have......and choose

Spirit first?
or substance?

Again, why do you think these are the only two options?

 

[leibowde84]

you would make an average lawyer
not ever a good statesman....

now.....let's go back to the beginning
like you should have......and choose

Spirit first?
or substance?

Currently, we only know that substance was there at the beginning. There is no evidence for any "spirit", but maybe someday in the future we will find some. We just don't have enough information currently to make any kind of judgment.

 

[Thief]

Again, why do you think these are the only two options?

so post what you think is a third.....
and I will lump as it should be......

Spirit first?
or substance?

 

[Thief]

Currently, we only know that substance was there at the beginning. There is no evidence for any "spirit", but maybe someday in the future we will find some. We just don't have enough information currently to make any kind of judgment.

that statement places substance first......

all that is living is then a material item
and doomed

 

[Polymath257]

“But the conversion can, and does, go the other way also.”

Are you suggesting that matter can create energy and energy can create matter, with your assertion? That is certainly what I see you suggesting.

Yes, it is exactly what I claimed.

Now, can you quote, specifically, your answer to the question, “So, can you tell me what matter is created by the energy of a nuclear explosion” just as it was asked and, in the context which it was asked, can you do that?

I did *not* claim that matter is created out of energy in nuclear explosions. I specifically stated it goes the other way.

Matter *can* be made from energy in *other* reactions. But those reactions are not the ones that happen in nuclear explosions.

For example, it is quite common in particle accelerators to have a couple of protons (say) collide at high energy and have the result be not just those two protons, but additional protons, anti-protons, mesons, etc also produced from the kinetic energy of those first protons.

There is the history, all quoted and in context so, when you say, “I *have* answered your questions” are you “being deliberately dishonest” or, were you mistaken? In your mind, is “answering” a question and “responding” to a question one and the same?

BTW, before I get, “I answered your questions, you just do not like my answer”. That is correct, I do not. I tried that tactic on an instructor once when gave he gave me a failing grade on a quiz and I asked him why he did that. His response was, “you did not answer the questions” to which I replied, “I answered the questions, you just did not like the answers” and his response was, “you are correct, I do not like the answers….and you still fail the quiz”.

Moral of the story, if the answers cannot be verified as being correct, then the question is not answered, only an opinion has been given.

In this case, the answer, that your questions are meaningless, is correct.

 

[leibowde84]

that statement places substance first......

all that is living is then a material item
and doomed

Sure, it would be nice if there was something more than this life and the material universe. But, that is just hope. Hope is not evidence of anything real.

 

[Polymath257]

Really, you noticed that eh? Well, I noticed that you paid no attention to what you wrote, or, you cannot comprehend what you wrote.

You left out the part where I answered the question then complained that I did not answer the question.

I would ask you to read that paragraph carefully, especially the phrase, “in the beginning” also, the question, “what matter is created. Now look at your response.

And you asked that no speculation be allowed. That mean, at this point, there is no way to answer your question, even though we have quite a number of ways it *could* have happened based on what we know *can* happen.

 

[Thief]

Sure, it would be nice if there was something more than this life and the material universe. But, that is just hope. Hope is not evidence of anything real.

you are the evidence of Something Greater.....
and apparently you can't see that

 

[leibowde84]

you are the evidence of Something Greater.....
and apparently you can't see that

Can you explain what you mean by this?