Why Didn't the Universe Always Exist?

[gnostic]

Nothing can come from nothing, if you think otherwise, prove it.

Nothing means nothing, it doesn't exist.

you are confusing non-matters with nothing. @Subduction Zone didnt say nothing, in his original post.

You did, because you misunderstood what he was saying. You have made assumptions that non-matters are the same as nothing.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

According to the current concordance model in cosmology, the answer is: E = mc^2. The very early universe was pure energy. The rest follows from the physical laws and processes of the universe.

You did not answer the question, whether we talk mass or energy, where did it come from?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you are confusing non-matters with nothing.

Energy is not nothing, you are confused, I said "nothing", nada, zero, non-existence!!!

 

[gnostic]

According to the current concordance model in cosmology, the answer is: E = mc^2. The very early universe was pure energy. The rest follows from the physical laws and processes of the universe.

You will learn much about this topic by reading a textbook on astronomy than spending time here lol.

Energy, yes, or well, maybe. “Pure energy”…not so much.

Can you define pure energy? It is rather on the vague side.

 

[Regiomontanus]

You did not answer the question, whether we talk mass or energy, where did it come from?

As an Orthodox Christian, my answer should be obvious.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you are confusing non-matters with nothing. @Subduction Zone didnt say nothing, in his original post.

You did, because you misunderstood what he was saying. You have made assumptions that non-matters are the same as nothing.

He answered me, and equated with what I called nothing, "non matter"/Energy. And you followed suit.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Energy, yes, or well, maybe. “Pure energy”…not so much.

Can you define pure energy? It is rather on the vague side.

Ok,I concede your point. Yes, energy. You are a buzz kill

 

[Ben Dhyan]

As an Orthodox Christian, my answer should be obvious.

Ok, a discussion between Pantheists, Orthodox Christians, and Atheists, about the universe is certain to be difficult to find common agreement.

 

[gnostic]

Energy is not nothing, you are confused, I said "nothing", nada, zero, non-existence!!!

@Subduction Zone wrote “non-matter”, in his original post, he did not write “nothing“.

He didn’t bring up nothing in that post…you brought up nothing when you had replied.

you made the mistake, a mistaken assumption or interpretation on what SZ meant.

energy and mass are equivalent, which he brought up, as they can be interchangeable. he never wrote energy is nothing, only that it is non-matter.

Matters only exist if the atoms are in the form of protons and neutrons, with or without electrons (without, the atom is ionised).

you are still confused, and you have become defensive.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

you are confusing non-matters with nothing. @Subduction Zone didnt say nothing, in his original post.

You did, because you misunderstood what he was saying. You have made assumptions that non-matters are the same as nothing.

Show me the post where Subduction Zone didn't say nothing, and while you are at it, note my post to whom he was responding and read it!.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

@Subduction Zone wrote “non-matter”, in his original post, he did not write “nothing“.

He didn’t bring up nothing in that post…you brought up nothing when you had replied.

you made the mistake, a mistaken assumption or interpretation on what SZ meant.

energy and mass are equivalent, which he brought up, as they can be interchangeable. he never wrote energy is nothing, only that it is non-matter.

Matters only exist if the atoms are in the form of protons and neutrons, with or without electrons (without, the atom is ionised).

you are still confused, and you have become defensive.

Exactly, read my post to which he was replying, and he equates my 'nothing' with non-matter/energy!

And I am trying to explain that nothing is not something, nothing does not equate with non-matter/energy.

 

[gnostic]

Ok,I concede your point. Yes, energy. You are a buzz kill

sorry.

Due to deficiency with sleep, I have become grumpy after conversing with @Ben Dhyan .

 

[gnostic]

This is the cause:

Formed yes, created no. Created is a word that implies agency, in other words that there is some being of some sort behind it. It is a loaded term that one should not use. If you want to claim that there is a creation you have taken on a burden of proof. You do not get to use circular reasoning to defend it.

Sorry, but the "something from nothing" claim is one that creationists use. Physicists do not make that claim. That the universe could have formed from no energy has both observations that support it and the math of General Relativity. And yes, the universe could be both eternal and have a beginning. Are you familiar with number lines at all?

Subduction Zone is actually agreeing with you, that universe can’t form from nothing.

Created does not necessarily imply a separate agency, as in "stars are created out of the dust of exploded stars", nor does form necessarily not imply an agency, as in "the child formed a castle out of sand".

The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it.

Then it was followed by these:

I disagree. And you do not seem to understand. Your example does not help you at all. One can always use a term like "formed" since that applies whether there is agency or not. It is the general cases. But "created" does imply agency. One needs a term that is neutral.

No, you are quite wrong in that claim. Matter can be converted to energy and back so matter can clearly arise from non-matter. That was shown by Einstein's Special Relativity. So the big question is how much energy is there in the universe. Some physicists will point out that energy is just bookkeeping and scientists have measured the total energy of the universe. Would you like to guess what that value is?

It‘s “non-matter”…not “nothing”.

Ok, we can agree to disagree wrt whether 'created' and 'formed' can be interchanged in the context of the formation of a new star, but for the sake of moving on, we can stick with 'formed' for now.

Please explain to us why you equate 'nothing' with energy? I said mass cannot come into existence from nothing, and you say I am wrong, matter can come from non-matter/energy. Energy is not nothing!

As you can see…you were the one who brought up nothing in these 2 posts, not him.

He didn’t equate energy with nothing. You interpret SZ’s post wrongly.

quark isn’t matter, unless there are 3 quarks to form a proton (1 down quark, 2 up quarks), eg hydrogen. Hydrogen is the matter with a single proton, not a single quark.

A single quark, is non-matter. 3 quarks make a proton, and the only atom made of a single proton, is hydrogen. Add a neutron to a hydrogen atom, and it becomes a hydrogen isotope known as deuterium.

Hydrogen and deuterium are matters, unbound quarks are not, hence non-matter. Likewise energy is non-matters. Energy isn’t nothing.

energy and mass are equivalent, matter and energy are not equivalent.

Why do you think SZ brought up special relativity?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ok gnostic, here is the original post where SZ responds to me. Note that I said the physicists need to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, to which he replies that I am wrong, matter can arise from non-matter. He does not understand that nothing is not the same thing as non-matter. And if you think the same as him, you too need to understand that nothing means non-existing.

The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it.

No, you are quite wrong in that claim. Matter can be converted to energy and back so matter can clearly arise from non-matter. That was shown by Einstein's Special Relativity. So the big question is how much energy is there in the universe. Some physicists will point out that energy is just bookkeeping and scientists have measured the total energy of the universe. Would you like to guess what that value is?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

This is the cause:



Subduction Zone is actually agreeing with you, that universe can’t form from nothing.



Then it was followed by these:



It‘s “non-matter”…not “nothing”.



As you can see…you were the one who brought up nothing in these 2 posts, not him.

He didn’t equate energy with nothing. You interpret SZ’s post wrongly.

quark isn’t matter, unless there are 3 quarks to form a proton (1 down quark, 2 up quarks), eg hydrogen. Hydrogen is the matter with a single proton, not a single quark.

A single quark, is non-matter. 3 quarks make a proton, and the only atom made of a single proton, is hydrogen. Add a neutron to a hydrogen atom, and it becomes a hydrogen isotope known as deuterium.

Hydrogen and deuterium are matters, unbound quarks are not, hence non-matter. Likewise energy is non-matters. Energy isn’t nothing.

energy and mass are equivalent, matter and energy are not equivalent.

Why do you think SZ brought up special relativity?

You are still not getting it, it is hard to believe you are not faking it, see my post #374 and read what I said about nothing and SZ's response where he said I was wrong, that matter can come from non-matter, which of course it can, but irrelevant to my comment.

 

[gnostic]

Ok gnostic, here is the original post where SZ responds to me. Note that I said the physicists need to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, to which he replies that I am wrong, matter can arise from non-matter.

it is you who mistakenly interpreted SZ’s post. He never equated non-matter with nothing…and he never equated energy with nothing.

You are the one who has erred.

energy is non-matter. Energy isn’t nothing.

matter as I can telling you are made from atoms, which turn are made from protons, neutrons & with or without electrons.

energy by itself isn’t matter, nor are unbound quarks.

it is only atoms form, that matters exist.

energy isn’t nothing, SZ & I have been saying, but you have completely ignored him, when he actually agree with you.

the problem is that you don’t understand, is that matters are made of bunch of non-matter particles, like quarks and electrons…these all have masses, therefore they have energy. Mass and energy are equivalent.

other non-matter particles also have masses and energy, like electrons & neutrinos. Some, of the force carrier particles, like Higgs, Z & W bosons, also have mass and energy…while force-carrier particles , like gluons and photons have energy but no masses. These other particles are non-matter particles, but like energy, they are not made of nothing.

it is you who is confused, not SZ.

 

[gnostic]

You are still not getting it, it is hard to believe you are not faking it, see my post #374 and read what I said about nothing and SZ's response where he said I was wrong, that matter can come from non-matter, which of course it can, but irrelevant to my comment.

but you have confusing non-matters with nothing. That’s very relevant.

no where in his posts that SZ says that energy is made from nothing. You keep accusing SZ of saying this, when he didn’t. you are mistaken, but now it has become a strawman.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

it is you who mistakenly interpreted SZ’s post. He never equated non-matter with nothing…and he never equated energy with nothing.

You are the one who has erred.

energy is non-matter. Energy isn’t nothing.

matter as I can telling you are made from atoms, which turn are made from protons, neutrons & with or without electrons.

energy by itself isn’t matter, nor are unbound quarks.

it is only atoms form, that matters exist.

energy isn’t nothing, SZ & I have been saying, but you have completely ignored him, when he actually agree with you.

the problem is that you don’t understand, is that matters are made of bunch of non-matter particles, like quarks and electrons…these all have masses, therefore they have energy. Mass and energy are equivalent.

other non-matter particles also have masses and energy, like electrons & neutrinos. Some, of the force carrier particles, like Higgs, Z & W bosons, also have mass and energy…while force-carrier particles , like gluons and photons have energy but no masses. These other particles are non-matter particles, but like energy, they are not made of nothing.

it is you who is confused, not SZ.

Red is what I said,

Black is what SZ said.

Question, did he agree with my statement that nothing can come from nothing?

The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it.

Subduction Zone
No, you are quite wrong in that claim. Matter can be converted to energy and back so matter can clearly arise from non-matter. That was shown by Einstein's Special Relativity. So the big question is how much energy is there in the universe. Some physicists will point out that energy is just bookkeeping and scientists have measured the total energy of the universe. Would you like to guess what that value is?

ben d

 

[Ben Dhyan]

but you have confusing non-matters with nothing. That’s very relevant.

no where in his posts that SZ says that energy is made from nothing. You keep accusing SZ of saying this, when he didn’t. you are mistaken, but now it has become a strawman.

If anyone is confused, it is you and SZ, read what follows.

Red is what I said,

Black is what SZ said.

Question, did he agree with my statement that nothing can come from nothing?

We know he did not, so what was his example to refute what I said? Did he equate my nothing with non-matter? If not, what was his reasoning to refute my saying that mass cannot come from nothing?

The fact to understand is that nothing can come from nothing, the sum total of universal mass in existence has always existed. If there are any physicists who deny this, then the onus is on them to prove that mass can come into existence from nothing, before any reasonably intelligent person would accept it.

Subduction Zone
No, you are quite wrong in that claim. Matter can be converted to energy and back so matter can clearly arise from non-matter. That was shown by Einstein's Special Relativity. So the big question is how much energy is there in the universe. Some physicists will point out that energy is just bookkeeping and scientists have measured the total energy of the universe. Would you like to guess what that value is?

 

[Pogo]

Ok, none of the models ever proposed a "universe from nothing". It follows logically then that the mass of the known universe existed in some form from which the BB formed the universe. Iow, no new mass came into existence.

You need to learn about different kinds of energy before you make pronouncements like this. Common sense is not a good guide to the physics of reality.