Happy Atheist Forum

god did not create anything-it was always there


This article is about the law of conservation of energy in physics. For sustainable energy resources, see Energy conservation.
The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time (is said to be conserved over time). A consequence of this law is that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed from one state to another. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become kinetic energy.
Albert Einstein's theory of relativity shows that energy and mass are the same thing, and that neither one appears without the other. Thus in closed systems, both mass and energy are conserved separately, just as was understood in pre-relativistic physics. The new feature of relativistic physics is that "matter" particles (such as those constituting atoms) could be converted to non-matter forms of energy, such as light; or kinetic and potential energy (example: heat). However, this conversion does not affect the total mass of systems, since the latter forms of non-matter energy still retain their mass through any such conversion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy)

The conservation of energy are not the reasons or facts for what is in existence. The " Sponteneous " appearences of matter/particles out of nothingness is what gave rise to existence. This is something that quantum mechanics is facing but I have discovered through my own analysis that " SPACE " is not a creation of such spontenous appearences of matter/particles. The anology is a very simple one and it goes as followed: We can't trace the very first sponteneous appereance cause there was none, that is to say matter was not the first thing to appear, if it was so, then we must assumed that matter has always existed in a vacuum making it impossible to trace the first appearence hence from where it came from. If we illiminate all that space contains and we are left with only matter/particle on the quantum level and then illiminate matter/particle and just have empty space we can then visualize what can come next. The problem with this is that as far as our sense of time such a period is so great that we can called it " ETERNITY " . Eternity then is what matter/particle and space possess meaning that neither had a beginning and will never experience an end. For particle physics and quantum mechanics theorists this may not appeal to them but they will not be able to escape the fact that since there is such a thing as sponteneous appearences of matter/particles these can't just had created themselves on a selected date. The fact that they occur means that they had always occured and the energy used or dispersed is also within the quantum level as well as their conservations of energy. This is what Eternity is. As far as Space is concerned God did not have anything to do with it, so the creationists have a very weak argument that only ignorance will stand by it.

Thank you for confirming my post heading.

Einstein said over 100 years ago," religion is rather childish''.

I found this interesting-other universes.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g ... 205-1.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html)
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/g ... 205-1.html (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html)

At one time I posted that a new definition of the word " UNIVERSE " needed to be made. The present one claims that the Universe entails everything that is in existence which includes " SPACE " as well. The Universe started with the so called BIG-BANG. Now there is a problem with this current definition of the Universe when others start including other Universes, it contradics the definitions of just " ONE ". To include more than one Universe is to say that there had been multiples Big-Bangs, all occurring at the same time and creating along with it multiple " SPACE " for each of this so called Universes. I do not agree that there are multiple Universes or that one Universe came about cause of some so called Big-Bang. Even though some evidence are pointing towards the directions of the Big-Bang theory it is due to all of the components involve and which mislead the evidence towards favoring a Big-Bang. The first fact  which will not agree with the Big-Bang, in my opinion, is " SPACE ". Space is not a creation nor did it came about through some sponteneous combination of some " MATTERS ". Quantum mechanics will not be able to construct a theory that will supply some answers to the " ORIGIN OF SPACE " . I will also state that " TIME " is not associated with Space as a by product of it. The idea of Multiple-Universes is an illogical one. Its like saying " here is a hole and inside that hole you have many holes but when you go inside the hole you occupied it in its entirity ".  We can only have one definition which is a Universe and in that Universe with have Galaxies and other objects, the Universe occupies Space. The reason why we have a Universe is cause we have Space. There is only ONE SPACE and there is only ONE UNIVERSE. You can't have Multi-Space.

hvargas, I would be really interested in why you do not believe in the Big Bang, the evidence looks pretty good to me, in a number of very specific ways. Is there a specific part of the BB theory you disagree with? Your objection with regards to space seems pretty spurious if I'm honest.

I agree to an extent about the multiverse, I am not sure there could be only one space, or there could be only one universe, but I think that even if there were, we would be unable to interact with them, which is as good as not existing in my book.

P.S. is Vargas your last name?

Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed-this means it was there  pre big bang-in one form or another.

Quote from: "jobee"Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed-this means it was there  pre big bang-in one form or another.

Or that we are wrong about the law of conservation applying in all situations.

Quote from: "jobee"Energy/matter cannot be created or destroyed-this means it was there  pre big bang-in one form or another.

Or Quantum Fluctuations.

In the beginning, there was one really, really hot hydrogen ion....

Its heat energy became mass, and then there was light.

Either that, or we have no clue.  Let´s just say, "We don´t know," and get on with it, eh?

Human beings are far to inquisitive to leave it at the 'we don't know' stage.
Dont forget this planet will die and we must find ways of finding a suitable planet to live on.
We cant stay in this locality, there will be no sun to keep us warm.

Quote from: "jobee"We cant stay in this locality, there will be no sun to keep us warm.

The sun will engulf the Earth as a red giant before it collapses into a white dwarf.

Quote from: "jobee"Dont forget this planet will die and we must find ways of finding a suitable planet to live on.

I don't think we will. The whole human race will die eventually.

I bet you we give it a darn good try, mind you the next [possible] habitable planet is 73 thousand 'years' away at current speeds.

SSY, Hi and live great. Scientists sometimes go to the ridicule perhaps to escape realitiy or something of the sort. Just like the Bible that its full of contradictions so are many scientific text. Some challenge the BB while others had bagun to accept  or just accepted it. Lets look at the basic, 1) quantum mechanics: matters/particles ( energy ), that comes from NOTHING. Question to asked, prior to the BB, there was nothing or there was something? Answer, if its NOTHING then the basics of quantum mechanics is false if the BB is true. They cannot be both true and there is more true to quantum mechanics than to the BB. The BB seems to be true cause it locks many things in especially " the expansion of the Universe ".  2) Its the Universe really expanding ? This is also false cause the Universe is not Expanding. Everything that exists is in constan motion, the Universe is in constan motion but not expanding. The Hubble Space Telescope will prove that. So far they are seeying up to 13 or 14 billions of light years and this is what many want to say is how old is the BB. There is a big BUT, tried this, supposed that you are able to go to the HORIZON and stand at exactly 14 billion light years. You will be at the edge of the UNIVERSE where it suppose to be expanding. This is what you will see, MANY MORE GALAXIES extending another 14 billion light years, can you comprehend that or even imagine it. Many things are possible but many things are also impossible. I had done a lot of readings to find some lights into my own reasonings but I had found that most don't have the answers to my questions. I had learned a great deal cause its a two way proccess. You need to look more deeply and not accept what is handed to you just cause is so and so who is stating it and so and so its an authority. I'm an AUTHORITY. Thats where you want to take yourself and when you do, you will be a step or more ahead especially when reading others who considered themselves the " AUTHORITY ".

Quote from: "jobee"Human beings are far to inquisitive to leave it at the 'we don't know' stage.

Certainly, but I think we should leave it to the astrophysisists for now... you know, like, the people actually interested enough in the field to devote their enire lives to it.

Right now, we don't have enough information to work with.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "jobee"Human beings are far to inquisitive to leave it at the 'we don't know' stage.

Certainly, but I think we should leave it to the astrophysisists for now... you know, like, the people actually interested enough in the field to devote their enire lives to it.

Right now, we don't have enough information to work with.

All the latest info is on your computer, you can update when you like.

This man is worth a read=Miguel Alcubierre

Most of the your every day tools and gagets, such as computer, internet, cane-opener and even the automobile, tires and many other things were invented by ordinary folks. Scientists mostly had invented the many ways of how to destroyed something. They devote their entire lives to finding not a solution for better living but solutions for governments armaments. Just  Astrophyscists devote their entire lives to that subject DOES NOT APPOINT THEM MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE. They had not reveal anything that has impressed me or that is of VALUE.

Quote from: "hvargas"Just Astrophyscists devote their entire lives to that subject DOES NOT APPOINT THEM MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE. They had not reveal anything that has impressed me or that is of VALUE.

That's why we critique their findings... and... you know... read them critically?

And, of course, the little people with telescopes in their basements have been known to find out some pretty cool stuff, too.

Quote from: "hvargas"SSY, Hi and live great. Scientists sometimes go to the ridicule perhaps to escape realitiy or something of the sort. Just like the Bible that its full of contradictions so are many scientific text. Some challenge the BB while others had bagun to accept  or just accepted it. Lets look at the basic, 1) quantum mechanics: matters/particles ( energy ), that comes from NOTHING. Question to asked, prior to the BB, there was nothing or there was something? Answer, if its NOTHING then the basics of quantum mechanics is false if the BB is true. They cannot be both true and there is more true to quantum mechanics than to the BB. The BB seems to be true cause it locks many things in especially " the expansion of the Universe ".  2) Its the Universe really expanding ? This is also false cause the Universe is not Expanding. Everything that exists is in constan motion, the Universe is in constan motion but not expanding. The Hubble Space Telescope will prove that. So far they are seeying up to 13 or 14 billions of light years and this is what many want to say is how old is the BB. There is a big BUT, tried this, supposed that you are able to go to the HORIZON and stand at exactly 14 billion light years. You will be at the edge of the UNIVERSE where it suppose to be expanding. This is what you will see, MANY MORE GALAXIES extending another 14 billion light years, can you comprehend that or even imagine it. Many things are possible but many things are also impossible. I had done a lot of readings to find some lights into my own reasonings but I had found that most don't have the answers to my questions. I had learned a great deal cause its a two way proccess. You need to look more deeply and not accept what is handed to you just cause is so and so who is stating it and so and so its an authority. I'm an AUTHORITY. Thats where you want to take yourself and when you do, you will be a step or more ahead especially when reading others who considered themselves the " AUTHORITY ".

Wow, I just can't argue with great logic like that

QuoteAnswer, if its NOTHING then the basics of quantum mechanics is false if the BB is true.

QuoteIts the Universe really expanding ? This is also false cause the Universe is not Expanding.

Quotesupposed that you are able to go to the HORIZON and stand at exactly 14 billion light years. You will be at the edge of the UNIVERSE where it suppose to be expanding. This is what you will see, MANY MORE GALAXIES extending another 14 billion light years, can you comprehend that or even imagine it.

Unfortunately, you do not really understand these things, perhaps once you do, we could return to this area of discussion, but you have at least indirectly answered my question. The reason you do not believe in the BB is because you have very little education in cosmology. There is one question you failed to answer though. Is Vargas your last name?

Edit

QuoteScientists mostly had invented the many ways of how to destroyed something. They devote their entire lives to finding not a solution for better living but solutions for governments armaments.

This would be hilarious if it was not so sad, not just normal sad, but like, kittens being drowned sad. Sad as a group of excitable 5 years being told Santa is not real, and they have to pay back all the presents plus interest, in addition to the fact they have cancer and because they did not eat their vegetables, they lost their birthdays forever, this is litterally, that sad. Did something awful happen to you?

I had been thinking about this, while reading quite a bit. From what I understand the Big Bang Theory makes sense. I just think maybe we as humans may be limiting the size of the universe... I guess from just speculation: What if the big bang isn't the start of the universe, maybe it's a little more local than that (local but still freaking huge). What if the big bang is just the creation of several thousand galaxies just as suns get created... just on a much larger scale. So instead of just thinking that the universe was created 14 billion years ago, just the galaxies around us had been created and the big bang happens elsewhere in the universe.

So I guess my baseless idea is that in this universe is not just what got created by the big bang but our group of thousands of galaxies got created by a big bang and there are other big bangs that occurred and are occurring elsewhere just as new galaxies are occurring and new solar systems are occurring. Of course to find any kind of verification for such a silly idea would take a lot more time and galaxy tracking than I have available to test in the next 50-70 years. I just like the idea.

Quote from: "Davin"I had been thinking about this, while reading quite a bit. From what I understand the Big Bang Theory makes sense. I just think maybe we as humans may be limiting the size of the universe... I guess from just speculation: What if the big bang isn't the start of the universe, maybe it's a little more local than that (local but still freaking huge). What if the big bang is just the creation of several thousand galaxies just as suns get created... just on a much larger scale. So instead of just thinking that the universe was created 14 billion years ago, just the galaxies around us had been created and the big bang happens elsewhere in the universe.

So I guess my baseless idea is that in this universe is not just what got created by the big bang but our group of thousands of galaxies got created by a big bang and there are other big bangs that occurred and are occurring elsewhere just as new galaxies are occurring and new solar systems are occurring. Of course to find any kind of verification for such a silly idea would take a lot more time and galaxy tracking than I have available to test in the next 50-70 years. I just like the idea.

I think you might be hard pressed to find a (competent) scientist that will say with any certainty that what we call the universe is in fact all there is.  What you are talking about sounds a lot like the bubble universe hypothesis (might be considered a theory in the mathematically valid sense, been a year or so since I've read about this subject so it's a bit fuzzy).

T=0 is just set at the big bang since that is when time started for everything that was caused by the chain of events leading from the big bang.

In short, what you are saying is possible even while accepting the Big Bang as valid.

Quote from: "hvargas"Most of the your every day tools and gagets, such as computer, internet, cane-opener and even the automobile, tires and many other things were invented by ordinary folks. Scientists mostly had invented the many ways of how to destroyed something. They devote their entire lives to finding not a solution for better living but solutions for governments armaments. Just  Astrophyscists devote their entire lives to that subject DOES NOT APPOINT THEM MASTER OF THE UNIVERSE. They had not reveal anything that has impressed me or that is of VALUE.

Hmm, everything you've said in this thread is provably false. Instead of countering with a well constructed and time consuming reply - one which will ultimately remain unread by yourself - I'll simply ask the following of you:

What is the static you see on a TV when it is not tuned to a station?

If you answer this then maybe I'll consider replying to some of your other posts. If you don't reply then I'll just assume you're another fundy in love with the sound of its own voice with an overtly disdainful attitude for facts.

To be fair, a lot of that static is interference from things other then the cmb, like 99% of it is non cmb.

Quote from: "hvargas"Scientists mostly had invented the many ways of how to destroyed something.

This is a classic.

Quote from: "karadan"If you don't reply then I'll just assume you're another fundy in love with the sound of its own voice with an overtly disdainful attitude for facts.

Yet s/he is an atheist according to other posts; can't even blame it on fundy indoctrination.

Protip: "Big Bang" was a derisive phrase used to make fun of the original proposition.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Protip: "Big Bang" was a derisive phrase used to make fun of the original proposition.

Since co-opted and now recognised as a neutral reference by everyone in the scientific community?

Quote from: "SSY"

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Protip: "Big Bang" was a derisive phrase used to make fun of the original proposition.

Since co-opted and now recognised as a neutral reference by everyone in the scientific community?

Same way facial tissues are called Kleenex, adhesive bandages are called Band-Aids and cotton swabs are called Q-Tips: sometimes the name just sticks.

The point being that it's difficult to wrap your head around the concept of the Big Bang without thinking of it as an explosion with a starting point, after which material moved outward from that central point. But that's not what the Big Bang really is. So yes, co-opted as a neutral reference by everyone in the scientific community, the reference being to universe-expanding, singularity-origin-driven theory.

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"Same way facial tissues are called Kleenex, adhesive bandages are called Band-Aids and cotton swabs are called Q-Tips....

....and "I don't know" is called "God"....

Quote from: "SSY"To be fair, a lot of that static is interference from things other then the cmb, like 99% of it is non cmb.

Shhh! I wanted Fdesilva to say it.

All the of the BOOKS that I had read so far still say the Big Bang is a THEORY. The Back Ground Radiation is claiming that its everywhere, but is it everywhere or is just as far as our instruments indicates? If the Univerese is infinite it does away with the BIG BANG and with the Back Ground Radiation as being everywhere. What most books claim is that so far the BIG BANG is their best explanations as to the origin of the Universe and that it has stood up to scientific experimentations but it is still recognize as a theory not a final conclusive fact. When it becomes a fact it will no longer be a theory.

Quote from: "hvargas"All the of the BOOKS that I had read so far still say the Big Bang is a THEORY. The Back Ground Radiation is a claimed that its everywhere, but it is everywhere or just as far as our instruments indicates? If the Univerese is infinite it does away with the BIG BANG and with the Back Ground Radiation as being everywhere. What most books claim is that so far the BIG BANG is their best explanations as to the origin of the Universe and that it has stood up to scientific experimentations but it is still recognize as a theory not a final conclusive fact. When it becomes a fact it will no longer be a theory.

Well, a theory is the highest attainable principle in science which explains a class of phenomena. The properties of an electric current is a theory, and yet you are able to use a computer to type on the internet because this theory of the electric current works. Any scientist worth their salt will never say conclusively that something is a 100% total fact because they will then be closed to new experiences, ideas and revelations. A closed-minded scientist isn't a very good scientist. If science assumes it has arrived at an ultimate truth, it then stops searching and developing.

Where did you get the idea the universe was infinite? Also, even if the universe was infinite (something we do not know) then why would that kill off any notion of the big bang or cosmic microwave background radiation?

Quote from: "hvargas"What most books claim is that so far the BIG BANG is their best explanations as to the origin of the Universe and that it has stood up to scientific experimentations but it is still recognize as a theory not a final conclusive fact. When it becomes a fact it will no longer be a theory.

How long do you think a theory takes before it becomes a "final conclusive fact?" Say like 300 hundred years of confirmation? The truth is, nothing in science ever becomes a "final conclusive fact" (except for some data). The theory is what explains why and how events happen, the events themselves are "final conclusive fact." A rock falling to the ground is a fact, the theory of gravity is what explains why the rock fell to the ground, how fast it was going when it hit the ground, what the rocks acceleration was... etc.

Quote from: "dictionary.com"1.  Theory,  hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.  A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

[emphasis mine]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

For the sake of perspective, see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "dictionary.com"1.  Theory,  hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity.  A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

[emphasis mine]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

For the sake of perspective, see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_theory

Thanks for posting the definitions. I was just shaking my head in disbelief at how ADAMANT hvargas was being with the word THEORY as he was MISUSING it.
 

YEAH, I think I KNOW what you MEAN.  

Again, is not just most scientists but all scientists involved in the search of how the Universe came into existence that had not given the answer. So, when you read a book relating to this topic you read ideas and theories for which there are various. Sientists are hoping that through the works of these theories and ideas they may arrieved at a collective answer and it does not mean that it stops there. The electric current is something that you can work with and manipulate but you can't worked nor manipulate the Universe. If you want to go back to the dictionary do so but it will not make any different how it defines one thing or another. Here is my theory  " THE THEORY OF CONTRADICTIONS " . What does it state ? I will not reveal it.  :crazy:  :secret:  :hissyfit:  :bananacolor:

Quote from: "hvargas"Again, is not just most scientists but all scientists involved in the search of how the Universe came into existence that had not given the answer. So, when you read a book relating to this topic you read ideas and theories for which there are various. The electric current is something that you can work with and manipulate but you can't worked nor manipulate the Universe.

Can you name one reputable scientist who questions the Big Bang theory?  The more varied views are related to what happened before the BB and are based on theoretical calculations since we don't have any data that reaches back that far.