LMAO! Dude you are flipping out. How does E=MC^2 have anything to do with your statement that you can have energy without the presence of mass. They are one of the same! WTF man?!?! Call it fucking ying and yang man!
You said plasma. Get it? I was telling you what you think was plasma is not mass. End of discussion. I don't want to argue for your strawman.
do the math and get back to me e = mc^2 is the formula for equivalency of mass and energy, right? NOT WHEN THE RULES OF PHYSICS DO NOT APPLY. C = 0/0 Do the math.
http://sportstwo.com/threads/230077...on-god?p=2955063&highlight=plasma#post2955063 You're stuck on "PLASMA" Strawman
Psst. The singularity was not zero, fyi. The theoretical size was of a proton; which has a value over "0". But whatevs man... You go dancing in the moonlight and sing to zeppelin!
Okay Denny here is my "beginning" a proton size is http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/YelenaMeskina.shtml 10^15 m - 2 x 10^14 m. The speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s So the size of the singularity of mass and energy x the speed of light is 10^15 m = 10^15 m the speed of light = 299 792 458 m / s ^2
At best? Nah, I just don't know you that well. Ignorant? Maybe ignorance is involved. Let's see. I wasn't taking about your content (which is clearly quite eclectic -- and I honestly have no idea how old the universe is -- just like you) I was talking about your disposition -- your relationship to your personal orthodoxy, your beliefs. Whatever it is you believe, you seem to believe it in a black and white/matter of fact manner. And it's just an observation ... you know, from my perspective. I really thought you'd know exactly what I meant. Again, not about your content, but how you hold that content. Comes off as very black and white. Still confused? Review your exchange with Denny concerning what actually maintained at the big bang for just one example. One would never know you were discussing something highly theoretical and ultimately dependent upon a truck load of prior human conceptualizations. i.e., all our concepts, all the mental tools we have for grasping reality are animal concepts. For all the two of you said, I was surprised it never (seemed) occur to either of you that the concepts themselves may be what breaks down at the extremes of physical reality. But anyway, as maybe you can see, the main point of my reply was your (err, what I take to be a) grossly oversimplified, one size fits all, black and white, notion of faith. Care to respond to my claim that you can't have it both ways? Just sayin'
http://www.big-bang-theory.com Where are you getting this size of zero? "Small" doesn't mean zero. Stop this planet! I'm getting off!
What did it mean when (several times now) I've posted that the laws of physics did not apply at t=0, the extreme of physical reality?
You put two questions in "plain English" that have nothing to do with the conversation. Take your strawman and hyperbole elsewhere.
Oh I agree you can't have it both ways; which is why I say that my religious faith is just that! and Denny and I have a special relationship. If he was surrounded by wolves, I would fight with him to save his life. Call us the ying and yang of this thread. I poke at Denny because he is a PitBull. I can chop off his legs and he would still fight and bite until he dies. I am a lot the same way. I love to debate, maybe argue, whatever you want to label me. But your claim of "Black and White" is just wrong. If it were the case, then I would be 100% faithful towards the age of this planet and universe, because "God did it!". Not the case and this is why you show ignorance.
infinite density density = mass / volume Since you have volume = 0, density is infinite. http://www.universaltheory.org/html/basics/singularity/singularity5.htm Einstein mentions that singularity cannot contain topological space. This means there is no spatial dimension to singularity. In other words, singularity is a mathematical point. In such a realm, the notion of distance disappears and co-existence prevails. Steven Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose have worked on the theory of relativity and its implications regarding the notion of time. In 1968 and 1970, they published papers in which they extended Einstein’s theory of general relativity to include measurements of time and space. According to their calculations, “Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.” 12
Umm ... I give up ... just what you said? I took you to be talking laws of physics, I was thinking more of concepts (ways of thinking about things). But if it matters to you, I did get the sense You were moving in that direction. To be clear, I am talking about our human limits -- the ability of concepts derived from human interaction in a physical environment to map to the extreme circumstances at the extremes of reality. This is not the same as saying physical laws do not apply. I'm not saying that isn't what you may have meant, however.
“Time and space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. The singularity didn’t appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity.” Let's think about what Hawking wrote. Time and Space had a finite beginning, but matter and energy was always present. Knowing that matter and energy has volume, that would mean there is a measurement of volume (as infinitely small it was). The notion of "space" occured during expansion, but the singularity still had a volume. This, again, contradicts the value of zero.
