Summations Only

Hi ringo, The universe is made of atoms which we are told are made up of protons, neutrons and electrons.So as we look at the ground we can see an object formed of many atoms. When we look at the moon we see an object formed of many atoms.This is what would be existing materials.Now as far as a test to check non-existence I don't know of one.For the simple reason I would not exist and neither would you. The universe would not exist as there would be no atoms, protons, neutrons and electrons.Besides that there would be no existence for them to exist in.God Bless,

So a collection of quarks, photons, and gluons without any protons, neutrons, and electrons would not be a universe, right?

Hi Son, How can that be his personal ideas when he believes the universe was produced by an instanton? Amazing, one more time you agree with somethng I have said. The only other possibility is that it existed in some form.String theory and M-theory postulate existence prior to T=0. I thought T=0 was the point that the math became meaningless.I forgot you in Message 86 you said:

quote:

---

ICANT writes:

​

My understanding is it breaks down at T=0 and therefore can not declare anything prior to T=0. Correct me if that is wrong.

I don't like calling the Big Bang "T=0", but going on that wording it breaksdown between T = 0 and T = A very small amount of time.

---

You said in Message 295

quote:

---

13.7 billion years ago the whole universe was about the size of a pea. With the same amount of matter packed into it, hence it was very dense. It wasn't 5 billion light years wide until a while later.

---

That was a very very very very short time after T=0.
Now either the universe had existed in some form prior to T=0 or during the time from T=0 and T=0+vvvvst the universe began to exist in and from non-existence.The universe beginning to exist in non-existence from non-existent atoms which are composed of particles called protons, electrons and neutrons is impossible.God Bless,

Hi No, Doesn't a proton contain 2 'up' quarks and 1 'down' quark?
Doesn't a neutron contain 1 'up' quark and 2 'down' quarks?
Don't the gluons bind the quarks to one another?
Isn't a photon created by the electrons which is a elementary particle.Doesn't the proton and neutron which contain quarks and gluons along with the electron exist inside of the atom?Wouldn't that make your question absurd.God Bless,

Perhaps it does. Perhaps not.You, ICANT are the one who described the universe as being made up of protons, neutrons and electrons. I'm pointing out that the BBT includes an epoch were there were no nucleons.If my question is absurd, it is because the following statement is absurd:

Scriptures of your faith? It's a mathematical model, I can derive the consequences since I know the mathematics. No it doesn't. I am well aware of all the details of the Big Bang model, there is no mention of a Planck volume anywhere in the model. I can provide references if you wish. The Planck epoch is a period in some extensions to the Big Bang model, not in the model itself.

I don't know "how" things can be Stephen Hawking's personal ideas. The same reasons other concepts are other people's personal ideas I guess. It is, hence that point and the time points near it are not included in the Big Bang model, since they are meaningless. Yeah, I guess maybe. That's a question for extensions to the Big Bang model. The model itself does not deal with what happened before the electroweak/quark-gluon plasma.

The same place that the current universe exists perhaps?

Can you show where the Big Bang Theory has something to say about the Planck volume (other than to declare it out of scope)?If, again, you are unable to support your claim, then please simply type "No".

Well, what I am saying is that such terms as energy, force and so on are abstractions, relations and measures. They are properties and capacities of things that interact. What bigbangism does is the trick of reifying these abstractions to claim that they can exist on their own while the actors that may resist compression could be removed from the scene altogether.
They convert the measure of mass that needs to occupy a lot of volume into energy that does not need a place to exist and they imagine that all mass measured to be in existence could possibly undergo such a miraculous conversion at once. I am just pointing out to you that this is a quackery and a scientific fraud the current quackademia is engaged into at the expense of the gullible public. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

I'll take the advice of NoNukes. Unless you're intelligent enough to argue with, you're too stupid to argue with.

Current theoretical physics does not claim, in any theory, that energy is an object that exists in its own right. It is always the property of some object.

Do you have any evidence to support this? The big bang is not about compression, its about the opposite - expansion. And stuff that makes expansion (which is kind of similar to 'resisting compression' I suppose) is not removed from the scene, but very much a part of it! No 'conversion' required. Energy and mass are equivalent properties. Matter doesn't come into existence for some time after the initial conditions. This is not the theory that I was taught. Nor is it the theory as I've ever seen it written by anybody that was a physicist. What you are postulating is quite similar to Kent Hovind's 'big bang' theory - which as you point out, is quackery.Try picking on the real thing, and you'll find you can't dismiss it as quackery so easily.

The term they use to mask that mathemagical operation is quantum fluctuations. The quacks like Krauss do not say directly that the Universe popped out from pure nothing the ordinary understanding of the term nothing would rigorously imply. No, they say there are different kinds of nothing. Pure nothing meaning a total absence of all things in all places including the absence of all places for anything to be in, and nothing as understood by the quackery they practice, ie, the above only filled with a quantum energy field that is capable of fluctuating which means slightly changing some values of its magnitude for no reason anybody can possibly know anything about.Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.

Good, Son, you are starting to talk rationally. Objects exist and their properties is the sum of their relations to and interactions with all other objects. Unlike what you were taught at the seminary. Therefore just like I said all the objects in existence could not be compressed so as to require next to no volume. The Universe can neither contract nor expand a single Planck length. And no God nor the Devil let alone a silly ape with a Nobel prize on its stupid breast can do anything about it.