Thread: If matter cant be created or destroyed, where did all this stuff come from?

So much talk about this thing called energy. Is it really anything more than matter is motion, and something that can be measured with an instrument?

When matter is destroyed is it not de-constructed into its parts, which includes the de-construction of its particles and sub-atomic particles, etc.

Do we really need the concept of energy to explain the Universe, if energy is de-constructing matter?

How can something exist and not be made of matter. Surely, the idea of anti-matter was taken from Star Trek.

The so called evidence for the existence of anti-matter is evidence for the impacting emission acting as pressure and causing particles to de-construct (explode).

Its not "energy" which binds matter into the elements and other higher forms of construction, but the attraction between the particles and sub-atomic particles which involves the absorption of emission which is made of matter.

Matter can be destroyed only in the sense that it;s reduced to its constitutent parts which are made of matter.

Matter is not one thing, because everything is made of matter.


paradigm

Originally Posted by paradigm

Its not "energy" which binds matter into the elements and other higher forms of construction, but the attraction between the particles and sub-atomic particles which involves the absorption of emission which is made of matter.

To be honest, what I see here is a bunch of linguistic obstacles standing in a way of common understanding of this things.

Originally Posted by Luanne

To be honest, what I see here is a bunch of linguistic obstacles standing in a way of common understanding of this things.

"linguistic obstacles"

A common understanding would be in realizing that it has been experimentally established that the stability of atomic structure is relative to the density of the impacting emission.

A common understanding would be in realizing that gravitational attraction is caused by the absorption of emission and that space is composed of the emission of everything.

A common understanding would be in realzing that when you put these two things together you obtain an understanding of how the Universe works.

Planets and stars are constructed from Hydrogen within the context of the absorption of emission which results in the building of the rest of the elements, and within the context of the movement which results from that absorption of emission which involves the increasing density of impacting emission.

A common understanding would go beyond the abstractions of physics to the real material nature of the Universe.

It's a fact that the integrated paradigm of science specifies the parameters within which the elements are stabile.

It's a fact of the integrated paradigm of science that Hydrogen has a fourth isotope "quadritium" which has been detected in the inter-stellar "space" and mistakenly interpreted as molecular Hydrogen.

It's a fact of the integrated paradigm of science that our solar system begun with 13 planets.

It's a fact that to believe that you can measure distance with the light from galaxies and stars is to engage in delusion.

These things are only "linguistic obstacles" if you do not understand the English language.

paradigm

Yes, you're right, I don't understand English completely. It's not my language. Making you want to reply my post is however what I wanted.

Me just learning; pls don't mind!

paradigm, perhaps you could enlighten us by explaining what you're trying to say without simply repeating the word "emission" without reference to what is being emitted by what and how this emission "explains everything."

Are the emitted quanta simply photons, or all bosons? If only photons, what makes electromagnetic interaction more fundamental than weak and strong? Are you asserting that gravity is not an independent force at all, but an expression of electromagnetism? Would you say the same for weak and strong forces? What makes the particle-like behavior of a photon more fundamental than the wave-like behavior?

You say "space is composed of the emission of everything." By "space" do you mean the entire cosmos or only areas with low densities of non-dark matter? Is "everything" emitting to space or from it? What does your statement mean?

If you're not just making word salad, convince us, because so far you might as well have said, "Everything comes from the Holy Spirit!"