Mass Is Given Mass and Energy Has An Energy

''I've never read that. I have read an interpretation that says the big bang happened 'everywhere at once'. Do you have any links?''

Yes. Dr. Fred Alan Wolf's book, Parallel Universes, briefly speaks about how the present is an illusion, and that the future is happening right now. Anyone who understands relativity, would also understand that the past is happening right now too... So it would be natural to assume, that: If big bang just happened, then one must assume that the end was also happening.

I don't know how many people here would agree with me, but i'll give you a scenario. Imagine that big bang magically created a time machine, along with a man. Now if the man used the time machine to move away from big bang (and yes, i know its totally impossible for so many reasons - its hypothetical) in time to the future, then one must assume the future was happening right there and then, because if it wasn't, then there would be no [present] future to move towards would there be?

Naturally: When big bang happened, just after it so had a big crunch. Beginning and end.

''Philosophy without data is just a storyline, proper or not. Data suggest there isn't enough mass in our universe to halt the expansion, in fact the expansion is speeding up. What data do you have to support a closed universe?''

I don't have any data... only that the end could be an infinite amount of ways unknown to science.

''Whether they make sense or not, infinities are common in physics.''

I know. I am only speculating and postulating.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well spotted.

Relativity predicts that the present is an illusion. The present is the past, and is the future... only that we are stuck in this present, which is the future of the past.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Note how the wish to debate sceince has been thrusted to being pseudo scientific

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=66205

 

What happened to mass being equal to the weight of its atomic parts, and mass is the collection of those atoms (or particles)?

 

Never mind atomic measurements... they can be answered for easily, as the question to atomic weight to mass collection, is about as arbitrary as measuring the quantum number against their masses. It doesn't explain how mass has mass.

Though i am glad you raised this point. I don't think the Higgs exists.

What about Einsteins equivalance principle, explaining that mass is the same as survature and distortion. If this is true, then a scientist cannot tell which came first, as it is the old Chiken And The Egg scenario. In relativity, we don't know whether it is the distortions creating the matter, or whether the matter is causing distortion. This is true. So what now?

If scientists are correct, then the Higgs provides mass, but what about the equations describing distortion ''creating'' mass? Should this not be enough?

Also, matter has solidity, and doesn't merge into other mass, because of the force of electromagnetism. They act like tiny little magnets reppelling each other, and we are talking about a lot of electrostatic repulsion with us against Earth right now. This creates a system with a solid mass.