Evolutionism explained. How to explain the existence of matter?

Anybody here heard of string theory and 'M' theory, which if correct would explain a lot about how our universe came to be, certainly more creditable than the sky monster called god.

 

The fact is matter exists. Another fact is that noone knows why. I'm o.k. with that. Many are not, that's why they pretend to know.

 

Is the universe "hotter" then? Analogy: If water (energy) becomes ice (matter) because its cold we should see a hotter universe if matter becomes energy. By the way: in the sun is existing a lot of heat and a lot of matter. Your theory has problems. Specially also because never 2 snowflakes are the same but every hydrogen-atom is always the same like all others.

Lots of people are saying lots of things about physics in the english speaking world - in nearly all cases it's wrong or unprovable what they say. So critics is also in case of science important. Specially: Science is not another form of religion - that's nonsense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVDBjVA3-8E

 

Water isn't energy. It is matter. Matter isn't necessarily colder than energy. And no one has ever demonstrated that hydrogen atoms are the same.

Just stop now. You are too ignorant to comment on issues of science. Get educated.

Ah. I see. So the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy (something taught to every high schooler) is wrong.

Someone alert the Nobel Prize Committee. Anobistar knows more than every single scientist in the world and has just disproven one of the basic principles of physics all on his say-so.

 

I'm a German. Germans are asking if they like to know something. That's why I'm asking: "How do you explain the existance of matter?". The problem: In the english speaking world every interesting question seems to cause a senseless war of words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y0aOtok7VM

 

That's why I used the word "analogy"

Bye bye and Happy New Year

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WBmqz_qh_o

 

Show me a creationist who does not present that they know more than every scientist on earth.

The level of delusion and denial speaks volumes about what it takes to be a creationist.

Spreading it to little children is a disgusting form of child abuse.

 

The danger that a normal man who is married is a child abuser is 2500%-3600% higher as in case of a priest of the catholic church who lives single. And even in the most cases where indeed a priest was a child abuser the deeds were less hard in average. This is not an excuse for any crime any catholic priest did - but it's on the other side not superflous to try to reach a higher level in religious devotion. Only because it's more horrifying if a priest makes something wrong doesn't mean that priests or monks are bad or evil human beings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDhYGdK0KQg

 

Why in other words? Can't you just speak clearly instead of using nonsensical analogues with fleas?

Yes, net, as opposed to gross. I couldn't care less what economists think, the term is borrowed and more or less means total.

There is nothing unphysical about negative energies, read more here. Negative energy does not correspond to anti-gravity, nor does it correspond to antimatter. If you're going to attack my positions, you're going to have to make sure that you know what they are.

I don't see how my being alive is relevant for the paragraph you quoted.

My argument does not hinge upon money being real, the analogy still stands.

You still don't explain why it not interacting with me means it doesn't exist. There are plenty of things that don't interact with me, for instance, cosmic radiation and isolated quantum particles. They still exist.

You're not arguing your point here, you're just stating it again.

I have two objections. One is that an object can have some negative energy and some positive energy, summing to zero. Such an object would have a total energy of zero, but there would still be positive energy available for interactions. The other is that a system which has no positive or negative energy can still be interacted with by, for instance, have an external system deposit energy in it.

I'm not particularly questioning the statement (although I would argue that you can be sure beyond doubt of any definitional logic), I'm questioning whether this is relevant to the discussion.

A zero energy universe can still be lovely and full of both dreams and things that might populate your dreams. It would be silly to disregard the beautiful things in a world just because you don't agree with some of the features of the world.

The potential energy we take from gravity does not affect us. It is like a loan that we don't have to pay back (until a heat death of the universe) and there is nothing depressing about the notion that that is where the energy comes from.