If Energy cannot be created or destroyed, how can there be a beginning to the Universe ?

I did a google search and it seems antirocks do not exist, so fantasy that matter is energy is FALSE.

https://www.google.com/search?q=antirock&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

Sure, because we extract energy from matter does not mean matter is necessarily a source of energy.

Energy is not produced from fantasies of imaginations gone overboard.

If you dont have anything REAL then you have nothing, zippo, nada to counter the fact that matter is not energy.

I suppose you stored all your rock energy in your secret antirock storage container?

 

sure, all you need to do is light it and get it burning to extract energy from it, but antirock literally had me laughing so hard I spilled coffee on the keyboard and now uncouth is trying to sell it no less LMAO.

 

Oh, so you don't believe antimatter exists, okay. I've never seen any myself, but when the guys working at the collider say they've made small amounts of it, I just tentatively take their word for it.

Again, we turn matter into energy all the time. All you really have to do to get energy out of your lazy rock is hit it with a hammer. If it emits a spark, some of it has been converted to energy. There's nothing even far-fetched about supposing that all matter could be converted to energy in some way or another. Not knowing how to do it is a bad reason to believe something impossible. Unless you've been asking how it could be done without doing anything to the rock. But that would be silly; asking how to do do something to something without doing anything to it. Hopefully, that's not what you were thinking, but either way, the natural world does not conform itself to definitions.

 

The LEP example shows that the energy can be accessed (and used to perform work). A rock is for these purposes nothing but a collection of particles, each of which can undergo annihilation if paired with antiparticles from an "anti-rock" (if I can call it that) and thus release its energy.

 

great show us these antirock particles so we can run our cars!
and you should teach uncouth that he had to put more energy into hitting the rock with the hammer than he got out producing his spark
that not energy extraction instead energy sucking. LOL

so lets see your antirock particles and the work they can do for us.

 

Scientists invent a more or less exhaustive list of theories and reject the ones that fail. There are several positions, like quantum mechanics which were really quite unpopular, and for good reason, until it turned out that the evidence was persuasive.

The big bang is the idea that matter expanded rapidly from a single point in time and space. It doesn't in itself present a claim about how the generation of that matter or energy took place, although it has given us some hints (for instance, if most matter seems to have come from the same place, processes with high energy density is probably a good place to look for further information).

A plausible, but unproven, idea is that given that gravitational energy is negative, a certain amount of mass in a certain gravity situation will have a net energy of zero, meaning that energy didn't need to be provided at the beginning of the universe.

 

Sure, it's called anti-matter,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
it's the world's priciest substance, at ~$250 billion/gram. CERN could produce about a billionth of a gram per year if it was aimed at it. (But yes, there are ideas of producing lots of it and using it as rocket fuel, although they are rather out-there ideas)

Indeed from the wikipedia page:
"Annihilation usually results in a release of energy that becomes available for heat or work. The amount of the released energy is usually proportional to the total mass of the collided matter and antimatter, in accord with the mass–energy equivalence equation, E = mc^2."

So yeah, the energy that comes out of this annihilation can become available for work, thus fulfilling your definition of energy.

Actually, the energy that comes out of the collision is more than the kinetic energy which caused the collision. The additional energy comes from the mass of the annihilated particles. Just like the amount of energy that comes out of coal is greater than the flame it takes to light the coal on fire.

 

Quantum fluxuations is considered how the big bang was possible. Of course, unless one believes in magic then the only plausable explanation is an intelligent agent. Before scientists knew about the big bang, atheists claimed the universe was eternal. Now we know different yet athiests continue to become more and more irrational.

 

Scientists discover that the soul can't die......
http://nativenewsonly.com/2017/12/2...soul-cannot-die-it-goes-back-to-the-universe/

 

There is much magic in the TESTAMENT OF SOLOMON...
http://www.esotericarchives.com/solomon/testamen.htm

And Science confirms magic in the HOLOGRAPHIC UNIVERSE....
http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

 

No it does no such thing.

This conforms to the the old addage: if ya cant dazzle with brilliance baffle em with bullshit!

Please spare me.

The inefficiency of antimatter production is enormous: you get only a tenth of a billion (10-10) of the invested energy back. If we could assemble all the antimatter we've ever made at CERN and annihilate it with matter, we would have only enough energy to light a single electric light bulb for a few minutes. http://angelsanddemons.web.cern.ch/faq/antimatter-to-create-energy

to fit the definition of 'energy' you need to get more power out than you put in, your antirock like uncouths hammer both require more energy than you get out, therefore a rock is not energy by any stretch of the imagination. (at least not mine)

is oil heat? LOL

The barrel of oil equivalent (BOE) is a unit of energy based on the approximate energy released by burning one barrel (42 U.S. gallons or 158.9873 litres) of crude oil. ... The value is necessarily approximate as various grades of oil and gas have slightly different heating values.

 

Could not energy have been in a perfect state of potential energy prior to the Big Bang?

 

I'd buy the big vortex, the big bang is more science flatulence.

 

I see. So atheists believe in magic......thanks.

 

Energy is not created or destroyed, it is preserved. You're never going to find a process from which can get more power than you put in, not even with common energy concepts like combustion or gravitational forces. In coal, you extract energy which was in the coal from before your combustion, and in the annihilation, you extract energy which was already present in the protons before the annihilation.

Yes, it takes a lot of energy to create antimatter, however, I'm talking about getting energy out of the matter. In order to prove my point, I need to show that energy is coming out of proton in the annihilation. That point is not encumbered by the fact that in order to get it out, I need to produce antimatter expensively.

Let's consider electron positron annihilation. Protons and atoms consist of lots of smaller parts, so it has the additional complexity of getting all the pieces to cancel out at the same time, but electrons/positrons highlight the point I'm trying to make without adding unnecessary complexity. The same points apply to more complex particles.

In particular, let's consider the low energy case described here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron–positron_annihilation#Low_energy_case
Electrons are a piece of matter, and we can extract energy out of it, by annihilating it with a positron.

One electron and one positron are collided, and we observe their annihilation (in their centre-of-mass frame). They are collided with a negligible kinetic energy (that is what they mean by low energy case). In their annihilation, two photons can come into existence. Each photon carries 511 keV of kinetic energy. Before the annihilation, there was negligible kinetic energy, so the energy must come from the matter in the electron and the positron (indeed, the rest energy of an electron and a positron in 511 keV). The energy of the photons coming out of this interaction can be used to do work, thereby satisfying your definition of energy.

 

Huh? Only takes a small equivalent of a rifle shot to set off a nuke that can level new york city. A small spark ignites gas in a controlled explosion to run your car. A small shot and a spark is little power in high power out in both cases.

so where is the part that shows you can extract energy to produce work from a rock? I looked all over in your posts and still dont see it. Where is it?

The only think I ma interested in here is the ability to convert a rock to energy, not a long list of theories.

Just because you can get an energetic reaction out of matter by blasting the **** out of it does not mean matter is energy.

So I went outside and got a rock, now tell us how I can extract energy from it without putting more energy in than I get out. I tried a spark and that did not work and I tried hitting it with a hammer and that didnt work either

 

Rocks consist of among other things electron. My argument above shows have you can extract energy from those electrons. I have also mentioned that the other particles in a rock will follow similar rules.

Well, the theories will tell you about the ability to convert stuff to energy.

The definition you provided only said you had to be able to get it to do work, which I have shown. The idea that you have to get a net positive energy out of it is not in the definition you provided, and does not need to be satisfied to qualify as energy. That seems to me only necessary to make it a useful energy source, not to make it energy. Gravel on Pluto is pretty useless to us, that doesn't stop it from being gravel.

 

Why would the size of the spark matter? The point is that you can get energy out of it, not that you can do it with a particularly small spark.

It does if energy goes from inside the particle to work. I don't see why having to blast it to kingdom come makes any difference.

 

but not before you add more energy than you are capable of getting out, that is not energy production, as the match with gas or shot with nuke.

just because you can blast the **** out of something and force a nuclear reaction does not mean matter is energy.

 

The example you are giving is you heat the rock then say hey look my rock is a source of energy that is not a source of energy. A rock does not have the capacity to produce energy.

it does not do work, energy means increased ability to produce work, not a black hole to suck up a more energy to get a reaction than you are able to get out.

gas can be considered a form of matter capable of producing energy it does work, rocks not so much

 

something cannot come from nothing - there is no evidence it ever has.
something has always existed.

 

did you mean that for the guy I responded to since I dont have a problem with what you said, I had a problem with what he said,

 

I have to chuckle. Atheists choose to believe or not believe what they want in order to continue the charade. Watching them twist themselves into knots to achieve their pretzel logic is quite entertaining.

 

No, the example releases energy which was inside the mass. I'm concerned about your use of the word "source". Energy is neither created nor destroyed, it only changes forms. A hot rock is not a source of energy per se, it's a rock which has stored energy as thermal energy.

The only thing I have to do in order to show that energy is contained in mass is that energy can transfer from mass to kinetic energy. How the energy came to be in matter form does not matter for the purposes of that example.

We have (albeit painstakingly) set up a system in which there is only mass, two particles with no movement and no influx of energy. This turns into a system in which there is movement, i.e. energy. The energy must have come from somewhere in this closed system, and the matter is the only option (not strictly true, it could be gravitational or electromagnetic effects, but we can calculate all of those and they're comparatively very small).

No, energy is the property which needs to be transferred in order to perform work. Whether it takes even more energy to produce a setup in which you can get at it is not a part of your definition.

Technically, all the energy you lose by creating the antimatter will still be around, it'll just have dissipated as heat, or sound, or more matter or any number of other things.

 

Do you even know that theoretical physics is a thing?