The Big Bang and Absolute Zero

If by "no proof" you actually mean "no scientific evidence", then you're wrong. The difference between your position and the scientific consensus is objective evidence. You can always refuse to accept the implications of the evidence, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist. I don't think that "everything is made of something" has yet been established as one of the physical laws of our universe. I think that what Son Goku and Cavediver would say about space/time is that it has properties that that we've objectively measured, such as curvature, and these properties are included in our theoretical models.But I don't think mass has ever been measured as a property of space/time, and so lacking objective evidence of this property we do not include it in our theoretical models.I guess you could argue that one day we'll detect the mass of space/time, but until that day arrives you're arguing a position that is without evidence.But aren't we drifting a bit far from the original topic? Does this tie back in somehow?--Percy

Uh, yes. It does come up a heck of a lot, but I'm not sure it makes sense to have every cosmology-related thread take on the task of explaining the nature of space/time. Perhaps people could take up that topic over at What is "the fabric" of space-time?.--Percy

It wouldn't have to be much of a spaceship. The space about a mile away from you is retreating at the rate of only 0.1 nanometers/hour.It is only space that is a great distance away that is retreating at significant rates.--Percy

Hi, 'No Evo Proof', welcome aboard! If by matter you mean the normal matter of everyday life that we're familiar with, Big Bang theory says that hydrogen, helium and a little lithium and perhaps tiny amounts of beryllium condensed from the plasma of quarks and other particles that existed shortly after T=0, but makes no claims about where the particles comprising that plasma came from. The other elements were cooked in the fusion furnaces of stars and in supernova explosions. This would be off-topic in this thread. Why don't you check out some of the threads over at the [forum=-5] forum.--Percy

Hi 'no evo proof',There's a little reply button beneath each post. If you use that instead of the General Reply button, then people will be able to tell who you're replying to. This is a science thread. If you'd like to discuss religion you should visit one of the religion threads. If you'd like to discuss the age of the earth then you should seek out threads in the [forum=-7] and [forum=-3] forums. Matter is converted to energy and vice versa all the time. I think what you're trying to say is that we don't know where the material comprising the Big Bang came from, which is true, we don't. But that's not the topic of this thread. If you'd like to discuss that topic then you should propose a new thread over at [forum=-25]. This is the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity, with a splash of irrelevant ridicule.You should ponder a bit on what Teen4Christ said in Message 33. Besides being off-topic most of the time, you're not making arguments that make any sense.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Actually, 2LOT holds for both open and closed systems. It's just that thermodynamic problems are easier to consider for closed systems, so we usually talk about closed systems rather than open ones. The simplest statement of 2LOT is for a closed system, i.e., "Entropy cannot decrease in a closed system."--Percy

There was no alleged absolute zero. As was explained in the the first reply in this thread (Message 3) and elaborated on in subsequent posts, the universe began in a small, dense extremely hot state, definitely not absolute zero.--Percy

A thread titled The Big Bang and Absolute Zero may not be the best place to discuss your T=0 issues. Perhaps you should propose a thread over at [forum=-25].--Percy