T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe

By microscopic do you mean dark matter/energy? And to follow the LHC question, would this be something the LHC would be able to, or at least predicted to, find? And where would the Higgs boson fit into all of this?Sorry if my questions seem redundant. I don't know where some of these things connect to each other.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

Does this mean it would have been present at the very early universe stage?From what I read it is one of the building blocks of the universe, at what moment after T=O did it appear, or could it have been the catalist for the expantion itself?

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

I think the actual problem is that you think you know what your talking about. If you go through this site and read whats posted on the threads you may get a better understanding of what is being explained, and not just generalize what you think scientists say about the Universe and how it came into existance.

---

All great truths begin as blasphemies

I will just give you some pointers on how to better debate them and get to the root of their misunderstanding, since Rahvin has explained the physics part of it so well. Yes. If they believe in god they should put him anywhere they want.But, ask them why do they feel they should place him anywhere? God just is, right? Did they give you any reason as to why they feel it should be "triggered" by something? When a star goes supernova do they also look for god to have triggered that too?Seems like if you feel god is needed for one action, then you would require him for all actions, why the expansion specifically? Do they feel it is the moment of "creation"? If they do that may be their initial problem, they do not understand what they Big Bang says.Perhaps you should start there with them. This is incorrect. If this is what they think then they do need to learn what the Big Bang theory says first before trying to conceptualize an origin that is completely confused by their own lack of understanding and misconceptions. How did yesterday become today? - this is how you should respond to them.To be honest, if your "friends" are asking questions like "Who/what" started it, then they're already convinced that something must have started it and have already made up their minds about it.At that point nothing short of them really getting deep into the physics behind the theory would show them anything different. Conceptually they've already convinced themselves that there was a starting point where nothing was suddenly something. This is the way it is shown on the Discovery Channel, and has become a common misconception because of it, so anyone who has faith that god exists feels compelled to place him there.But, if they understood it properly, it would be like needing to place god at yesterday or if not how did we get to today?It is tough to get them to change their conceptual ideas of the origin of the universe. They have faith in god and can place him anywhere they want. It's frustrating to debate them, especially in topics like the Big Bang where usually both sides debating it don't understand any of the math behind it and just talk crap about what they think they know...like I do, somtimes Wait, are we talking about you or your friends? They are missing something, right?Do you also feel like god is required? Do you also believe something or someone was needed to "trigger" the expansion?- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

It is not the "new thing", this has always been the thing.When one says "relative to the observer", the observer can be something as simple as a particle. It can also mean "relative to you - the observer". In QM the "observer" could be a virtual particle, in the macro world the "observer" could be another star - or you. It simply means a coordinate/reference point. It is and it does. The "infinite value" is given when the equations run to infinum. At bellow Plank scale our current models fail to describe spacetime and therefore equate to infinum.The "finite value" of the macro world - the reality you experience - is finite because our mathematics equates it to a "real" number value. I don't know what you mean by "value", the laws of physics that govern our universe are a by-product of the 4D universe that we are in, they are not preexisting laws. In fact, they aren't laws at all, we just call them laws because they follow a predictable pattern. That is only because they feel these values are preexisting and determined by the god that they already believe in. If they were to study it properly no such conclusion would be derived at.- Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky