Can Matter be Created from Nothing? - Adam's Anti-Gravity Idea

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arsonade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Anti-gravity Idea
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around the feasibility of creating matter from nothing and challenges Einstein's theories, particularly the law of conservation of matter-energy. Participants debate the implications of the Big Bang theory, which suggests that matter and energy can emerge from a state of "nothing," raising questions about the validity of established physics laws. Some express skepticism about the Big Bang, arguing it contradicts fundamental principles, while others emphasize the importance of understanding existing theories before attempting to disprove them. The conversation highlights the complexities and mysteries of physics, suggesting that many concepts remain theoretical and open to interpretation. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects a blend of curiosity and skepticism regarding the foundations of modern physics.
  • #31
h8ter, are you sure your parents gave you permission to be on the interenet?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
h8ter said:
Ok, the Standard can NOT say that new theories are falsified through contradictory evidence. Where did you get that from?

What "Standard" are you talking about?

Anyway, you are wrong. If a theory makes a prediction, and the experimental evidence contradicts it, then the theory is wrong. It's just that simple.

Yes, I agree with you that the Standard Model does contradict with many devaiting theories. But it does not give reason to rule them out as wrong.
New theories can not be compared with the Standard Model. I'm sure you'll agree with me that you can not use one thing to prove a totally different thing wrong. It's like saying my birthday isn't the real birthday, because yours is on a different day.

You need to learn to read. I specifically said in the last line of my last post that a theory cannot be falsified by comparing it with another theory. They are falsified when compared with contradictory experimental evidence.

Experiments really don't mean anything. Oh, wow, the Standard Model is backed up by experiments that agree with observational data...ITS A THEORY! Sure, whatever, Tom.

Incorrect. Experiments mean everything. In science, they are the final court of appeals. If a theory doesn't match observed reality, then it's wrong.

Tom:
Incorrect. As I said above, you can not use the Standard Model in contradiction with proposed theories to rule them out as wrong. Nothing is falsified just because it does not go in accordance with the Standard Model.

Again: Learn to read. I did not say what you think I said.


Wrong. Experimental data is not what makes a theory concrete.

Again: Learn to read. I explicitly stated that theories cannot be proven, although they can be verified.

You can not compare experimental data either, because it relies on the theory itself. Which is just like comparing theories. So, yea. :-p

Incorrect. Experimental evidence is not a theory. It's the thing against which theories are tested.

Well, I told you to knock it off, but for some reason you have seen fit to keep acting like an idiot. So this alias of yours is going to be banned along with the others, and so will any future aliases.

Good riddance.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
8K