Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

originally posted by: ImaFungi
originally posted by: [post=17812985]Arbitrageur

How can mass be 'radiated away completely'? Does this imply that all matter is composed of nothing but radiation? That and electron and quarks (or quadrillions of them) can be transformed into pure radiation?

Your close it implies that mass is energy thats the basis of Einstein's work. E=MC 2 tells us mass and energy are the same thing interchangeable in fact you can use energy to create mass or mass to create energy.

Infinite space time curvature and infinitely strong gravitational forces is just another way of saying, the values we would take of the curvature and gravitational forces are at a value right now, but over time that value will increase, so the value is not finite?

Not exactly sure what you mean here but ill say this Gravity wiill propagate outwards and there is no limit to the extent it reaches. However, from a practical standpoint, at extreme distances, the gravitational force between two objects becomes negligible, because you end up with absurd numbers in the denominator. (say 1/100000000000000000 Newtons of force).But you will never have zero no matter the distance of the two objects.Now if we look at it another way in quantum field theory description of gravity, where the force is mediated by particles called gravitons, then the range is infinite because nothing would stop gravitons from propagating out to infinity. Just as nothing stops photons from doing so in electromagnetic theory.

originally posted by: KrzYma

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: KrzYma
Nobody is expecting you to believe a theory of quantum gravity, because there isn't one. That is the theory that's expected to cover black hole theory where relativity breaks down in a singularity.

But there is certainly plenty of evidence for theories of relativity and quantum mechanics which work pretty well with a couple of exceptions like the black hole singularity, and they work way better than EU "theory" which isn't even a scientific theory.

yes, but all those theories only mimic the observed and don't explain it.
Einstein's space time for example is nothing but just a description of what we see and not why we see it.
Science is based on known (understood in terms of reaction and not cause) evidences therefore incomplete.

I'm not saying I have the whole answer, NO !

but to the Black Hole in centre of the Galaxies...
I don't know... there is another explanation

Science is seeing gravity as an additional field, I mean, the more masses close to another on smaller space the stronger the gravity field. It is a field for sure, they try to catch a gravitational wave. Looks like a tensor field, right ?
Where is the field the strongest ?? in the centre of all masses. There in the centre, is the gravitational addition of all GF of the galaxy.... actually more, all the surrounding masses to a certain point of no influence.
Do we need any additional mass to this to drive the Stars like they move ?
I see no need for any Black Hole.
The gravitational field is doing it, mimic our illusion of a black hole
So those black holes can variate in size and mass, like the surrounding masses.

What makes a Black Hole ? Gravity, acceleration about 3x10`8/s lets no light escape. I agree with that ! (not the numbers but the idea)
Earth acceleration ( gravity ) is roughly 9.8 m/s^2
Sun's is about 274 m/s^2
Mass of the Milky Way is about 1.0–1.5×10^12 Solar masses
The rest of the Universe until no influence point is adding to this mass as well.
I know the masses are distributed over ( what seams to us ) a large distance, but how large is an galaxy compare to the known universe ? If the horizon is even the no influence point what I don't think.

The funny thing about this is, should any star ever fall into the centre of it's all surrounding masses it would explode due to the acceleration.
So yes, gamma bursts are collapsing stars, the only difference is what they collapse into and not into them self

Following this gravitational dense field do not even require any near surrounding masses to reach a point of acceleration that would define a black hole, is an additional field, remember.

We "see" Black Holes not only in centre of Galaxy's, and also see gravitational lenses, right ??

Do we need dark matter ?

I know you will say, scientists have calculated this and the mass is not enough.

Relativity isnt a description of observation thats Newtons theory. Einstein explains why we see the universe the way we do its a model. So far we have yet to find anything that can contradict his model. Now as far as speed causing a star to explode remember the star doesnt know how fast its moving because its all relative. Nothing changes to a star as it approaches the speed of light, only an outside observer can notice the speed its traveling. Gamma ray bursts is the last gasp of a star its interior has already formed a black hole the star just doesnt know it. This blackhole sucks in so much mass that it hiccups sort of. Meaning theres more mass than the black hole can handle this stops intaking matter, with no core this starts a chain reaction in the outer layers leading to the ultimate fusion bomb as mass is almost instantly converted to energy.


As far as dark matter its a place holder nothing more we have observed its existence are calculations tell us it has to be there but we dont really know what it is. All we know is its effects it is having on our observations, Hopefully the LHC will give us some clues on what were looking for as we look at smaller and smaller areas.

a reply to: dragonridr

So do you think its possible the universe is 'vacuum sealed'? Meaning a closed universe, a solid (meaning no way of clearing the existence of energy to reaching an area of pure nothingness, like what may exist beyond the closed universe) blob of energy. Meaning that gravity and light would not travel in all directions forever but eventually potentially bundle up at the ends or hit the ends and come 'ricocheting/crashing' back. Or is it more likely that if area of nothingness exists beyond 'energy/fields' and galaxy formations, (lets say infinite lightyears to the Googolplex^infinite lightyears west of here, and then a bigillion light years beyond that) there exists pure nothingness all around, and (there may be other splotches of universes, but eventually there is going to be more nothing then something, because something is fininte, where as the nature of nothing is hardly comprehensible in its immensity and manner of existing (please dont bring up word games and things like if you give it a name and think it its no longer nothing its something, those are very ill thought out, simple minded, not even arguments, dumb statements)) it is possible to clear energy or 'a hole' in all the energy fields, move them all out of the way, to create a pocket, or reach a space that is void of energy field, universal essence, and is pure eternal, infinite, true absolute nothingness? I know this is what the idea of vacuum is about, I know the occurrence of quantum fluctuations occurs, but when its said a near perfect vacuum is create that only has a few particles or atoms every square inch or something, is that to say that the volume of area there there are not particles or atoms in that vacuum, is pure true nothingness? Do you realize what im asking. Is that pure nothingness, or is the universe a pure inescapable 'block/substance/material', where as digging inwards or within, will not let you touch whats outside, but can only pierce and touch and move, and change, the fundamental components of this universe, that exist throughout it?

What came first energy or mass? What came first energy or gravity? What came first mass or gravity? What came first radiation or gravity? Is the gravity field created out of energy? Does the gravity field have mass? Where there are no photons is there an EM field? Does EM field have energy besides the photons being created by other particles?

a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok lets go down the rabbit hole shall we. Now your right outside the universe could be nothing i mean absolutely nothing but again that would be part of the universe wouldnt it space would still be there. But lets look where the science leads us right mow as you hear all the time the universe is infinite right? Well if the universe is infinite than also wouldnt the universe contain infinite matter. Which means every configuration of matter is out there somewhere in the universe. This would mean that every possible assemblage of matter meaning there would be an infinite number of earths or even you! This gets back to our visible universe we can never see past our universe because space is being created and at a certain point the expansion of space is greater than the speed of light. Now another theory to entertain is the multiverse people hear it but they dont really grasp the concept. Dont think of it as different dimensions think of it as different laws.In our universe a universe matter, energy, time, and space that is all interacting and subject to the same fundamental physical laws.Anything that doesnt abide by our laws by its very nature would be outside our universe. If there was an Area where gravity was 1000 times stronger than here that would definitely be outside our universe. Now what if say that area of space was very close to our but by the nature of its physical properties we cant see it? Maybe gravity isnt a property of our universe at all but its an effect from another??????

Thuth is we may never know the answers well i take that back if there is a multiverse i think someday will detect it. But as far as just an infinite universe and ares only being an incredibly small part i doubt will ever know. For example far off in the future galaxies will have travelled so far apart if a species developed in out Milky Way the whole universe to them would be our galaxy. Its all they will see or will ever see so to them the universe will be a huge void with our galaxy floating along. Now imagine what we might have seen earlier in the creation of the universe we might have had our answers we just came around to late missed the bus so to speak.

a reply to: dragonridr

Einstein explains why we see the universe the way we do its a model

so it is a model and not a theory ? How comes it is called the Theory of relativity if I search for it ??

So far we have yet to find anything that can contradict his model

because relativists don't listen and ignore evidences against relativity

Now as far as speed causing a star to explode remember the star doesnt know how fast its moving because its all relative.

not velocity of the Star but the gravitational acceleration in the centre of mass where the Black Hole is located.

If you read carefully what I said, in my view we don't need matter/mass in space to get gravitational "hotspots" or Black Holes.
The strength/tension in gravitational field can easily reach 3x10^8, as it is an additive field and we have an illusion of huge mass being there

So what happens if any star falls into a black hole ( not singularity !! )

originally posted by: KrzYma
so it is a model and not a theory ? How comes it is called the Theory of relativity if I search for it ??

When Einstein developed it, there wasn't much evidence to support it so it was basically a model. It didn't really become a full theory until there was more evidence supporting it.

Difference Between Models and Theories

Simply put, both a model and a theory state possibilities and provide explanations for natural phenomena. Models can be used in the formulation of experimental setups as the scientist performs the steps of the scientific method. They give structure for the formulation of theories...

1.Models and theories provide possible explanations for natural phenomena.
2.Models can serve as the structure for the step-by-step formulation of a theory.
3.Theories can be the basis of creating a model that shows the possibilities of subjects observed.
4.Models can be used as a physical tool in the verification of theories.

Conversion from a model to a theory began with eclipse observations, and progressed with many subsequent experimental tests of the model. That's my take anyway, not sure if dragonridr had something else in mind.

there's a guy that explains this theory good i'll try to find and insert

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Ok lets go down the rabbit hole shall we. Now your right outside the universe could be nothing i mean absolutely nothing but again that would be part of the universe wouldnt it space would still be there. But lets look where the science leads us right mow as you hear all the time the universe is infinite right? Well if the universe is infinite than also wouldnt the universe contain infinite matter.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Who says this and why? Did you read my post at all? I was very clear and specific about the possibilities. The term infinite is a fickle one, confusing, semantical, absolutist, multi defined. You cant just say, the universe is infinite, that means every configuration of matter exists. It doesnt work like that. You are using an absolute term of infinite meaning ALL! Possibilities.... which in and of itself is an absolute paradox, and impossible, its like saying, the real number line is infinite, and then saying, all numbers exist, this is impossible, they never, can and never will, because hypothetically one can always add another 1. The only thing that can be infinite about a universe (and lets be clear when we say universe, do we mean only energy/matter/fields, or do we also mean the potentially infinitely expansive nothingness?) is time. The quantity of energy cannot be infinite. The number of times the finite quantity of energy transforms, can be infinite. And the completely empty nothingness space, the something ness of energetic universe exists in/on can be infinitely large. This would imply that if there is no harsh gravitational mechanism to keep the energetic/material/field components of universe together and grouped up, theoretically then, it could be that the smallest quanta of particles each, at some point in time, could be literal distances(as if infinite nothing space is real, and a quanta of particle is real, then the distance between them is real) of the highest imaginably value of lightyears times itself times itself forever times itself forever.

Which, should call attention the fact that "A substance", of somethingness, has always existed, and currently, the above scenario of infinitely distant quanta is not a reality. So I think that may give credence to the possibility of the great areas of dense mass in the universe, not being able to escape the total gravitational grasp of the 'closed universe'. The saddest/scariest (in terms of stupidity) notion is that of 'everywhere is the center'/'there are no sides'...this is bafflingly dumb...I mean, I want to cry right now that a person who claims to be knowledgeable about tying their shoes would lack the thought to 'believe?' such a thing. It is literally impossible for any kind of groups of objects to exist, in a 3d area, and not be able to trace around the outside to prove the existence of some 3d geometric conglomerate. This is to say, there are galaxies more further away from a universal common center, and that if that area of infinite nothingness exists in all directions tending towards infinity on all sides of this 3d geometric universe (which is 4d considering time, or any other number of dimensions considering it is not physically real but some sort of non local digital computer program) that means a galaxy in the middle could not just escape to the outside from where it was. In my last post I was asking your thoughts on the potential of digging to the outside from within, by touching the outside and perhaps you discuss that below.

Now what if say that area of space was very close to our but by the nature of its physical properties we cant see it? Maybe gravity isnt a property of our universe at all but its an effect from another??????

You didnt want to try and answer those last questions? Even if it an effect from another, I dont see what that would matter, how it is so consistent, and that, I really just dont think thats possible, being as the thickness and depth of the 3 dimensionality, imagine 100 galaxies nestled relatively near each other, there are some closer to the middle, some closer to the edges, now in reality there are still 100 billions more surrounding these, but lets zoom in to one nearer the middle of the group of 100, and lets say one of those galaxies is the milky way, and in the milky way, one of the planets is earth, following its sun, how could gravity be consistently functioning with earth and be coming from outside the entire universe?

Do you mean in a way like, imagine the big bang singularity traveling like a bullet through infinite space, and then it just hits a gravity field and then starts to be affected and then just becomes the universe for billions of years while get trapped in this sticky vast gravity field, just hanging there?

If Em field and gravity field exist together everywhere in space, and are energetic mediums in and of themselves, BECAUSE THEY CANT BE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, AND WHATEVER IS NOT NOTHING, IS SOMETHING, AND WHATEVER IS SOMETHING IN THIS REALITY, IS ENERGY OR MATTER, my questioning about piercing through space was, does the EM and Gravity field exist in such density and bulk, uncomprehendable to our fluffy undense materials that we take these big clunky atoms and light beams and try to separate and tear apart the dense compressed fabric/medium of fundamental space-field but its just not possible, it would be like an AI character on a computer game screen trying mess with the computer chip that creates him/allows him to exist. And this is the notion I was wondering about regarding closed universe. Either it is a wholesome, absolute, intimately interconnected fabric, THE WHOLE THING, as in, one substance, but throughout itself in various conditions. Or it is one substance, that is able to have breaks in itself, but this is the problem....and why I initially resorted to the prior idea, because the very idea of field theory needed to be invented, because it was seemingly impossible for it to have breaks in itself, because that would mean spooky action at a distance, which cant logically/rationally/physically/materially be explained...the only examples of spooky action at a distance we can be familiar with or comprehend is 'fakery' in the sense of computer programs, on the '2d/3d?' screen realm of your computer monitor, it is possible to to click something here, and 'instantly' have something occur over there, with seemingly no physical logical connection. So yes, either singular, all encompassing, field theory, universal solid object. Or... The same thing, just that it connects to itself via 'stringy' networks, here and there, and its fields arent absolute and total, but bridges between all field depending and abiding phenomenon, and it is fighting and existing in/on an absolute 3d realm of pure total nothing nothing nothingness.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
And the completely empty nothingness space, the something ness of energetic universe exists in/on can be infinitely large.

Well if dark energy is actually vacuum energy as we suspect, it does suggest some strange things, like expanding space creates more space, which creates more energy, which creates more space, which creates more energy.

So whether the universe is finite or infinite now is unknown, however even if its finite that guess about dark energy tends to suggest that energy may increase infinitely in a cycle of energy from space creating more space which creates even more energy.

I think we have to acknowledge that our advanced primate brains haven't been away from swinging in the trees that long and we aren't equipped to deal with concepts like infinity. Heck we aren't even equipped to adequately deal with things like the dimensions of the observable universe. We can write them down, but comprehending the vastness is another matter.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Well if dark energy is actually vacuum energy as we suspect, it does suggest some strange things, like expanding space creates more space, which creates more energy, which creates more space, which creates more energy.

There is no such thing as 'vacuum energy', it is either EM field or gravity field or energy field (quark, electron, etc....which I recently learned are the EM field, as they can radiate to pure EM radiation?). So you are just saying, Dark energy exists and does suggest strange things. There is no free lunch, you know this, there is a reason 'gravity field/energy field/em field' is expanding. There is never any more energy being created. My back pocket highest believed of logical conclusion of this scenario which probably came to me while pondering similar manners and arguments with similar people as yourself or maybe you, is that the expansion of space/fields/non baryonic matter fields, is directly in proportion to the amount of baryonic matter that is radiated, or as spiral galaxies start spinning in tighter and tighter, their parts acts of anti entropy, like being forced to conglomerate to exist as a novely organized state, is in direct proportion to the greater and greater gulfs of vacant area between galaxies.

Ok, that was bad on my part... But there is no way you can get off the hook by say "We have observed the universe is expanding (that is to say the clumps of stuff are all moving further and further apart, or that is to say, not moving at all, that the space in-between the clumps/galaxies is stretching.

So imagine a really stretchy rectangular fabric thats not stretched outwards any where near to its full capacity and imagine with a marker drawing dots of equal distance apart from one another, imagine the fabric is white and the dots are red (just for ease or fun), imagine at 4 separate places on the fabric (while the fabric was still secured at the corners) 4 hands started twisting the fabric, and they could twist it hundreds of times, wouldnt the dots you drew be stretched out then? Wouldnt there be more 'space/fabric', because at the initial space it was so compressed and dense that all of its potential was not yet wrought out? This is just a simple Idea of what may be going on, but I think it expresses that there is a direct relation between the swirling of the galaxies material, and perhaps any loss of galactic energy is added to the surrounding space.

I think we have to acknowledge that our advanced primate brains haven't been away from swinging in the trees that long and we aren't equipped to deal with concepts like infinity. Heck we aren't even equipped to adequately deal with things like the dimensions of the observable universe. We can write them down, but comprehending the vastness is another matter.

You can speak for yourself. It is man who wrote the word and defined it. I merely suggested to make sure of the intention and definitions as you use the term. The highest, unfathomable but abstract notion of infinity, is impossible to exist or be realized, this is just a simple logical fact I feel completely confidant saying, its the easiest thing to know, its self evident and obvious. If you think infinity can 'exist'... well first of all it would take time for it to exist, even if it could, because it all existing at once would automatically defeat it from being infinity, it would just be meaningless, would things happen? that means it wouldnt be happening at once, which implies time. So the reason the ultimate "all all things all things ever that can ever happen and beyond" can never exist, is because true infinity would imply there would always be infinite more things, and ways, and sequences, and orders, and potentials, and possibilities, and then when you think you arrived, nope, infinite more, and infinite more, and infinite more, and infinite more, but ahhh, if you think, finally, all of infinity has been done, complete infinity...then, is it not finite? Would your infinity not then be finite?

originally posted by: ImaFungi
There is no such thing as 'vacuum energy'

The wiki says it needs attention from an expert, so since you're the expert, why haven't you corrected it?


Vacuum energy

This article needs attention from an expert in Physics.

a reply to: ImaFungi

Saw your rant had to laugh too much caffeine thats not like you? Its late so i wont go into it right now but ill attempt to explain why Quantum mechanics says we indeed can get something from nothing. It all relates to the Hiezenberg uncertainty principle. So sayingthere isno such thing as a free lunch maynot apply when were dealing with scales thesize of outr universe. I promise ill come back to this just wanted to say wow when i saw the book you wrote.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Saw your rant had to laugh too much caffeine thats not like you? Its late so i wont go into it right now but ill attempt to explain why Quantum mechanics says we indeed can get something from nothing. It all relates to the Hiezenberg uncertainty principle. So sayingthere isno such thing as a free lunch maynot apply when were dealing with scales thesize of outr universe. I promise ill come back to this just wanted to say wow when i saw the book you wrote.

And I cant wait for your reply, but I will preemptively say, you are wrong. It must be so comfortable bathing in ones ignorance, ahh, to not have to think about what you believe in. Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not a casting/sculpture of reality, it is a crummy map.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ImaFungi

Saw your rant had to laugh too much caffeine thats not like you? Its late so i wont go into it right now but ill attempt to explain why Quantum mechanics says we indeed can get something from nothing. It all relates to the Hiezenberg uncertainty principle. So sayingthere isno such thing as a free lunch maynot apply when were dealing with scales thesize of outr universe. I promise ill come back to this just wanted to say wow when i saw the book you wrote.

And I cant wait for your reply, but I will preemptively say, you are wrong. It must be so comfortable bathing in ones ignorance, ahh, to not have to think about what you believe in. Heisenberg uncertainty principle is not a casting/sculpture of reality, it is a crummy map.

Ok i figure the best way for you to get the basics is lets watch a video about quantum fluctuations this video gives you the general idea of inflation. Inflations was a theory started by an MIT physicist by the name of Alan Guth.His theory would be expanded on by others such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek the guy that modeled the big bang. Bottom line is it explained alot the big bang couldnt. any way watch this and then we can discuss energy fluctuations if fields.This is one of the reasons i laugh when christians start attacking the big bang not realizing science agrees with them to many problems with the theory but i digress watch the video.

www.newscientist.com...



PS I saw the confusion i caused by calling Einstein's theory a model so ill explain. In physics, a theory is not a guess or a hypothesis. It is a mathematical model that lets us make predictions about how the world behaves. Einstein's theory of gravity, accurately describes how matter responds to gravity in the large-scale world around us.

a reply to: dragonridr

[OT material removed by staff]

If you associate yourself and your mode of thinking with 'mainstream science' I now must not believe anything 'mainstream science' claims, because what you have just displayed to me is anti thought, anti truth, anti knowledge, anti non stupidity. Anti good day to you sir.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Ok take a valium youll be ok so what do you think is wrong with inflation. Now we indeed know the casimir effect occurs which tells us there is vacuum energy see here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now once you know this all it requires is one break in symmetry and you have matter. What caused this break we dont know we have some theories i mentioned some of them earlier in this thread i believe.Now you just cant claim its wrong and say because i said so. Whats wrong with the theory trust me i tried to find something and it seems reasonable the only argument against it would be to say symmetry cannot be broken. But in physics Symmetry breaking is a situation in which a minimal energy state has less symmetry than the system itself. This means the imbalance can occur at low energy states such as at the planck scale. So we know virtual particles exist we know symmetry can be broken. So your objection must be you think QM is just wrong which very well could be the case but bare in mind its at least on the right track since we use it to find new discoveries daily.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

I literally feel like crying. I am physically hurting, I want to cry. I cant handle the wrongness, the blatent stupidity. I think im going to hyperventilate....oh my god,,, holy crap......ughhhhhh. jlkg gfj hfgjkgj lkjgsjhkdljd fgsjkhdfkjhdsf fslgjdslkfj fjsldkjfkl sjg;sjg; sajgl;sjdlkgj lkajg;ldsjlkgj sdgihelj sljgksdjgiej lgkjekl = lgfsjdglkdhsgije kljsakgd yea yea yea ye yeysysysysysys no no no no non on yes eys yes yes jkl;dsklf;dskfl;skdl;fkls;d kfl;sdklf; ksdl;f kl;sdfkl; skdlf;k sl;dfkl ;skdlf;k s

Ok take a valium youll be ok so what do you think is wrong with inflation. Now we indeed know the casimir effect occurs which tells us there is vacuum energy see here.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now once you know this all it requires is one break in symmetry and you have matter. What caused this break we dont know we have some theories i mentioned some of them earlier in this thread i believe.Now you just cant claim its wrong and say because i said so. Whats wrong with the theory trust me i tried to find something and it seems reasonable the only argument against it would be to say symmetry cannot be broken. But in physics Symmetry breaking is a situation in which a minimal energy state has less symmetry than the system itself. This means the imbalance can occur at low energy states such as at the planck scale. So we know virtual particles exist we know symmetry can be broken. So your objection must be you think QM is just wrong which very well could be the case but bare in mind its at least on the right track since we use it to find new discoveries daily. The other thing is i tend not to try to argue with people like Stephen Hawking way out of my league lol.

a reply to: dragonridr

The video you posted is wrong, 85% of my posts on this forum and in talks with you have been expressing why I think what your video said is wrong. Anytime someone says something came from nothing, they are automatically wrong. If nothing = nothing. Their entire theory can then be discarded, because it is based on a faulty premise, attempting to balance an equation, where the result they are attempting to achieve is an impossible result/answer. You and they are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Its wrong. The video was bad. And wrong. Wrong. Did your wife make an account just to star all your posts? Laurence krauss is wrong. Something cannot come from nothing. If your definition of nothing, includes something, then something can come from nothing. If your definition of nothing is the definition of nothing, which is, nothing, then something cannot come from nothing.

a reply to: dragonridr

Inflations was a theory started by an MIT physicist by the name of Alan Guth.His theory would be expanded on by others such as Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss, Sean M. Carroll, Victor Stenger, Michio Kaku, Robert A.J. Matthews, and Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek the guy that modeled the big bang.

you know this means nothing, right ?
I can put together 100 Names who agree with something, still this is not making it reality.

You arguing like a priest, here is Jesus the son of God who tells you the wholly truth.

It is a mathematical model that lets us make predictions about how the world behaves

I love this one too
If there are 3 people in the room and 5 people go out, 2 need to get in for the room to be empty.
real world behaviour !