The energy that you are talking about is only part of the total energy budget of the universe. There's also a negative component from the gravitational potential energy. Saying that energy is used every day doesn't change the fact that (positive energy used everyday) + (negative energy of gravity) = 0.
We aren't talking about the 'total energy of the universe'. We are talking about the complete inability of nature to create itself. But you still missed my point! My point was/is that with the burning of energy each and every moment of time....that fact demands that at one time in the past ALL the energy that was ever burned was available; like a gasoline tank on a car that has just been filled
. It holds 'x' amount when full and cannot be more full
. That means there was an origin...and that the 1st law being what it is, would not permit the creation of matter by natural processes. But you don't get this because of your twisted, perverted thinking that somehow something came from nothing..............anyway. You can't demonstrate it, observe it, nor prove it, but you believe in it anyway and you expect us to be dumb enough to believe it also. We don't. We won't. We can't because it makes no scientific sense and it defies logic.
The 1st law doesn't prohibit a change from zero energy to zero energy expressed as negative and positive energy. There's nothing in the 1st law that needs to be overcome.
You can play with your pet theory all you want to but you CANNOT demonstrate that our universe can make matter. Period. I told you skeptics to explain the very origin of gravity in the first place, but you failed in that also. Utter fail. My point here: if your pet 'theory' were true it would require an origin for gravity as well...but you don't have the foggiest notion or even curiosity as to where or how gravitational pull came from. The truth is that since you have rejected your Creator and His written account as to the creation by His Almighty power and wisdom, you don't know diddly squat about origins
. You're guessing.
Here's the other part you quoted as well "The virtual particle forms of massless particles, such as photons, do have mass (which may be either positive or negative) and are said to be off mass shell. They are allowed to have mass"
Then catch one of those virtual blips if you can and turn it into something visible; something lasting; something that continues in it's existence like real matter
.(their words). Until then you have no argument
. We don't know what those virtual particles are nor even why they appear and vanish in less than a nano-second. I am distressed by your mealy-mouth stretching of something that we still do not know about with any degree of certainty. That's why they call it 'the uncertainty principle'. Quote: "...a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental lower bound on the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle, such as position x
and momentum p
, can be simultaneously known." (Wikipedia) Yet you and your sinful companions wish to base your entire science of origins based on a tiny virtual blip that is little more than a mathematical anomaly; very little more.
I'm not seeing where this contradicts my statement that virtual particles are examples of mass that occurs from nothing (vacuum). Their duration is simply a result of the uncertainty principle, where the duration depends on the mass involved. If there's no mass then there's no limit to the duration. For the universe with a total mass/energy budget of zero it can continue on indefinitely.
If they are real
mass, then why do they vanish in less than a nanosecond?
You should use the physics definition of virtual. Terms in physics can have their own definitions. http://dictionary.re.../browse/virtual physics See also exchange force designating or relating to a particle exchanged between other particles that are interacting by a field of force: a virtual photon
Definitions by humans who sometimes make mistakes. You have made a very, very big mistake.
Very well, I'll let this topic drop, you are clearly not willing to accept that physics provides answers to your questions about the 1st law.
Then I trust you won't reply and let others try where you have so miserably failed. And you are not willing to admit that nature CANNOT create itself according to the law. Why do you think it was recognized as a law in the first place? You won't believe the written, historical account that God gave us through Moses but you believe in something you have never seen, cannot observe, nor reproduce. That makes you a fool. "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no god'. Psalm 14:1
So cling to your little blip. But that will probably cost you your eternal soul.