>I'm pretending you actually want the answer. Probably
>somebody does, at least.
>
>People naively think mass means "stuff" and energy means, I
>don't know, "wobbly stuff." And they think conservation of
>energy is something to be taken for granted, as an obvious,
>common-sense fact. But as we've learned time after time after
>time in physics, whenever you dig deep enough, your common
>sense is eventually wrong.
>
>In physics, mass and energy refer to very specific things, and
>their conservation follows from certain underlying
>assumptions. These assumptions hold accurately in your and my
>limited range of experience, but these assumptions are
>strongly violated in the early evolution of the universe (or
>in many other extreme astrophysical events).
>
>Specifically, energy is defined as a "charge" (in a technical
>mathematical sense) associated with "time-translation
>symmetry" of the universe. "Time translation symmetry" is the
>assumption that the underlying fabric of spacetime geometry is
>unchanging with respect to time. If that assumption holds,
>then one can show that energy is constant. (Mass, by the way,
>is related to energy, but it would take us down too technical
>a road to clarify the relationship in general. At the very
>least, we've all heard of E=mc^2.)
>
>So when the universe is not appreciably changing in time, then
>energy is conserved. When the universe is appreciably
>changing, then energy is not conserved. In the time shortly
>after the big bang, the universe was obviously changing very
>rapidly.
>
>Energy is "mostly" (though not exactly) conserved in the
>universe as a whole today (as long as we leave dark energy out
>of the picture, which is totally not conserved). But in the
>early universe it wasn't.
>
>This is all standard physics that has existed for a hundred
>years now. Einstein's general theory of relativity. You might
>be surprised to hear that the general "theory" of relativity
>is more fundamental and more accurate than the first "law" of
>thermodynamics. But as you've been told hundreds of times
>around here, those words don't mean what you think they mean.
>



I only brought up the that the First Law of Thermodynamics as a starting point for conversation. Sure Matter can be more than Stuff, but we had to start somewhere. So do you think that The Second Law of Thermodynamics, applies to the conversation?


And yes the the Big Bang Theory violates the first law of thermodynamics. But that still doesn't explain where the Matter of any kind comes from.






.
.
.
"Today is your day to have a better life -- it's your right."