/sci/ - Science & Math

/sfg/ meeting, no fags allowed

Hop when?

>>15234913
You cannot deboonk something that does not exist nor has ever been proven.

also "debunked" is a wierd term.
Since bunk is a slang term for "nonsense".
Photons are bunk.
Bunk does not have to be debunked.
No proof does exist.
All memes.

>>15234929
energy excites charge if material at certain wavelenghts.
Excited charges change position in an unpredictable direction away from surface.
No photons are required.
It's all energy.
No matter required.

>>14769351
I don't understand why people never fathom the idea, that something just is and always was.

Is there any requirement to be a beginning anywhere?

The premise:
> everything has to have a beginning
> In a universe in which it is impossible to destroy or "remove" anything from existence
> is kinda cope to avoid the simple answer "we don't know what and why we are"

It doesn't satisfy you, but sticking to a premise which is unable to be proven because we cannot even "end" something.
We can disassemble complex structures but thats it.
> stone to sand
> to dust to atoms
> to protons electrons and neutrons
> to sub matter particles (spinions, quarks) which disperses and somehow create new matter because of quantum events
> everything is a closed system
> nothing ever is truly destroyed
> only transmutated into energy or other sub matter particles
> everything stays conserved

AND STILL we want a "beginning" even though we could not even create a "end" of anything.
Turning matter or energy into void is not possible. We are unable to create a absolute void.
Why do there need to be a "beginning" if we are unable to prove a "end" to the fundamental building blocks of our existence.