Are you referring to "new" matter as hydrogen that has spent it's entire existence in a non-molecular state? But it would seem the terms new or old have little meaning as it would appear that all matter is of the same age regardless of the form it may take.
The steady state model had new matter coming into existence in the gaps between galaxies at just the right rate to keep the matter density constant.
OK, nobody promotes that model and I certainly don't. But the inflation model predicts the same thing in the brief exponential expansion of the very early universe
now we have an accelerating recession of the distant galaxies - is it time to ask if the spontaneous creation of matter is not so daft after all?
Well, I do think it is possible for new matter to directly form a star. If that much matter is created in one area, most of the matter and antimatter would come back together to form enrgy. Most stars are born from nebulas and remaning hydrogen gas left over from novas. Remember, most matter was created at the beginning of our universe. You would need much much more energy to create all the matter for the star then the star would put out in its whole lifetime using fusion.
I still don't get the idea of a beginning of the universe, this is contrary to the known laws of physics where it states that " and I might add with no Changes known" Matter can not be created nor distroyed. Therefore it is simply recycled and is a continuous motion of change whether it be thermal, Electro-magnetic,compressive,or frictional attractive states.I agree when you say that it is always there, but don't understand your contention of begining, this means nothing in the physical universe. As we see through many studies, there are many forms known as star clusters or birthing nebulae, but this contention that we know each and every state and change in the cicyclic universe in which we are just know reaching into. can it be said that in each study we undertake that all what we know know is all there is. That is a bit pesimistic. Example. Each time we think we have seen inwards through the instruments we have is as far as we can go, only stands until we develop the next tool in the search. I can't believe that when we look out we have to see an end or a beginning. don't we understand our own words or understanding of the word forever. Inwards and outwards. we need to think in more different ways to see the whole understanding of what we are trying to determine. what of the rythum of the universe and as described the ebs and flows. as in any fluid there are always unidentifiable structures of pure cicyclonic eddy's found in any fluid, I don't see why we put limits on the structure of any of these fluidic systems and as in fluids an eddy can begin anyplace and for any reason. Space and mass is the same. Like a butterfly flapping it's wings on the other side of the planet, and the changes it makes in the air across the whole world. We need to open our minds and see the rythum and flow and reailize that there is no given for anything with such a great way to go and with so many directions possible for a ripple of Mass in this case to have travelled from. We have much to learn yet before we can say that this can never happen, if you can't believe in forever how can you believe in never. we need to study the flows of the stellar dust, mass and the interactions it may have when passing other celestial bidies to see if a star of any stellar bodie could be formed in any part of the universe at any time.
RE: Are you referring to
)
The steady state model had new matter coming into existence in the gaps between galaxies at just the right rate to keep the matter density constant.
OK, nobody promotes that model and I certainly don't. But the inflation model predicts the same thing in the brief exponential expansion of the very early universe
now we have an accelerating recession of the distant galaxies - is it time to ask if the spontaneous creation of matter is not so daft after all?
Maybe not quite all matter is the same age?
River~~
~~gravywavy
RE: Well, I do think it is
)
I still don't get the idea of a beginning of the universe, this is contrary to the known laws of physics where it states that " and I might add with no Changes known" Matter can not be created nor distroyed. Therefore it is simply recycled and is a continuous motion of change whether it be thermal, Electro-magnetic,compressive,or frictional attractive states.I agree when you say that it is always there, but don't understand your contention of begining, this means nothing in the physical universe. As we see through many studies, there are many forms known as star clusters or birthing nebulae, but this contention that we know each and every state and change in the cicyclic universe in which we are just know reaching into. can it be said that in each study we undertake that all what we know know is all there is. That is a bit pesimistic. Example. Each time we think we have seen inwards through the instruments we have is as far as we can go, only stands until we develop the next tool in the search. I can't believe that when we look out we have to see an end or a beginning. don't we understand our own words or understanding of the word forever. Inwards and outwards. we need to think in more different ways to see the whole understanding of what we are trying to determine. what of the rythum of the universe and as described the ebs and flows. as in any fluid there are always unidentifiable structures of pure cicyclonic eddy's found in any fluid, I don't see why we put limits on the structure of any of these fluidic systems and as in fluids an eddy can begin anyplace and for any reason. Space and mass is the same. Like a butterfly flapping it's wings on the other side of the planet, and the changes it makes in the air across the whole world. We need to open our minds and see the rythum and flow and reailize that there is no given for anything with such a great way to go and with so many directions possible for a ripple of Mass in this case to have travelled from. We have much to learn yet before we can say that this can never happen, if you can't believe in forever how can you believe in never. we need to study the flows of the stellar dust, mass and the interactions it may have when passing other celestial bidies to see if a star of any stellar bodie could be formed in any part of the universe at any time.