First off, you misrepresent everything I say and remove the context in which it was presented. This is either carelessly imprecise on your part; or, it is deliberately dishonest. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt because I don't know you.
In a previous post I made the following statement:
TERRY: If I read your post correctly you seem to take issue with one point only: WHAT IF MATTER CAN COME INTO BEING? Yes, if matter could increase or decrease IN TOTAL my concept would be wrong.
AULD SOUL: You have no basis for your certainty except ignorant superstition against anything that strikes you as bearing any mark of mysticism
You see the mismatch? I easily state that I WOULD BE WRONG if matter could increase or decrease in total. You characterize my position as CERTAINTY.
How is this accurate on your part?
You then ask the question:
My biggest question for you, in all of this, is why are you so certain that all the energy in the universe is constant?
Where are you finding CERTAINTY which I must defend? In paranoia?
Here is another statement I made in a previous post:
All conversations about DIMENSIONS (when it goes beyond the observable) is conjecture and science is comfortable talking about it. All I am pointing out here is that science is never FINAL or SETTLED.
All along I've been pointing out that this matter is not final. You appear to take a completely different view AS THOUGH it were very much settled. Which of us actually sounds CERTAIN?
The most telling of our antithetical points of view is contained in this nugget of an exchange:
All things are made of a "smallest part". We used to call them atoms. Suffice it to say these building blocks are what "things" are made of.
A traditional physical view, meanwhile up-dated by the results of modern quantum theory, e.g. teleportation. Note: You cannot operate with simplified "building blocks" having those paradoxical quantum mechanics-features, known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect.
You seem to insist that there IS NO SMALLEST PART and all the while continue to enumerate the small parts by name! (hadrons, leptons, quarks, etc.) This would indicate to me that you have stepped into the quicksand I warned about earlier. The Achilles and Tortoise paradoxes of ancient Greece had the old greeks baffled too because they had not resorted to higher math to express the infinite series required to demonstrate their misperceptions. You err in a similar way.
Incidentally, I am cynical and not skeptical.
Conservation of Energy is pretty important in Physics and that is what convinces me that the ledger always balances in favor of a finite amount of matter/energy.
All the popping in and out you refer to is something you fall prey to because it is expressed in words that have very limited math meanings and you take them as existential identities of semantical interest.
What you are doing and are probably not aware that you are doing is operating inside of two sets at the same time when the rules of each set require otherwise.
You categorically state that YOU CANNOT OPERATE with simplified building blocks having paradoxical quantum-mechanics features. That is not too dissimilar to saying it is impossible for a Bumble bee to fly because of its physiognomy.
Let me explain to you the main reason for the "weird" effects at the quantum level.
In order to see an object in a room you have to bounce photons off the object and have the bounced light arrive in your eye.
At the subatomic level you must resort to accelerated bombardments of another nature that knocks the bejeezus out of the target. It is the impact which creates the weird effect (not unlike throwing a bowling ball at a mirror.) IT HAS NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH WHAT OCCURS IN NATURE.
These particles which are then "discovered" as a result of the collisions would never have been there had it not been for the artificially created impact.
I once sat next to a friend of mine who suddenly grabbed my ribs with his clenched fingers (he later said it was an impulse to tickle me) and I reacted by smashing him right in the mouth! My impulse would never have happened in everyday life. It was so out of character for me that he was quite puzzled (and injured) by the turn of events. Why do I mention this? Because the artificiality of the incident reveals nothing meaningful either about me or the guy who got punched. Physics goes around tickling everything. What physicists think they learn by the reaction they get is self-deluding at the sub-atomic level.