It is a fact that a thing is existing now because it had already been created. So why don't we take this to account to redefine law of conservation of energy.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Please don't shout. I've already edited one of your posts. Haven't you learned from that? $\endgroup$ – John Dvorak Sep 18 '13 at 12:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes. As @Jan Dvorak said, don't use all capitals. $\endgroup$ – Abhimanyu Pallavi Sudhir Sep 18 '13 at 12:51
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Possibility 1: this is a genuine question asked in good faith, if in poor style. In that case the search bar and google are your friends. This question has been asked and answered many times already. Possibility 2: all those cosmologists with physics Ph.D's and hundreds of years of experience between them never thought of asking a high school level question in relation to their field. Possibility 3: you're trolling, don't know what you're talking about and don't actually care about the answer. $\endgroup$ – Michael Brown Sep 18 '13 at 13:18
  • $\begingroup$ Possible duplicate: physics.stackexchange.com/q/10309/2451 Related: physics.stackexchange.com/q/5150/2451 $\endgroup$ – Qmechanic Sep 18 '13 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ you might want to take a look at preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/02/22/… $\endgroup$ – PhysSE is Cancer Sep 18 '13 at 16:01

The law of conservation of energy says that the total energy of an isolated system does not depend on time.

Fortunately, the big bang was also the beginning of time.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.