^He just quoted it the way Michio Kaku worded it. No reason to get upset.

I'm going to second KungKras on this. You need to go look at his original question and the quotation.

Do you agree with this scientific statement: “originally the universe was a gas of particles with no mass at all”?

which is exactly what the guy in the video said......not taking anything out of context, distorting the meaning, or misquoting.

This is a matter of semantics.  While I'm sure there could very well have been an error in word usage in the video, the chances that they haven't considered it or there isn't more to the picture than they have the time to explain in detail is rather silly.  you're talking about some of the greatest minds of our time, so what's more likely, that they don't get a simple concept like "all matter has mass", or that you misunderstood, or that there's more to the story?  

I'm going with options B or C, certainly not A. 

I'm lost. How does this have anything to do with what I said?

dsgrue is just misrepresenting/misinterpreting what Darev asked and then essentially calling him illiterate.....see the problem?

hahahahahahahahah

The funny thing is, that that picture isn't entirelly correct, since it is the higgs field, not the higgs bosons that gives particles mass. Higgs bosons are just an excitation of that field, like electrons are an excitation of the electron field, etc :P

Problem is he took one sentence out of context, which to me, appears entirely illogical and asked a question about it. After you or whoever explained further, I realize it's just a way to explain it in simple terms. It's all hypothetical anyway, maybe massless gases did exist prior to the Big Bang. 

I still don't see why you're defending him. Taking things out of context is never a good idea in a discussion of science.

Take logic and reason out of the argument and keep on with those religious superstitious arguments that can be neither be proved or disproved. The invisible man in the sky is either the energy force behind everything in the universe or the legendary spiritual God, Allah or Jehovah, etc who magically created the world in his own image.

The probelm is, there was no context. If the interviewee had clearly shown he was using an analogy, I doubt there would have been any confusion. You have to realize that people watching CNN, where the interview was done, do not have a huge amount of scientiifc knowledge....its about knowing your audience. Its just asking for confusion if you state that "originally the universe was a gas of particles with no mass at all." I mean, your inintial response was actually to say it was wrong, and you claim to know the material better than most.

I will just point you toawrds KungKras's response. There was no reason to resort to calling someone a liar (saying he didn't have a source) and illiterate (he needs to learn to read). It was just a misunderstanding, mostly because the interviewee made a poor choice of words at desribing the event (using the term "gas" to describe something that clearly is not a gas, at least as the term is commonly used).