Finally! The Grand Unified Theory (thank me later)

[MikeHoncho]

You're right that my conclusion is really a hypothesis. I can lean towards the dramatic at times.
But in my defense...
Why not corrrect my "flawed" thinking with known facts in a logical manner instead of blindly attacking with your opinions:


"Who agrees? Just you and Reiku, two guys who admit that you're not even professional scientists." -- I think this is well accepted on the quantum level in the scientific community. I just extrapolate that we are composed of the quantum stuff and thus likewise in nature, but I better start another post to see who agrees.

"Nothing" means "nothing!" --Although this too is grammatically correct, it is your opinion. What do you base it on? There is much debate on the true nature of "nothing". Some would consider "nothing" as an infinite quantity of potential energy inwhich all things could exist.

"The phrase "outside the boundary of the universe" may be grammatically correct English but it has no meaning, since the universe by definition is all that there is, and it ends at its boundary." --- This statement is just flat wrong. What about the widely theorized multiple universes, black holes, worm holes, etc, etc, etc?

"To talk seriously about space, matter or conscious creatures existing "outside the boundary of the universe" is not to understand science." ----Mr. Hawking and every other top level theoretical physicist talk seriously about these things regularly. All while understanding science.

"That's probably what will happen if you try to take the concept of "outside the boundary of the universe" seriously." ---see above. Concepts extending outside of this universe (into other universes) are widely considered and really rather mainstream.
No I'm not a scientist, and if you are I'm disappointed.

Moderator: Maybe this thread should be in Cosmology. The response here seems more like a competition than anything else

 

[Reiku]

Fraggle

That's the worst string of words i have ever read from you.

 

[MikeHoncho]

I'm saying here that everything we know when stripped to its basic nature is not composed of any physical stuff. Just potential to be. This includes matter.
This includes photons. This implies not only did everything come from nothing but that it is still composed of nothing.
Based on the train of thought in post #1, can anyone here provide a grounded, logical factual arguement that this is not true?
No opinions please.

 

[Yorda]

nothing is not nothing. nothing is a state where everything is in balance (neutral). when it becomes imbalanced matter is born.

an empty paper is like nothing. it contains everything because everything can be drawn (imagined) there. when you draw something there, like an apple... the apple was already there before you separated (created, made visible) it from the nothing-everything that we call emptiness...

 

[Xylene]

Well... I suppose. But relativity won't allow anything to exist beyond the boundary of the universe.

What about the megaverse (I suppose you would call it that) which this universe sprang from? Wouldn't the megaverse still exist, and wouldn't it have given rise to other universes of various kinds both before and since ours emerged in the Big Bang? Obviously we wouldn't know about these ones, as they are discrete from our own reality and therefore unobservable by any method known to us presently. I guess I could start a whole new thread on that subject.