Stangely, the bulk of what I am quoting in this thread are your statements. Maybe you don't quite fully comprehend what constitutes an argument... or a participant.
Origin of the universe
- Thread starter pluto2
- Start date
Stangely, the bulk of what I am quoting in this thread are your statements. Maybe you don't quite fully comprehend what constitutes an argument... or a participant.
You didn't post any science[sup]1[/sup], and what you posted is not what Hawking is "using".
1 You never do.
So you don't remember me posting about how you dig a hole to build an igloo, and the hole is the opposite of the igloo, and is negative mass.
Stephen Hawking
You dig a hole to build a hill, and the hole is the negative energy of the hill.
You don't see a similarity?
It is hard to introduce actual science into a discussion of the origins of the universe, apart from introducing one or more of the models for creation that are all mostly purely speculative.
I propose that this thread confine itself to any Science of relevance. I offer two: (1) Big Bang Singularity and (2) relativity. Assuming these to be "the way it was", one can hypothesize or deduce the following;
1. The BBS creates time and space.
2. The BBS therefore lies outside of time and space.
3. The BBS is therefore an eternal point.
4. This eternal point coincides with the ever-expanding envelope of the universe.
5. Without insult to Dr. Who, the universe is bigger on the inside than on the outside. Infinitely so.
6. Every other singularity can be idealized as an eternal point.
7. All such idealized singularities: black holes, galactic cores, and the quantum black holes hypothesized at the cores of strings, would necessarily lie beyond spacetime.
8. "Beyond spacetime" is equivalent to the BBS, thus all singularities are in eternal and dimensionless superposition with the BBS.
Inference:
Looking back, there is no beginning, just an asymptotic approach toward the singularity itself, which is eternal.
Conclusion:
Buddha appears to agree with this model.
I can see the similarity, but as I said in both cases I also saw a man doing the hard work providing the energy to get the potential difference between the positive and the negative values. It never just happens on its own.
I appreciate there are virtual particles but nothing on the scale of the Universe.
Being as we are discussing something from nothing, and being as Hawking used almost an exact copy of my igloo, I can use it.
I can see the similarity, but as I said in both cases I also saw a man doing the hard work providing the energy to get the potential difference between the positive and the negative values. It never just happens on its own.
I appreciate there are virtual particles but nothing on the scale of the Universe.
Infinite particles of energy that equal zero still equal zero, it doesn't matter how many you have.
Have your views changed from when you wrote that thread?
There is no reason why that would happen. What is the reason that would happen if you disagree?
There is no reason why that would happen. What is the reason that would happen if you disagree?
There is no reason for anything. The Universe exists for no particular reason. The Earth can be destroyed next year it doesn't need to be around. Two opposites existed at the beginning, and it doesn't need a reason.
What do you mean? I did not understand this.
Did you see my Igloo link?
Did you watch the Stephen Hawking Link from 25 minutes?
They are the same.
Being as Stephen Hawking is a scientist, and mathematician we are allowed to use his work in this thread.
Being as my theory of the igloo is the same as Stephen Hawking's idea I am also allowed to post that in this thread.
Where Hawking uses Negative Energy, I use Negative mass. Mass, and Energy are two sides of the same coin. So our theories are completely interchangeable.
Have you watched the Video (previous linked) in it is an example of what PP is talking about?
But Hawking keeps on saying the Universe "appeared out of nothing" and "everything adds to zero" but PP said his theory the Universe didn't come from nothing. I want to know what that "something" or "Not nothing" is then.
Have you watched the Video (previous linked) in it is an example of what PP is talking about?
But Hawking keeps on saying the Universe "appeared out of nothing" and "everything adds to zero" but PP said his theory the Universe didn't come from nothing. I want to know what that "something" or "Not nothing" is then.
Nothing is just an English word. It doesn't exist. What me, and Stephen Hawking's both say is that the Universe started from two things that make each other neutral. Think of how your eyes work. They wait for a wave to hit them. If no wave hits them they don't see anything. You can neutralise a wave with a negative wave. Then your eyes would see the English word..'nothing'.
I took a few notes on what he did say.
He said you need 3 things to make a universe, and they are Matter, Energy and Space.
Then he said Energy and Matter were two sides to the same coin. so that leaves just 2 things Energy and Space.
He didn'r really go into the formation of space but he then said the Energy is made from equal amounts of negative and positive Energy.
Positive Energy was in the matter and negative Energy the Gravitational Potential Energy in Space of the Universe. Once again without any proof he said they were equal.
To me it seems to be just an unproven theory.
Except that this happens to be a science sub-forum, not a philosophy or wild speculation one.
Um, hardly, since it "exploded" into what we have now.
Er, the BBS wasn't a black hole.
SFW?
I took a few notes on what he did say.
He said you need 3 things to make a universe, and they are Matter, Energy and Space.
Then he said Energy and Matter were two sides to the same coin. so that leaves just 2 things Energy and Space.
He didn'r really go into the formation of space but he then said the Energy is made from equal amounts of negative and positive Energy.
Positive Energy was in the matter and negative Energy the Gravitational Potential Energy in Space of the Universe. Once again without any proof he said they were equal.
To me it seems to be just an unproven theory.
Well, I've found a post from 2009 of mine as well, just to prove I said it first...
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=102718&sid=49bc7efc76b2b7d82d09a61bcd986e47#p102718
I later decided to change matter into mass. I also found out that the Hexagons were created by the Kissing Problem, so I changed them into a spherical stacking system.
Hawking said that space was the negative energy. So that's two things.
Incorrect.
Hawking is saying that if you start from nothing then you can get a "+1" (to use your facile simplistic "maths") so long as you also account for it by having a "-1".
NOT (as you are doing) and claiming that the "+1" and "-1" were there in the first place.
And if you bother to check, Senger (thread has been linked to many times) also claims (and shows with maths) that something can arise from nothing.
Well at 18 minutes he talks about making a Universe from 3 ingredients, then he removes one. I think you have it back to front...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQhd05ZVYWg