I am in for everything except the Marlboros, thanks. Pas des fumar here.
I was thinking that with a name beginning with 'Stoni' that you might smoke.
So, what new? Nothing is new here in this thread.
Now-here, no-where; now here, nowhere.
I am in for everything except the Marlboros, thanks. Pas des fumar here.
in all my mental experiments it is cas when I start whith nothing nothing persists.
The basic idea is that nothing is an impossibility; that it's perfectly unstable by virtue of the fact that it can't exist, not even for an instant.
ok, this is the conclusion I come to as well then, I use to think the opposite becouse it is natural and human to look for a begining. then one day it hit me, no beggining.
I was thinking that with a name beginning with 'Stoni' that you might smoke.
So, what new? Nothing is new here in this thread.
Now-here, no-where; now here, nowhere.
As far as "nothingness" goes, there is/was/always will be distance and time.
According to a timeline, mass wasn't created, nor is it being created now. SPACE is what is being created. You can't get mass from empty space, but you can go in the direction of mass to empty space, never actually reaching total empty space. In other words, mass evolves to space. Mass gets less dense over time.
Something can't be created from nothing, but something could be turned into nothing over time.
What was something created from? And what determined its amount and its properties? What choices are there?
It is real simple Joey . A single thought did it. That thought was " To Be" or just Me . The thought moved to the future. The future pulled the past into existence by it being Me or " To Be"I love this quote
LOL how is this crank rambling a theory on anything
I love this quote
LOL how is this crank rambling a theory on anything
I don't know why joey used the crank word but I think it must have been directed to the author of the book you sited, "The Theory of Nothing", and not to the discussion here....
I am waiting for actual physicists to realize that either all is of nothing or that something was forever. We know that one of these must be correct, like it or not, so this spurs us on, and the something forever theory seems unlikely, as I’ve suggested, seeming not only incomplete but also problematic.
Something from nothing seems like a hard event to have happen. Energy always existing is perfectly in line with the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed. On that basis alone I put "something from nothing" as the more improbable.
Energy forever in impossible since it's amount and its several properties would have had had no place to be defined as what they are, whereas a distribution of nothing has the support of the noted balances of the limited states of opposite charge and matter/antimatter state and the stuff/gravity balance, the vacuum fluctuations, plus surely that there is nothing to make anything of.
I know how "right" it seems to see a zero balance in the universe. The charged particles being positive and negative almost sound like they want to be netted out. Matter and antimatter annihilating each other sounds like a great plan. Even gravity and mass zeroing out has a nice ring to it....
Energy forever is impossible since it's amount and its several properties would have had no place to be defined as what they are, whereas a distribution of nothing has the support of the noted balances of the limited states of opposite charge and matter/antimatter state and the stuff/gravity balance, the vacuum fluctuations, plus surely that there is nothing to make anything of.
A recent theory solves some problems in cosmology and particle physics by proposing that the early universe contained fewer spatial dimensions than the three we see today. In the 11 March Physical Review Letters, a team describes a specific test of the theory using LISA, a planned, space-based observatory for gravitational waves. The theorists say the waves can't exist in fewer than three dimensions, so above a certain frequency--representing the oldest waves--LISA should see no primordial waves. Although the theory is speculative, some researchers believe cosmic ray data has already shown hints of vanishing dimensions at high energies. The team says the new test would be more conclusive than previous results.