The Theory of Nothing (TON)

SciWriter said:
...(Free neutrons only last 10 minutes, then decay)
Click to expand...
They decay into protons and electrons plus an electron neutrino, i.e. they don't just go away :), energy is conserved. Does this affect the scenario?

From Wiki: "Under the Standard Model of particle physics, because the neutron consists of three quarks, the only possible decay mode without a change of baryon number is for one of the quarks to change flavour via the weak interaction. The neutron consists of two down quarks with charge −1⁄3 e and one up quark with charge +2⁄3 e, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can be achieved by the emission of a W boson. By this means the neutron decays into a proton (which contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron antineutrino.
 
quantum_wave said:
They decay into protons and electrons plus an electron neutrino, i.e. they don't just go away :), energy is conserved. Does this affect the scenario?

From Wiki: "Under the Standard Model of particle physics, because the neutron consists of three quarks, the only possible decay mode without a change of baryon number is for one of the quarks to change flavour via the weak interaction. The neutron consists of two down quarks with charge −1⁄3 e and one up quark with charge +2⁄3 e, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can be achieved by the emission of a W boson. By this means the neutron decays into a proton (which contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron antineutrino.
Click to expand...

Of course they don't go away; they just aren't able to be stable. Energy conservation always has to hold, energy balancing out to zero in the overview. Meanwhile, energy can lump where it does as intermediate passing forms as long as they follow the conservation laws (they can't do otherwise). All conservation laws come from the zero balance requirement.

If there are quarks and antiquarks then they got produced in pairs, too. Electrons, up quarks, down quarks, their antiparticles, and photons make for everything higher.
 
420Joey said:
You havent disproved god by any means and have actually solified my idea that god could have came from nothing.
Click to expand...

Um, nothing(simplest)—>zero balance pairs and photons (simple)—>protons—>stars and supernovae—>atomic elements—>molecules—>solar system planets—>simple arrangements—>simple cells—>lower life—>higher life and brains—>consciousness (and higher in some)… in 50,000 species.


420Joey said:
Complexity being the premise is a contradiction to you apparently.
But you acknowledge 0 = infinity. What is time to you?? Time is an illusion, you acknowledge this yourself.
Click to expand...

You have to reread my response. Time answered, too.


420Joey said:
Non localized consciousness cannot exist? Why not. It has to permeate physical matter and energy to create experience for physical reality to exist exclusive to our system of senses and corresponding stimili. Why cant this contigent source of consciousness if it exists be god?
Click to expand...

Brain process; local.

The same information may exist in two ways, both consciously and neurologically, kind of like brain waves versus brain particles.
 
Complexity Attained via Evolution

Joey, one time a believer told me that some social engineers and Darwin’s cousin had a plan to discredit God, and so they put Darwin up to the task of ‘discovering’ evolution. Well, he and Wallace did discover it and it certainly countered God’s Word; however, believers adapt as they go along, when dogma must crumble, and declared the new and comprehensive answer that “God did it”, even all the ice ages, hot times, floods, droughts, asteroids, and micro-managing every atom. The Pope didn’t agree, though, but hedged, saying that only the brain-mind was exempt from evolution, presumably God doing that part but not the rest. Science, of course chimed in, with real information.

So it is that our complexity accumulated over 4000 millions years on Earth, proceeded by 10000 millions of the constituents forming, all in all a very slow and mindless process. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have it different, as well as the Young Earthers and the Fundamentalists. Disagreement happens among those who make things up.

Chances occurring all in a row in a brief time is not at all the scientific alternative to Intelligent Design; natural selection is, and this is accumulative over time upon the already stable platform of the organism. A hurricane blowing through Boeing's warehouse of parts is not going to produce a 747 Jumbo Jet. This kind of nonsense is about all the IDers can say against evolution, a ploy that falls as flat as a duck hitting a wall.

Now, God, of course, the ultimate complexity, did not evolve but was even all at once intact, even having no construction period at all. This is about the tallest tale that I’ve ever heard, winning the prize for the most self-contradictory notion ever.

Now, to add insult at the wake to the fatal injury of the God notion (not to people, but to the notion), it is that all has to be a distribution of nothing, as there is no other source (not refutable either), ‘nothing’ having no other option but to jiggle in a zero-balance of positive and negative since it is obviously perfectly unstable, being the simplest state and so it is that we have also identified the source of existence as being a partial nonexistence—and ‘nothing’ is not God, but rather its opposite.

Yet, there is even more bad news at the funeral, for this ground-state of nothing turning into balanced somethings must be eternal in duration and infinite in extent, the important part being that this basis itself could have had no creation, and thus, again, there could be no Creator.

So, there are two more disproofs, making three, but only the first is needed, concerning complexity, whereas, for God, there are no proofs at all.

Conflict. Believers want to recruit the world, promising fact and truth, but can’t show it. Conflict. Atheists even show otherwise. Conflict.

Only investigations into why belief can take hold in human mammals can breach the divide, and this mostly only for the fence-sitters, for many believers may be immune by the very situation that we are now going to investigate, and we can surely expect neglect of that, too, for strong wishes and emotions have a direct pathway into consciousness, taking a bypass.
 
Sci, as you know I have a good deal of interest in 'nothing' or as I call it "Pure". That's to say that it contains no matter or energy of any kind. Not even quantum 'foam'.

There is a paradox surrounding this whereby GR dictates that time = 0 in this condition, so it cannot currently exist within the bounds of our universe. In the exterior where I think it abounds, ie surrounding our universe, it has no dimension as there is nothing in it to measure it by. As soon as you introduce something, it is no longer pure, and the experiment is destroyed.

I'm glad I'm not the only person taking the existence of non-existence seriously, and I'm learning a new programming language I hope will assist the explaination of this function of the universe.

However, I find your prose rather distracting, and would appreciate if you could condense your profferings a bit..
 
Thanks, Ultra. I love doing and talking about nothing and may be able to condense it to pure space, as perhaps that is all there is as a basis, along with its curves.
 
Motor Daddy said:
The term nothingness has no reality, for there is something now, so there is not nothingness now, there never was nothingness, and there never will be nothingness.

Mass evolves to space. Space is what is being created.

Take the earth for example. After it departed the sun and cooled on the exterior it had a vegetation free surface. If one were to have took measurements at that time, disregarding the atmosphere if any yet, the terrestrial part of the planet would have had a specific mass and a specific volume at a specific time. Since the mass was slowly turning less dense due to mass evolving to space, the atmosphere was created, the surface became less dense (dirt as we know it), water was forming, and vegetation was growing.

Look at that process and you will find that the volume of the earth was increasing due to the mass evolving to space. The earth's volume was increased because the mass got less dense by means of the volume increasing. The boundary of the earth increased as the atmosphere was formed by mass evolving to space. Even if just considering the terrestrial part of the earth, the vegetation increased the diameter of the earth. Vegetation is less dense than dirt. Vegetation is a direct observation of mass evolving to space! Mass gets less dense over time!
Click to expand...


I repeat, the term nothingness has no reality, for there is something now, so there is not nothingness now, there never was nothingness, and there never will be nothingness.
 
SciWriter said:
How it is that something has an amount, as well as very specific particulars?
Click to expand...

Because something is measurable. Something exists as a measurable quantity, which has physical properties. Something can be described, detected, and measured by its mass, distance, and time. Nothing can not be measured. Nothingness is a figment of your imagination. Nothingness has never been a reality, and never will be.
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
Because something is measurable. Something exists as a measurable quantity, which has physical properties. Something can be described, detected, and measured by its mass, distance, and time. Nothing can not be measured. Nothingness is a figment of your imagination. Nothingness has never been a reality, and never will be.
Click to expand...

What I was asking was not how to measure, for that's easy, but of what defined these specific particulars by making them so definite, as well as the definite types and amount of the few and limited basic somethings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top