Creation Ex Nihilo

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>so is there still energy there even though there is no time and space?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: No. Energy creates space and matter (bound energy) +, matter consumes space (Gravity) and creates motion or time -.

The neat thing about this boundry is that there is no beyond. It is not like an egg shell or orange peel.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac,

I never said that pure energy with a neutral charge is nothing, I said that it is the only nothing that is possible. I do agree with your N = s + -s, I just disagree about what the S and -S represent. So, since it is strongly my projection that pure energy with a neutral charge is the only nothing that is possible, that is the only definition of nothing I can conceive of rationally.

It is all about the charge of energy and matter and what it determines about the relationship of the two. It is these relationships that create gravity and all dynamics. It's the Big Split. Both Gravity and Mass are secondary to electromagnetism and the compression of energy into matter.

rousejohnny,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I never said that pure energy with a neutral charge is nothing, I said that it is the only nothing that is possible.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS:LIke I have said each to their own in that there is no overwhelming evidnce for any of these theories. But I do have a problem not understanding your statements.

You say "neutral charge is not "Nothing" but that it is the only "Nothing" possible. I take it you mean it is the "Closet thing to Nothing possible".

I totally disagree but that is what makes the world go around. Are you in disagreement with the view in the paper I offered:

Stars convert mass into energy, energy creates space and that mass absorbs space creating gravity and time.?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> I do agree with your N = s + -s, I just disagree about what the S and -S represent. So, since it is strongly my projection that pure energy with a neutral charge is the only nothing that is possible, that is the only definition of nothing I can conceive of rationally. </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: What are your prohibitions for there being "No space and Time" Nothingness?

I personally have no jproblem visualizing it myself.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

Mac,


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The neat thing about this boundry is that there is no beyond. It is not like an egg shell or orange peel.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Suppose we did have a finite quantity of forms in the universe. Would you be able to live with the notion that space-time may be infinite? Thus, if we travel with a space ship towards this imaginary boundary, we see increasing sparsity of stars that eventually are completely absent. As a result, we will see the stars in our mirror but we see an utter void/darkness in front of us. Then we would be able to observe our universe as one single star-like object eventually.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />rousejohnny,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I never said that pure energy with a neutral charge is nothing, I said that it is the only nothing that is possible.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS:LIke I have said each to their own in that there is no overwhelming evidnce for any of these theories. But I do have a problem not understanding your statements.

You say "neutral charge is not "Nothing" but that it is the only "Nothing" possible. I take it you mean it is the "Closet thing to Nothing possible".

I totally disagree but that is what makes the world go around. Are you in disagreement with the view in the paper I offered:

Stars convert mass into energy, energy creates space and that mass absorbs space creating gravity and time.?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> I do agree with your N = s + -s, I just disagree about what the S and -S represent. So, since it is strongly my projection that pure energy with a neutral charge is the only nothing that is possible, that is the only definition of nothing I can conceive of rationally. </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: What are your prohibitions for there being "No space and Time" Nothingness?

I personally have no jproblem visualizing it myself.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I do not have prohibitions about "no time", since time is merely the measurement of change. In a homogenious state such as the beginning "nothing" I propose there would be no motion, thermodynamics or any other process by which time could be measured, not until the split.

I do have strong prohibitions about the absents of Space, there could be no chance for creation (with or without God) if there were no place in which to do it. If one is to hold the philosophical position that we do indeed exist, I see no rational way around the premise that space itself must have always existed.

As for your visualization of nothing without space, since there could be no visualization of the "nothing" that you support, I would argue that what you claim to be able to visualize is the "nothing" that I have proposed.

Mac,

The idea of the whole universe, as N = (+s) + (-s), and originating from "nothing" can not be true, for different reasons.

1. We agree that the universe is something now. This is because we know there are "things", and we can theoretically reflect on the universe in total, as the composition of everything that exists. But what is this something?
For any specific something that exists, we can only conclude that at the basis of other things that exist, and the material relations that exist in the universe.
For the universe as a totality however, the situation is different. It's existence is not verifiable against something else. There is nothing it can relate with.
As a matter of fact it means that this "something" which is the universe in total, does not exist (relatively to something else).
The universe is just a theoretical construction. That would mean that instead of the universe as having "come from nothing" we could better say that the universe is still "nothing", that is in the absolute sense, it doesn't even exist.

2. Instead of the point of view in which Being and Nothing are absolutely sperated, we should recognize that Being and Nothing are connected, and form a unity of opposites. Their collective unity is Becoming. Everything is an intermediate form between Nothing and Being.