Creation Ex Nihilo

There are TWO connotations of nothing -
That which does not exist (has no physical manifestation in the Universe)
____________________________________________________________________

ans: more than that,it has no potential to physically manifest anything.
_____________________________________________________________________

That which is equivalent to Ø (for everything there is an equal and opposite)
_____________________________________________________________________

ans: equivalence concept is dependent on substance in the first place and is not relavant to the "something from nothing" concept. nothing has no equivalence,since it cannot produce something, which in turn would become, which in turn would enable itself to contemplate its existence. in other words the only way to go opposite to equal is theory not in reality. something can contemplate "nothing",nothing cannot contemplate something!! or,nothing does not lead to something,since nothing exists,this can only happen in theory.

equivalence concept cannot be reversed and hold true.
_____________________________________________________________________

You are blurring the distinction.
Nothing EXISTS - everywhere...just not all in the same place at the same time.

_____________________________________________________________________


ans:blurring, not really,the first has no existence,the second is practical, as in acounting and has no relevance to the essence of substance.

JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Physical things (space) that have finite measures can never become nothing. It is impossible by definition. Nothing is nothing more that a mathematical tool and something to amuse ourselves with but is not and can never be a description of physical reality.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Cute but no cigar.

Now tell us what we have, assuming the "Scientists" are correct in that energy "Creates" space, when the universe undergoes "heat death" (energy ceases to flow), which they also predict.

I'm waiting.......



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

<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 />JRich,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Physical things (space) that have finite measures can never become nothing. It is impossible by definition. Nothing is nothing more that a mathematical tool and something to amuse ourselves with but is not and can never be a description of physical reality.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Cute but no cigar.

Now tell us what we have, assuming the "Scientists" are correct in that energy "Creates" space, when the universe undergoes "heat death" (energy ceases to flow), which they also predict.

I'm waiting.......<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Current theory is that the universe is flat. After googles and googles of years eventually all protons will decay, and then quarks, etc. until only electromagnetic radiation (or whatever it may "decay" to) is left. As the universe continues to expand the energy density will become smaller and smaller but will never become zero, nothing, as this would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The expansion will continue to slow but will never stop. This is the current theory and it does not refute my point. You may believe that the energy density will become zero, but you cannot claim support from the "Scientists" for this view.


JR

JRich,

<b>Current theory is that the universe is flat. After googles and googles of years eventually all protons will decay, and then quarks, etc. until only electromagnetic radiation (or whatever it may "decay" to) is left. As the universe continues to expand the energy density will become smaller and smaller but will never become zero, nothing, as this would violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The expansion will continue to slow but will never stop. This is the current theory and it does not refute my point. You may believe that the energy density will become zero, but you cannot claim support from the "Scientists" for this view.</b>

This is one theory of many. Other scientist disagree with this conclusion. Your choice of views is differnt than mine. But it neither makes yours correct nor mine correct. Clearly where one merely spreads a given amount of energy thinner and thinner the same amount of energy is present but when the mass has all turned into energy the flow of new energy stops. New space stops, new time stops. What is here may slowly decay (+1)+(-1)= "0", then it may simply become an empty void.

Such future processes are well beyond out imagination, we don't yet understand where we are and how we got here much less where it may all go.

You need to learn to be a bit flexiable and not so sure of your conclusions.




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

<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 />north,

<b>the balance concept is not the same as your N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) equation simply because something is on either side of the balance equation with the zero in the center.and the zero does NOT represent something physical it represents the amount of energy left over. yours however states that when a + comes in contact with -,nothing physical remains. yours is not about balance,its about annihalation.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: You are grasping at straws. Nothing has been said about annihilation. These on going processes are in contact as we speak. It causes energy flow and our existance not annihilation. But the energy flow is from + to - and recycles but is windig down by entropy.
______________________________________________________________________

mac

annihilation is certainly implied,look at your equation!
_____________________________________________________________________

In case you missed the procss (as stated by top scientist, not me). MAssive stars are converting mass into energy. Condensed or bound energy is matter. Energy flow "Creates" space, it doesn't just flow into it. The gravity of mass is consuming space and creates time.
_____________________________________________________________________

mac

so the space in the universe is shrinking!!? if not, why not, you certainly imply this.by the way i have it on a top astronomer (HALTON ARP,SEEING RED is the book) that matter is actually created in the center of galaxies,and has excellent evidence for this.
_____________________________________________________________________
+ is energy and mass. - is gravity and time. This is not my theory (although I agree with the view) it is top scientist. I doubt you or I either one have the qualifications to say they are wrong.
_____________________________________________________________________

mac

i'am sure that if you wanted to you'd find the pro's and con's of any theory. i'am also sure that you are capable of understanding of how they got to their conclusions and critique them if you are truly interested in the truth,no!! with your education i would find it VERY DIFFICULT to believe its beyond you,if so try any way,the truth is worth it wouldn't you say. you wouldn't want to be led down the perverbal garden path would you?
_____________________________________________________________________

<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>
This is one theory of many. Other scientist disagree with this conclusion. Your choice of views is differnt than mine. But it neither makes yours correct nor mine correct. Clearly where one merely spreads a given amount of energy thinner and thinner the same amount of energy is present but when the mass has all turned into energy the flow of new energy stops. New space stops, new time stops. What is here may slowly decay (+1)+(-1)= "0", then it may simply become an empty void.

Such future processes are well beyond out imagination, we don't yet understand where we are and how we got here much less where it may all go.

You need to learn to be a bit flexiable and not so sure of your conclusions. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Pray tell, to which "scientists" were you referring and to which theory or theories that predict "heat death". You made an appeal to authority, at least back it up.


JR