Creation Ex Nihilo

<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">


Well here is some nice "paradox", your theory about energy becoming thinner and thinner, and ultimately becoming zero, can only become reality, if you assume that the timeline is infinite, since else that zero density is never reached.

But wasn't your theory built on the idea that timeline can't be infinite?

That refutes then your own idea...

huesdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>So in your argument nothing can be held against the infinite of the time line itself.

The past and the future can not be considered a physical reality</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Do a time interval is physical and can be quantified and given a finite number but time is not physical and therefore can be infinite.

Nice logic. HeHeHeHe[]

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

huesdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I guess you are not the only one that makes extra-ordinary claims on physical reality, see for instance Dr Dark Energy's theory, which resemblance your theory.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I took a quick look. The first few pages bore nothing in common with what has been stated here by others that I have agreed with. This show your lack of comprehension of what is being said and what it means.

I did further down see some points that are marginally simular but nearly as well defined as to cause as my own work.

I have no interest in reading more since I already see many things that don't look right. Having said that I'll note two things.

1 - H claims to be a physicist.

2 - Be claims to be a destitute Russian in need of help financially to survive and suggest people come to his home and stay and visit Russia. Pay him like a hospice and benefit from you cheap vacation and help him survive and finish his work on his theories.

Not to solid I'm afraid.

3 - I am not responsible for whatever others claim. I am responsible for my own views and for the choices I make as to who I do believe.

You have the same obligations. One day you may learn the difference between having a view and being right.


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

Jan,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Just on a side track, but creation from nothingness in a MM framework is not possible by definition. So, your bifurcation argument N=(+s) + (-s) cannot be initiated and does not hold water in view of TVF's MM.

Just to let you know ...</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Tom and I agree on a great deal (more than we disagree on) but we do not agree on everything. so whatelse is new?

Tom disagrees with the Big Bang also. that is agains the majority view. I'm on the fence on it. I don't accept all properties and extrapolation but think there may be some limited truth there also.

Does Tom's disagreement with the common view there make MM wrong or Tom wrong? I think not.

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

heusdens,

Posted - 10 Jan 2004 : 09:01:43

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mac
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.

---

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Well here is some nice "paradox", your theory about energy becoming thinner and thinner, and ultimately becoming zero, can only become reality, if you assume that the timeline is infinite, since else that zero density is never reached.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: That is not my theory or anybodyelses that I am aware of.

There are many unknown twists and turns in that jprocess. I for one see the possibility that as the universe expands to heat death and falls apart that by no more than the E=mc^2 aspect when space is the only thing left and there is no more space being added. Things will begin to reverse and begin another Big Crunch.

You can't really be serious that you think you have all the answers. That doesn't go well with credability.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>But wasn't your theory built on the idea that timeline can't be infinite? That refutes then your own idea... </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Not sure what you mean by "My Theory" but yes time can not ever become infinite and it would refute my theory.

Likewise if the universe is finite (which I believe is the case) and time or nothingelse physical ever becomes infinite then that refutes your theory or views (I don't think you have a theory of your own).


"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>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.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Don't tell me you are unaware of such work. Do I burp you too after your feeding?

Rather than continuing to argue with you, I just typed "Universal Heat Death" into MSN search and it came up with 129,841 hits. It may take me a while to compile my supporting documents file so be patient.

Out of couriosity I'm going to Google also.

By all means, try Google, more variety on the subject: 336,000 hits.

BYE!<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
If you do a Google search on the whole phrase and not the individual words there are only 133 hits. If one excludes religious sites that drops to 77. Excluding reviews of fiction books, there are 39. 1 site is about Trinary Relativity which disputes it. The other hits did not discuss the subject, but mearly mentioned it, usually in terse discussions about entropy.

Since you made an appeal to authority, and were not specific, I took you to mean the mainstream version. Appeals to authority are bad enough, but an appeal to non-authority is bizarre.


JR