Creation Ex Nihilo

ANS: That is a misunderstanding. I don't agree. I contend that "Nothingness" can be considered the absence of time and space.
______________________________________________________________________
so?

_____________________________________________________________________


What I liked most of these quotes listed is the ones showing the net energy of the universe as being zero. Where energy and matter (+s) are exactly balanced by gravitational energy (-s).
_____________________________________________________________________

why do you like this idea?
_____________________________________________________________________
One that due to the rapidity left particles so formed unable to anihilate.
_____________________________________________________________________

clearify.
_____________________________________________________________________


That suggests to me that the observation of virtual particles and their borrowing energy due to uncertainity is the sputter simular to CMB from the initial event but due to the lack of sufficient umph can no longer reach the seperation required to allow perpetual or continued existance.
______________________________________________________________________

what is your conclusion from this?

north,

<b>ANS: That is a misunderstanding. I don't agree. I contend that "Nothingness" can be considered the absence of time and space.

so?</b>

<font color="yellow">So I am not in bad company looking at the list of the quoted authors.</font id="yellow">

<b>What I liked most of these quotes listed is the ones showing the net energy of the universe as being zero. Where energy and matter (+s) are exactly balanced by gravitational energy (-s).

why do you like this idea?

<font color="yellow">Rewally simple. It provides a coherent solution without magic, miracles, Gods, infinity or eternity</font id="yellow">

<b>One that due to the rapidity left particles so formed unable to anihilate.


clearify.</b>

<font color="yellow">I'll not try to expound upon the text of the quotes which covers this issue but paraphrasing they indicate that virtual particles are doing the same thing but due to (perhaps less than FTL expansion which may have accompanied the initial enception before our physical laws between particles settled in)are anihilating after borrowing energy in the N

---

&gt;(+s)+(-s) format but initiall an FTL expansion may have left them to exists as real particles of mass with energy and a gravitating field as the point of conservation.</font id="yellow">

That suggests to me that the observation of virtual particles and their borrowing energy due to uncertainity is the sputter simular to CMB from the initial event but due to the lack of sufficient umph can no longer reach the seperation required to allow perpetual or continued existance.

what is your conclusion from this?</b>

<font color="yellow">We exist in a null universe devoid of any net energy but is comprised of the +s and -s components which were derived from "Nothingness" as is indicated by the net "Zero" energy of the universe.</font id="yellow">









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

Do you really want to know where the so called anti-matter is? A Scientific American magazine article contained the quote of a scientist, back in the 1980's or thereabouts...it said

"Electrons are anti-matter"

So thats where the anti-matter is.

So much for that.

Meta

Who said that Meta!?!?!?!

I agree with him totally.

"Electrons are antimatter"
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rousejohnny</i>
<br />I agree with him totally.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Then what are anti-electrons (also called "positrons")? -|Tom|-

hmmm.... i suppose that perhaps since positrons are anti-electrons, and electons are anti-matter, then positrons would be anti-anti-matter, meaning positrons are matter?