Creation Ex Nihilo

huesdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>at least possible infinite.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Physical things (time) that have finite measures can never become infinite. It is impossible by definition. Infinity is nothing more than a mathematical tool and something to amuse ourselves with but is not and cn never be a description of jphysical reality.

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

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><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.

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.

+ 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.

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

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>this makes no sense,if you can't DETECT nothing,then don't tell me it can bifurcate, come on Mac!!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Why not. Are you qualified to say what capacity the universe (nature) has or has not? I don't.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b> remember "nothing" has no energy,dimension,space,time or depth. and just because so-and-so Mathematically came up with this equation doesn't mean it makes sense! </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Don't insult me.

It is my formula. []LOL

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>and you yourself have said that mathematics doesn't always represent reality,isn't it time to question their conclusions?</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: I agree and I continue to say mathematics alone is not a good model. Relativity is purely mathematical with no physical model. It has no "Causes" for its "Affects". It is incomplete in that regard.

The theory being discussed also has calculations based on observtion. the results suggest our existance is in the form of two opposite "Somethings". One is + energy and the other - energy and collective in total we are comprised of and continue to exist as bifurcated "Nothing".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>i find it strange that you are going along with what they say without question and actually using this info to support your own equation!! which i also find you are actually BENDING to suit your own equation. to me this "nothing" conclusion from the "zero" balance equation is a manifestation of their imagative limits!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Then let me suggest that you give a better description of what something made of +100 and -100 really is besides a bifurcated "0".

Yes I wrote the formula that expresses this phenomena. I also wrote the definition of "Nothingness" from my view as being the absence of time and space. I also wrote a theory that is very simular to the one we have been discussing (but not in as much detail), 50 years ago.

So I am rather pleased to see this calculation, rather than question it, I find it very illuminating and rewarding. I guess that is why I don't question it. I understand it.

<b> surely its time to reject their conclusions and come up with something BETTER ourselves,is it not!! a theory which makes more sense. which collectively on this site we can and it would not be the first time that we have i'm sure.</b>

ANS: I agree we should always question things. I have and I agree with th conclusions (at least until there is new information that suggest otherwise). Question is one thing rejecting something without having something better to offer is another.



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

messia,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>There are TWO connotations of nothing -
That which does not exist (has no physical manifestation in the Universe) AND
That which is equivalent to Ø (for everything there is an equal and opposite)
You are blurring the distinction.
Nothing EXISTS - everywhere...just not all in the same place at the same time.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: Very good understanding.

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

Jeremy,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>This is a definitional error. The number line is NOT a number, it contains numbers but is not a number itself. A bucket contains water, it is not water itself. To make the self reference that you are doing the two things must be of the same type, they are not. Even ignoring that issue you defined infinity to be GREATER THAN any finite number and then said it must be greater than itself. It cannot be so because you already defined it not to be so. If you have made it at least equal to a finite number I would like to know what that number is.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: We agree here. Surprise, surprise. But the point you miss is that I do that to show why you cannot claim anything physical as being infinite. Infinity is a mere concept without reality. It is not a number, it says anything infinite is larger than any number. OK so far.

But then to turn around and claim something physical as being infinite, when it is phusical and clearly comprised of as some finite number is simply a miss application of the term infinity.

Whatever is physical by definition must be larger than numbers and since numbers define anything physical, you are saying it is larger than itself.

Nothing physical is ever infinite. It is as simple as that. No amount of waffeling can change that.

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

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 cn never be a description of jphysical reality.


JR