- Thank you received: 0
Creation Ex Nihilo
20 years 10 months ago #7763
by north
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?
Replied by north on topic Reply from
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?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #7767
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
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
>(+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
<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
>(+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
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #7652
by Meta
Replied by Meta on topic Reply from Robert Grace
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
"Electrons are anti-matter"
So thats where the anti-matter is.
So much for that.
Meta
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- rousejohnny
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 10 months ago #7769
by rousejohnny
Replied by rousejohnny on topic Reply from Johnny Rouse
Who said that Meta!?!?!?!
I agree with him totally.
I agree with him totally.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 10 months ago #7955
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
"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|-
<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|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 10 months ago #7548
by Paradox
Replied by Paradox on topic Reply from
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?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.457 seconds