Broken Circle

Patrick,

The only "nothing" there was, was that you didn't account for how the balls became heated or cooled. It could happen from magic. This equates to Mac commanding from the heavens "Ball number One, I command you to cool to -60(f). Ball number Two, I command you to heat to 60(f)". Energy was required to change the temperatures, since all that exists is the set of "something" then the stuff that makes up the set of "something" is what would have had to produce that energy.[unquote]

Ans:You are correct you did forget "Nothing". The "Nothing" I have dubbed <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>. This subject line has clearly been around <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>

---

>(+n)+(-n) transitions.

You may choose to still try and work in riddles saying "Nothing" is "Something" but that merely obviscates the issue and doesn't intend to address it.

Perhaps you rubbed on ball against the side of the bucket until enough of the "condensed energy" was extracted and converted to heat.(I have no idea on how to cool).[unquote]

Ans:Think real hard. Now try -energy. If I apply -energy to an object I really would expect it to cool. If I apply +energy to it I would expect it to be heated.

Anyway, the point is that the energy didn't just magically happen. It came from the "something" which is what you are claiming as "nothing". Mac, "absolute nothing" cannot exist and so things can't come from there or go to there. I know it appears as "nothing" but in order for it to exist it must really be "something" and as you have realized, the "something" is what makes up "everything".
NEXT....[unquote]

Ans: NEXT?: Don't restate my views and then say next. You have made statements as though they were facts, which they clearly are only your view. If not ....{{Mac, "absolute nothing" cannot exist ))
...........PROVE IT. I don't mean give your same old arguement, show me in science where it is stated and proven that "Nothing" cannot exist.

(Mac)It was "Creating" (+n) from by also "Creating" (-n) at the same time from . The energy so created was applied to the ball bearings in the form of heat (temperature) to show that that energy = . "Created" from and returning to .

What you are referring to as is the same thing you have referred to as "something". You have already said it yourself in your own words, now you just need to "SEE"(understand) it![unquote]

Ans:I don't know if you are that easily confused or if you simply think I am. Nothing you said here correlates to what I said. It is out of context, abbrievated, etc and turned to try and suit your own arguement. Surely you can do better than this. Lets put our respective positions flat out on the table listed 1,2, 3 etc and lets see which one is open and which one is a closed system.<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Patrick,

Energy REQUIRES no space and REQUIRES no time yet it exists.[unquote]


Just what kind of energy did you have in mind that doesn't invovle motion? Where do you get motion with spatial dimension and time?

JoeW,

In conclusion, both Mac and TVF make statements dealing with metaphysics. Mac's theory however can be put to test, whereas TVF's cannot (no way to test the universe for infinite proporties).[unquote]

Ans: I would agree with your lable as being metaphysics (excluding the gravity testing which is still on going).

My initial error seems to have been putting the word "Theory" in the title. Yet anybody that may have viewed even the "Introduction" it is clearly stated as being "A losely bound concept being jpresented as "By Way of Example" and not a completed theory.

The following is from a Research Paper. I wonder if anybody here could write a mathematical expression for it?


**************Extract **************

Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all. (Davies, 1983, 31-32)

************************************

PS: It continues to discuss that that is due to the formation of +/- energy!

You might want to reconsider your position Patrick.

If existence is eternal, i.e. "things" can't come into existence, then how can "things" exist in the first place? And it's impossible for anyone to look back to eternity so of what use is this point of view even merely as a logical exercise?


OTOh, the fact that "things" exist can be used simply as proof that they came into existence. And to avoid an infinite regression of cause and effect, we merely place our starting point to when there was absolutely nothing in the universe. The question of existence then is resolved.

HOwever, I think any model of the universe eventually includes the concept of some "substance", "energy", or "whatchamacallit" having the ability to change forms (properties and rules). How and why these changes occur are the more interesting questions imo.

Patrick,

quote:

---

(Mac)You might want to reconsider your position Patrick.

---

Mac, I guess I need to simply spell it out here since you are not getting it.

I have been waiting for you to "SEE" this on your own but I can see that a boost is needed. You have already discovered a few of the pieces but you haven't been able to put the whole puzzle together yet. This seems to be frusterating you because I sense your tone is turning nasty.[unquote]


Ans: I hardly think not accepting your view and posting data from a scientific paper qualifies as being nasty. And I certainly am not frustrated over "Nothing" - pun intended.

But it seems it is you that don't get it. You have choosen to ignore the information from my post and to re-state "It is not my opinion, it is the scientific community". I just showed you the scientific community disagrees on this issue. It is like Relativity and Infinity. Lots of opinions - no proof.

"Pure Energy" is a term I have coined, there is no such animal in sciene today as we know it.
Here is the key:"Pure Energy", the "STATE" in which you refer to as , is actually a completely NEW(undiscovered) "STATE"(Phase) of "Energy"!
[unquote]


Ans:You may indeed have come up with that term independantly but unless you are at least 60 years old I doubt your term preceeds my use of the term. Infact I give possible properties to pure energy and I call it UniKEF and have for 50 years.

I too, in the past, have referred to it as "nothing" but then realized that it is actually "something" and therefore CANNOT be "absolute nothingness", hence "Essence of Existence"("PURE ENERGY")("Nothing=Everything")("0"="everything")(etc...) It is still the same thing it has always been, "ENERGY", just in it's most "PURE"(highest) form. No creation, no Demise just plain old "Pure" energy. It is this "STATE" in which "everything" comes from and goes to. Think that one over and see if it makes sense yet.[unquote]


Ans"Nope. You have just put yourself back into the "Chicken and Egg" loop. You must now state Pure Energy came from God or has always existed therefore was never created.

Pure Energy in UniKEF is that which is being created from <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>. It drives gravity and is responsible for spatial dimension.


quote:

---

(Mac)PROVE IT. I don't mean give your same old arguement, show me in science where it is stated and proven that "Nothing" cannot exist.

---

Mac...Mac...Mac...How can you prove something which doesn't exist? If it exists then it is "something" not "non-existence", you can't seem to get over this. You don't need to be over the age of 50 to understand that, I know a 6 year old who even understands it.[unquote]

Ans: maybe so but I seem to be finding older persons that can't see the falacy of their view either.

"Something" CANNOT come from "absolute nothingness". These are not my opinions Mac, they are the opinions of the Scientific community.[unquote]


Ans: Not so. I just posted an extract which is a scientific paper which has conclusion in agreement with my views. I am sure you can do the same. That does not make you right or wrong and vice-versa. But you are wrong to conclude and state that "I" don't get it. I could say the same for you.

I am simply putting the pieces of the puzzle together. What you are calling "nothing", which is what I called it, is actually a brand new(newly discovered) "STATE" of energy. Since it is "something" then it is not "non-existent nothing" so therefore I have coined the term "Pure Energy".[unquote]


Ans: And in my opinion you screwed up and shot yourself in the foot when you did so. You should have stayed with <img src=null-set.gif border=0 align=middle>.

p.s. "PURE ENERGY" is eternal, it exists outside of time, it has no effects and therefore no cause. However, it is the cause of all other effects. I warned you that this was a very, very, very difficult concept. Pay really close attention because you are witnessing history.[unquote]


Ans: Your repeating something does not alter what you have said and what you have said is circular logic. I prefer the other view.

Anyway, back to those vermin. A funny thing about vermin, vermin are finite creatures yet there can be an infinite number of them. They keep reproducing, the old ones die and new ones are born everyday, I guess one could say that their existence is infinite.[unquote]


Ans: And so now you expect me to follow you back into an arguement of infinity? YOu know I don't accept infinity, just as yuo have said you don't accept infinity. You are starting to make me sea sick.

You invited me to consider this subject. I have looked, listened and put forth arguement. I have adapted some of your views but I see what I think was a fatal flaw in your conclusions and I have drwan my own views. Those views are quite comfortable. I have no desire to change them at this time.

Your repeated presentation that somehow you hold the key to the Universe and we just don't get it is not altering the fact that your view is a dead end.

Sorry but that is my position. We disagree. Go read some research papers on the subject and get back to me.