Absolute emptiness

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[PoPpAScience]: I believe that there was only "Nothing", before there was "Everything". I see that "Everything" seems to come from something, so common sense says that the very first thing had to come from "Nothing". Something from "Nothing" , is a "Paradox". "Paradox" means something unexplainable, something from "Nothing" is also unexplainable. So, "Nothing" is a "Paradox".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

It is likely that we are all stuck in creational thinking, that is, do objects and substances need to be created in the first place? The idea of getting "something" from "nothing" is nonintuitive. One possible way out is to think that the universe has not been created at all, it simply exists, and always will. That is not to say that its state cannot change, it could simply mean that the universe is dynamic but never ceases to exist. The so-called Big Bang was perhaps a very violent change of state or configuration, but claiming that it formed out of a singularity, whatever that may be, seems farfetched. I'll delete the word "nothing" from my vocabulary, it simply serves no purpose.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
1 - Space is not an empty void without properties. You have permability for example. "Nothingness" cannot have properties.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Righto! So that means that there is something there and it not truly nothing.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
2 - Einstien stated "Gentlemen we have not proven an aether does not exist, we have only jproven that we don't need one to do our computations."
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

True, but I don't know how this directly relates to what we are talking about.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
3 - A finite universe does not require an egg shell boundry. An egg shell boundry leave the question what is beyond the edge. Consider instead that the boundry is defined by the absence of time or space, the absence of dimension.
The universe is finite but there is no void beyond the boundry.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

A boundary always exists embedded in a higher dimension. The flatlander may not see the boundary on the surface of a sphere but the universe sees it in the 3D space the sphere is sitting in. In the higher dimension infinity will always exist. When I approach this boundary do I slow down as I step on the gas more? Do I disappear out of existence and pop back on the other side? Do I see stars disappearing in front of me as I approach the boundary? This whole finite space talk seems to me to be a return to the days when sailors thought they were going to drop off the edge of the Earth if they sailed far enough.

In any case, at the moment there is no substantive proof that the universe is finite. We haven't photographed the back of our head or mapped ourselves into a corner. Unless someone can provide some decent evidence of the contrary I will continue to be a "flatlander".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
It is also difficult to envision the inverse square law of gravity in an infinite universe. Assuming as I do in UniKEF and I believe MM does in a pushing gravity concept. If the universe was infinite then the cones of sources volume would be infinite at any seperation of m1 and m2 and infinite sources of gravity would not have an inverse square function.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Not true. Tom explained in his book that gravitation has a finite range and is not the sum of particle motions out to infinity. It is only required that gravity have finite range to allow an infinite universe.

It is probably the case that "nothing" is a very vague concept at best. If I evacuate the air out of a bell jar do I have nothing? There are still cosmic rays and magnetic fields going through it, and according to Tom those fields and particles are all composed of no-see-um particles. "Nothing" just seems to mean "I don't see anything there".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jeremy]: In any case, at the moment there is no substantive proof that the universe is finite. We haven't photographed the back of our head or mapped ourselves into a corner. Unless someone can provide some decent evidence of the contrary I will continue to be a "flatlander".
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

What surprises me is that every year scientists claim to have observed the most distant planet. That's fair enough, but I'll bet that when I'm standing on that star with my Hubble telescope I won't see anything different from where I am now, just countless stars and galaxies. Cosmic background radiation already proved that space is as good as Euclidean, so no surprises there from a "flatlander" point of view. I see the universe as one big Cartesian space without limits. Straight lines are straight and crooked trees are crooked, no need for differential geometry just yet. A donut shaped universe is really no problem for me to accept, but show me some proof first.

JAN; Thanks for the reply.

I find the opposite to your view. I have always found it to hard to imagine there always being something. I guess it comes from noticing that everything seems to come from something else. So to me, there had to be an initial "Nothing".
I know that the Big Bang theory throws of many thinkers, just as it has for me. Especially when the new mapping of the universe shows to me the opposite to an expanding Universe. It shows me a Universe grouping together into a sponge like configuration. Take away the RED SHIFT theory as told by scientist, and all you are left with is an Evolving Universe.

To me the RED SHIFT theory shows me a shrinking Universe that is retracting to its ZERO POINT. Another way of looking at the Universe, is if you imagine the volume of the inside of a globe. Now you must imagine for along time, matter being drawn to the ZERO POINT of the globe, just like in a Black hole. Just as one cannot escape to the event horizon of the Black hole, no one can reach the event horizon of the inside of the imaginary globe. It seams that everything of large mass is drawn to its ZERO POINT, so why not the Universe too. When you have a completely self contained Universe you have no need for an outside medium for it to expand into. In the beginning there is no reference to size, except for the initial size of the Universe.

I know this is a lot to swallow. Especially when nobody that I can find in this world is working on this idea, not sense the first deep thinkers 5000 years ago looked at the Universe, as self contained. In my "PoPpA" theory there is no need for an outside Creator. There is also no need for an outside medium for the Universe to expand into. All that is needed in the beginning is "Potential". The Universe is its own Creator. It is also its own creation.

We are this "PoPpA" experiencing itself as it Evolves into the future.

PoPpAScience.

Jeremy,

quote:

---

1 - Space is not an empty void without properties. You have permability for example. "Nothingness" cannot have properties.

---

Righto! So that means that there is something there and it not truly nothing.


<font color=yellow>ANS: I have never said and do not consider space as "Nothing". "Nothing requires the absence of time and space"</font id=yellow>

quote:

---

2 - Einstien stated "Gentlemen we have not proven an aether does not exist, we have only jproven that we don't need one to do our computations."

---

True, but I don't know how this directly relates to what we are talking about.


<font color=yellow>ANS: It directly relates. Since space IS NOT "Nothing" and has properties, then it is the aether. It doesn't matter if we have not yet measured or determined its fullest nature. It exists</font id=yellow>


quote:

---

3 - A finite universe does not require an egg shell boundry. An egg shell boundry leave the question what is beyond the edge. Consider instead that the boundry is defined by the absence of time or space, the absence of dimension.
The universe is finite but there is no void beyond the boundry.

---

A boundary always exists embedded in a higher dimension. The flatlander may not see the boundary on the surface of a sphere but the universe sees it in the 3D space the sphere is sitting in. In the higher dimension <font color=yellow><b>infinity</b></font id=yellow> will always exist. When I approach this boundary do I slow down as I step on the gas more? Do I disappear out of existence and pop back on the other side? Do I see stars disappearing in front of me as I approach the boundary? This whole finite space talk seems to me to be a return to the days when sailors thought they were going to drop off the edge of the Earth if they sailed far enough.


<font color=yellow>ANS: No material thing can ever be infinite. Infinity is not a quantity, by definition it is beyond quantity. All material things have a quantity.</font id=yellow>

In any case, at the moment there is no substantive proof that the universe is finite. We haven't photographed the back of our head or mapped ourselves into a corner. Unless someone can provide some decent evidence of the contrary I will continue to be a "flatlander".

<font color=yellow>ANS: I would have to say there is far more evidence that the universe is finite than that it is infinite. Neither have been proven but finite may be proven and infinite can never be proven. Is it not the rule in science that if a theory can not be tested and proven right or wrong then it is not a valid theory. Prove "Infinity"</font id=yellow>


quote:

---

It is also difficult to envision the inverse square law of gravity in an infinite universe. Assuming as I do in UniKEF and I believe MM does in a pushing gravity concept. If the universe was infinite then the cones of sources volume would be infinite at any seperation of m1 and m2 and infinite sources of gravity would not have an inverse square function.

---

Not true. Tom explained in his book that gravitation has a finite range and is not the sum of particle motions out to infinity. It is only required that gravity have finite range to allow an infinite universe.


<font color=yellow>ANS: So all we have to do is arbitrarily discount Newton and substitue an arbitrary limit on gravity, then we can still claim the universe is the unproven and unproveable "Infinite"? Not very scientific. Have we ever detected such a limit on gravity?</font id=yellow>

It is probably the case that "nothing" is a very vague concept at best. If I evacuate the air out of a bell jar do I have nothing?

<font color=yellow>ANS: No. "Nothing" requires the absence of time and space. Without time and space no material thing can exist and you then have nothing.</font id=yellow>


There are still cosmic rays and magnetic fields going through it, and according to Tom those fields and particles are all composed of no-see-um particles. "Nothing" just seems to mean "I don't see anything there".


<font color=yellow>ANS: I don't see gravity but it damn sure is there. I don't see electricity but it damn sure hurts to put your finger in the light socket. The definition of "NOthing" simply must (I believe) come down to the absence of time and space.</font id=yellow>



Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

Back at cha,,
had to attend some business.

The actions been frenzied on this thread, i see...yow

came upon a theorist, and his jargon can explain stuff
a whole lot better than I can...
www.tamashii.biz/chapter_one.HTM

he explains stuff in one chapter thats FREE to read

'nothing'>propagating something>=from 'wave' freq. et al
akin to the 'potentials' that tend to manifest energies &
subatomic particles...(as offered earlier)? from aether?

?100giga htz...1 second universe?? U all check it out?

enjoy the journey
s/riff-raff

enjoy the journey