Something From Nothing? The Origin And Subsequent Inflation Of The Singularity.

The IPCC's approach to creating the AGW meme was to ask for only papers and studies that would confirm that humans were causing the warming and refused to accept papers that countered the supposition .The real problem was that the scientist that contributed to that cause had to defend their work that was actually indefensible .When the peer papers were put through the ringer the flaws were found as well as the cable of people behind the scene that was exposed in the leaked e-mails .Surprisingly ,to date no one has been charged or fired but the story is still working it's way through the system and may yet produce some justice .After the Banking crap and the lack of justice there I wont be holding my breath though . a reply to: MissSmartypants

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
The IPCC's approach to creating the AGW meme was to ask for only papers and studies that would confirm that humans were causing the warming and refused to accept papers that countered the supposition .The real problem was that the scientist that contributed to that cause had to defend their work that was actually indefensible .When the peer papers were put through the ringer the flaws were found as well as the cable of people behind the scene that was exposed in the leaked e-mails .Surprisingly ,to date no one has been charged or fired but the story is still working it's way through the system and may yet produce some justice .After the Banking crap and the lack of justice there I wont be holding my breath though . a reply to: MissSmartypants

Back during the "Inconvenient Truth" timeframe I remember reading that corporations with unacceptably large carbon footprints could legally offset them by paying into some fund of some sort, so.as always follow the money.

MissSmartypants:

Something from nothing?

Woodcarver:

You will not find a credible particle physicist who claims that the singularity arose from nothing.

Woodcarver is correct. The singularity could not have arisen from nothing. The equation is universal, constant, and unalterably true anywhere in the universe. From absolute nothing, you get absolutely nothing. Clearly, the universe is a 'something', so its origins cannot come from nothing, but from something. That is to say, as a clarification, the universe's origin is that of an energy interaction. Identifying what that interaction was is the goal of cosmologists.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
MissSmartypants:

Something from nothing?

Woodcarver:

You will not find a credible particle physicist who claims that the singularity arose from nothing.

Woodcarver is correct. The singularity could not have arisen from nothing. The equation is universal, constant, and unalterably true anywhere in the universe. From absolute nothing, you get absolutely nothing. Clearly, the universe is a 'something', so its origins cannot come from nothing, but from something. That is to say, as a clarification, the universe's origin is that of an energy interaction. Identifying what that interaction was is the goal of cosmologists.

The Universal constant did not exist before the Big Bang. The universal constant came into existance at the same time as the Big Bang took Place and formed Our universe.

spy66:

The Universal constant did not exist before the Big Bang. The universal constant came into existance at the same time as the Big Bang took Place and formed Our universe.

Oh dear, I give up.

My dear fellow, I am not referring to Einstein's constant of light speed. I am referring to the principle that...

From absolute nothing, you get absolutely nothing.

Apologies if I somehow confused you.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
spy66:

The Universal constant did not exist before the Big Bang. The universal constant came into existance at the same time as the Big Bang took Place and formed Our universe.

Oh dear, I give up.

My dear fellow, I am not referring to Einstein's constant of light speed. I am referring to the principle that...

From absolute nothing, you get absolutely nothing.

Apologies if I somehow confused you.

But the absolute nothingness is something. It justs that it have not produced matter yet.

If you dont have any matter and particles you have a absolute neutral infinite space of nothingness. That Space is still something, and it exists. Before the Big Bang there were no particles or matter. All matter and particles were created during the expanding singularity.

It is not easy to provide proof of a absolute empty space. But that has a logical answer. Our universe i very big and we cant see past it.

a reply to: spy66

But the absolute nothingness is something.

Nothing is everything.
Emptiness is form.
Form is emptiness.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: spy66

But the absolute nothingness is something.

Nothing is everything.
Emptiness is form.
Form is emptiness.

THe absolute nothingness is the only state that can be infinite. I think i mentioned that

BUt it is also abolutely neutral. How do you explaine Our preseption of existance then?

a reply to: spy66
It cannot be explained.

The perceiver and perceived are one.

Can you see the seer?

If you seek to see what is seeing right here and right now you might realize the emptiness. The individual (the illusionary separate one) is running from that emptiness.

Can anyone say that they do not exist?
If one is looking for the one and one knows that one exists then one should start the investigation from what is known to be true.
Thinking about what may or may not have happened in the past is just using concepts to find more concepts.
What is here right now is true.

What is here right now?

If the past is forgotten (because it is not actually here) and the future is forgotten (because it is not actually here) - what is there? Presence. Has it ever been not the present?
The present is what there is - it is not a thing - it is the whole thing - it is everything.
There are no things - there is just presence - it continually appears different - it is flowing and forming.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
a reply to: spy66
It cannot be explained.

The perceiver and perceived are one.

Can you see the seer?

If you seek to see what is seeing right here and right now you might realize the emptiness. The individual (the illusionary separate one) is running from that emptiness.

I agree. There can only be one intitial awareness. Looking through different eyes at different locations in Space time.

When i communicate With you. I am in reality sharing information With my self through a different set of eyes.

a reply to: MissSmartypants

Something from nothing? Really?

So did something arise from nothing and eventually lead to us?

Firstly, what are you? You ask the question - did you arise from nothing?
Maybe it is the things that arose from you and that you are nothing. 'Nothing' is not a thing in particular - the word 'nothing' just means nothing separate - all one - non dual - one without a second.

When did you start 'thinking of yourself as a thing'? When did you start thinking you where divided from all that is? It is when you divided yourself from the whole (impossible by the way) that the singularity 'seamed' to be more than one.

Prior to 'thinking' what is there?
Thinking is thinging.

There is only ever what there is and conceptualizing makes believe there is more.
This is the singularity.

The singularity is dreaming.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

With respect

In essence yes all is one
But like the expanding Universe it is multi faceted

You understand from your own particular soul experience
Yet so do others from theirs

Instead of trying to convince others of your view point try seeing things from other's perspectives

In the end we know nothing and everything what we do with that is up to each individual
How does it help another or not

spy66:

absolute nothingness is something.

I'm sorry, what? Absolute nothing is always absolute nothing, you absolutely never, ever get anything from it. The fact that it is absolute nothing leads to the irreversible truth that it can never be something. You can use nomenclature to describe absolute nothing, such as void, but it never gives anything back, because there is nothing from which something can appear from.

If by some happenstance nothing does give something, then nothing was never absolute nothing, which is why I used the word 'absolute' to separate the distinction from nothing that is absolute nothing with simply nothing that could be something.

I hope that settles the confusion for you.

a reply to: artistpoet

Instead of trying to convince others of your view point try seeing things from other's perspectives

Where is your 'view point'? Where are you viewing from?

a reply to: elysiumfire
Have you considered that 'the whole thing' would not be A thing - that it would be all that is?
No thingness.
Things implies separate things.

Existence is not a thing.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: elysiumfire

spy66:

The Universal constant did not exist before the Big Bang. The universal constant came into existance at the same time as the Big Bang took Place and formed Our universe.

Oh dear, I give up.

My dear fellow, I am not referring to Einstein's constant of light speed. I am referring to the principle that...

From absolute nothing, you get absolutely nothing.

Apologies if I somehow confused you.

But the absolute nothingness is something. It justs that it have not produced matter yet.



If you dont have any matter and particles you have a absolute neutral infinite space of nothingness. That Space is still something, and it exists. Before the Big Bang there were no particles or matter. All matter and particles were created during the expanding singularity.



It is not easy to provide proof of a absolute empty space. But that has a logical answer. Our universe i very big and we cant see past it.

On all those PBS shows that I watch about quantum physics, they say that space did not exist before the big bang. Space/time began along with everything else.

a reply to: MissSmartypants
When did now begin?
Does now contain space and time?
Can now ever end?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Where is your 'view point'? Where are you viewing from?

With respect Itsnowagain
I understand what you are attempting to point out

My view point is focused on my keyboard and comp screen... that is a physical Earthly explanation
Where I am coming from ie the source of what I am is what it is

BUT that was not my point in responding to your post as I did ... but no matter ...