It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No Planets. No Stars, Nothingness?

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hymroids
do you think that in the farthest reaches of space or the mind, because everyone really seems to focus on the compression of infinite mass. why isn't space like time folded on top of it's self or something. or like do you think that there is like space hell or something.

Well perhaps it is in a way, there is a multiverse, baby universes and universes that have died. Now who is to say that there isn't a co-existence of ourselves in a different universe at the same "time" - is that kind of like tme folded on top of itself and it just keeps restarting? Not sure if i am on the same wavelength as you.


Originally posted by Hymroids
...or like in that oldschool space movies where they send astronauts through wormholes and it's just like some weird trippy psychodelic stuff. or maybe it could just look like polygon graphics from some bclass 80s movie.

Now considering there are more tan one universe, black holes are the opposite side to a whitehole. So stuff goes in one side and comes out the other in a NEW universe - perhaps baby universe starting up... so maybe not so far fetched hey!?




posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 12:58 AM
link   
I think you are getting into parallel universes. I have a hard time believing in parallel universes. It is along the same lines as that John Titor stuff, where his timeline layout changes as he was reliving a time that he was already in.

I believe that what we are doing right now is it, there is no changing it. I have a hard time in believing in time travel, as well. But then as I just thought about typing that, we technically are time travellers, moving into the future and remembering the past. We have the capability to remember what we have just done in the moment of time we were just in. The present is the present, not what was or what will be, and we have the ability to foresee the future to an extent. I know what I am going to be doing in the next few seconds, but I do not know what variables are going to be present. I live in Florida, and can prepare for the next hurricane, but I do not know exactly what to expect.

I have never lived through an earthquake, although I do want to, to see what its like. Is the next major hurricane or earthquake already written in our future timeline? That starts getting into the paranormal section, with fortune telling, and future seers.

They say, and there is undeniable truth, that animals have a sixth sense about these things. That is precognition. Precognition is just a feeling you get. That feeling you get is produced by electrical signals telling nerves in your brain what you are supposed to think. Electrical signals are pulses of energy that have NO MASS.

What is nothing? Is nothing massless? If so, than light particles are nothing, but nothing with energy.

Ok, I'm getting a headache....



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by blue bird
If you chose to go with quantum vacuum as a substratum ( 'something' that was before Planck time) than you should know - that vacuum is not empty.

Ok now, we can keep that fact in mind BUT, again, if there is nothing to start off with then is noting in the vacuum. Now, under "normal" circumstances in man-made vacuums i agree that it isn't empty in the sense of the word, but before universes were born and there was literally nothing, wouldn't it be possible that the vacuum was actually and literally "empty"?


Originally posted by Hymroids
Quantum vacuum is not nothing, nor empty - it is plethora // filled with potentiality, with minimum energy. Virtual particles and, virtual matter and anti-mater are constantly created ...popping up into existence and vanishing. It is called quantum fluctuation.

Yes, but, and i fully support that argument, however, again the question comes to mind that at this point in space/time etc there is always "something" where there is nothing, but before "time" begane and space existed i guess therwas ---- Nothing?


Originally posted by Hymroids
When you say 'god' as a prime mover , next question to follow is: well who 'create god'? We brake Ockham Razor- this beautiful and very wise logical principle , that underlies scientific method - NOT to make more assumptions than the minimum needed.

Nope, not necessarily prime but, as i said, depending on the side of the fence one sits on i was making provision LOL. But again, your question hold true, who created God though we "know" he always was and always will be.


Originally posted by Hymroids
There is no space-time before. No distances - no space or 'empty room' and no time Universe is space-time. Universe can be finite with no boundary. Space and time has beginning.

Beginning with no end is quite profound! though feasible it does not fit into our human way of thinking. I guess we may understand this when we move to higher levels of existence.

I honestly find this so fascinating. Wish i had studies quantum physics LOL



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:07 AM
link   
The good ol' question of "Why Anything At All?"
If God, why? how?
If Matter and Energy, why any at all?

There should be NOTHING.
No Matter, no Energy, no Time, no Space, no God, no Man.

Something is fundamentally missing in the given information that no Science or Mysticism sufficiently provides.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by shearder
I think we know the universe is probably endless. What does that mean exactly?


Endlessness is just that; endless and without boundary. Nothingness and Infinity are both ultimately incomprehensible to conceptualize in their entirety. However, I strongly encourage you to stretch the limits of your mind trying



If we could travel forever, however long that is, how do we know we would not reach a “barrier” or limit to how far we can go?


Maybe the Universe is both infinite and finite. Perhaps in the beginning there was infinity, and later a finite universe was created therein. Perhaps the Universe is going to expand forever... that would make it finite in size yet infinite in potential, but if its expansion is guaranteed forever, might as well, for all practical reasons, call the Universe infinite.

What is on the other side of this expansion? The answer to that is no less complex then explaining the origin of origin; which is really what we are talking about here isn't it? Call that force God, Science, Quantum Zero Point Field, the Tao, whatever or however you want to view it, it all comes down to you believing the Universe always was or it always wasn't. It is either uncreated and eternal, or at some point in the far past it came from nothing. Or.... maybe it came from nothingness and is now eternal?Nothingness is no less extreme or miraculous of a view as infinity.

I personally believe whatever caused the Universe to come into being was brought forth by an uncreated and infinite force. That force either always was, or came into being from nothingness. I believe that force is an impossibility. I think the Universe is impossible in a sense; God's mystery.


So close your eyes and imagine space as we know it, remove planets from it, stars, etc etc, till you have an empty void with nothing in it. Now you have this huge empty vacuum, then imagine that doesn’t exist – what do we have? What would there be then, A HUGE empty vacuum.


If it is completely empty then how is it huge? Distance can only be measured if there is a stationary point of reference. A completely empty space is as small as it is big.

Science currently tells us the space vacuum isn't empty. Quantum particles and what not.

Also, there seems to be a misconception on this thread about the Big Bang Theory. This theory doesn't suggest there was an empty nothingness prior to the Big Bang. This theory says the Universe was condensed to be point of singularity, perhaps even to the point of infinite density. This theory is only applicable for understanding post Big-Bang though, as the laws of known physics breaks down in that state of singularity.


So was there ever “Nothingness”. If so, where does oxygen or hydrogen or nitrogen or carbon come from if there was nothing?? I guess I haven’t found anything substantial enough via Google to substantiate or answer that question. Any solid answers out there? Has anyone else wondered about this?


Are you familiar with the quantum zero point field? I just read a book by an astrophysicist called "The God Theory" that puts forth a theory in regards to exactly the questions you are asking. You might wanna check that book out, I thought it was fantastic.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quasar
I think you are getting into parallel universes. I have a hard time believing in parallel universes. It is along the same lines as that John Titor stuff, where his timeline layout changes as he was reliving a time that he was already in.

I guess it is something that we are not conditioned to thinking about. Ok, let's say that parallel universes do not exist (and we have no proof they do) then we do know there are, what - 12 dimensions, do we exist on any of the others? What are we doing? Is that where dejavu could play a part in doing something and then suddenly realizing, hey wait, i have done this before and it feels familiar. Have we ever really been able, in those circumstances, to predict what will happen next? I have always found it felt that way AFTER something i do is done. I sometimes stop and think about what i "remember" will happen next and haven't really been successful. (off topic i know)


Originally posted by Quasar
I believe that what we are doing right now is it, there is no changing it. I have a hard time in believing in time travel, as well.


hmmmmm... ok i guess that could be a whole new thread but apparently there will be 3 new satellites in the next couple of years and we will hppefully be able to answer the question i have asked initially. Will this LISA be something like "time travel" - in a sense i guess but not physical in the way we would assume it to be i.e. man in a machine hopping to a different time.

Cosmology, our understanding of the universe, might be revolutionised when the Lisa (Laser Interferometry Space Antenna) is launched in 2011.

It will orbit the Sun at the same distance as the Earth, but trailing us by 30 million miles. Consisting of three satellites linked by laser beams, it will form a huge triangle of laser light about three million miles on each side.

If a gravity wave from space hits this triangle, it will cause a tiny distortion in the laser beams, which will be detectable by its instruments. (Lisa will detect optical distortions one hundredth the size of an atom.)

Lisa should be able to detect cosmic explosions nine billion light years from Earth, which cut across much of the visible universe, as well as colliding black holes and even the shock waves emitted a trillionth of a second after the Big Bang, which are still circulating around the universe.

Hence it might be capable of resolving the most perplexing and stubborn question facing cosmology: what happened before the instant of Genesis?

[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2005/01/05/ecrspace05.xml&sSheet=/connected/2005/01/05/ixconnrite.html]Source[/url ]



Originally posted by Quasar
They say, and there is undeniable truth, that animals have a sixth sense about these things. That is precognition.


I absolutely believe this to be true.

What is nothing? Is nothing massless? If so, than light particles are nothing, but nothing with energy.

Ok, I'm getting a headache....

Yeah, you just gave me one considering that light may have no weight. But does it not have weight? hmmmm... found this -


Matter matters.
Light is particles and waves, so it should weigh. This guy (??) says this:
E=m*c^2 and E=h*f
so
m*c^2=h*f ====> (h*f)/c^2=m
This above means photon has weight (very light
about 1e-50[kg])

but right now they say photons have no mass, just movement.
Movement is heat or energy, so mass and energy really are the same, therefore higher energy means higher mass...
warmer=heavier???


If that is fact, what the hell do i know LOL

[edit on 3/7/2007 by shearder]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   
I most likely will get that book. A brief history of time is a favorite of mine, too. Isn't a vacuum just space with no air pressure? Just because there is no air pressure doesn't mean there is nothing in it, it just lacks the friction of "air" on its way toward whatever is pulling whatever is in it down. So you have no way, other than monitoring the movement of the stars or objects relative to you, to measure speed in a vacuum, ie. space.



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Very cool, shearder, I will have to continue this tomorrow. I haven't heard of LISA, but will definately look into it.

Good night!



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
Endlessness is just that; endless and without boundary. Nothingness and Infinity are both ultimately incomprehensible to conceptualize in their entirety. However, I strongly encourage you to stretch the limits of your mind trying


I have tried that but i guess the limits are there in terms of how "far" we can think based on current theories and knowledge



Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
Maybe the Universe is both infinite and finite.

Possible. Like the cat in a box being both dead and alive until we open the box and see for ourselves. hmmmm...


Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
Perhaps in the beginning there was infinity, and later a finite universe was created therein.

that would then mean, if you think about it, infinity still contains "finity".


Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
Perhaps the Universe is going to expand forever... that would make it finite in size yet infinite in potential, but if its expansion is guaranteed forever, might as well, for all practical reasons, call the Universe infinite.

I agree. The universe is constantly expanding - at what rate i do not know, but expanding never the less. Infinately? who knows. I wonder if there will ever be a "Big Shrink"? Where there is so much being created that the "space" cannot sustain the growth and eventually there will be constant collisions and, now here is another thought, that's why there are blackholes OR are they actually (let's use this word) portals to new(ly) formed universes . hmmm...


Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
I personally believe whatever caused the Universe to come into being was brought forth by an uncreated and infinite force. That force either always was, or came into being from nothingness. I believe that force is an impossibility. I think the Universe is impossible in a sense; God's mystery.


Perhaps it is God after all, whoever he is and by whatever name he is known to different people(s), has to be congruent with what the bible has said (ok i know what some may go into here about the bible but that's not the point of the thread - i.e. Catholic bashing) Always was, Is and Always will be.


Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
If it is completely empty then how is it huge? Distance can only be measured if there is a stationary point of reference. A completely empty space is as small as it is big.


Very good point. If it is completely empty it could be the size of an atom or as large as something we cannot measure? or Not an atom, dark matter. Now if we remove that atom or whatever it is in size then we are left with nothing at all. Even nothing is contained in something. Take a glass for example. fill it with water. Now that's the multiverse. Ok, let's make it simple, it's the universe, nothing outside of this exists - then drink the water - keeping in mind that there is nothing left in theglass, not even one molecule or atom! Now the glass is empty, our universe void of anything. Then, remove the glass - now the universe does not exist - NOTHING, BUT, again, the glass, though empty has been contained in another (what can i call it) lets call it "space"... It comes down to, no matter how much "emptiness" or "nothingness" you remove, there will always be a nothingness that contained it... hmmmm


Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
Science currently tells us the space vacuum isn't empty. Quantum particles and what not.


Based on man made experiments or what? They are basing their conclusions on what is known. i.e. everything is made up of atoms, which is now totally incorrect, and 2 years ago this was fact. The "fact" of the matter is that science proves everything and nothing at the same time and proof of one thing opens up questions about another at times. Everything we learned about atom making up everything is out the window.


Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
Also, there seems to be a misconception on this thread about the Big Bang Theory. This theory doesn't suggest there was an empty nothingness prior to the Big Bang. This theory says the Universe was condensed to be point of singularity, perhaps even to the point of infinite density. This theory is only applicable for understanding post Big-Bang though, as the laws of known physics breaks down in that state of singularity.


Nope, you are right. However, for the purposes of understanding the "nothingness" the big bang ensured a full or growing universe/multiverse. But if we, again, think of where did the "point of singularity" originate if there was nothing for it to originate from? There had to have been, at some point in time, literally nothing ans something was "created" - this something being the condensed point that eventually spawned the "Big Bang" - but again it is a theory.


Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
Are you familiar with the quantum zero point field? I just read a book by an astrophysicist called "The God Theory" that puts forth a theory in regards to exactly the questions you are asking. You might wanna check that book out, I thought it was fantastic.


I have had very little exposure to literature on the zero point field but have heard a little bout it none the less. The concept is mind blowing and very interesting but as far as i am aware is yet to be proven 100% though it is used in conjecture as to what it is and how it can be harnessed and used etc.
I will keep an eye out for that book.

Very interesting reading what you wrote though Cloak and Dagger thanks for the input - got the gears cranking again.

[edit on 3/7/2007 by shearder]



posted on Jul, 3 2007 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Quasar
Very cool, shearder, I will have to continue this tomorrow. I haven't heard of LISA, but will definately look into it.

Good night!


Take care bud. Yeah, very cool to say the least. may seem like a pointless and useless thread but i am finding what comes out of this from peoples' thoughts and studies very interesting and the posts get me into searching for articles i didn't think about like zero point field theory - looking more into it etc. Gettinig closer if not further away from the answer



posted on Jul, 4 2007 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Words are vibrations in your throat which then create patterns of waves in the air. Can a thing be understood completely through organized wind ? I do not think so. But we will try wont we...



posted on Jul, 5 2007 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by R3KR
Words are vibrations in your throat which then create patterns of waves in the air. Can a thing be understood completely through organized wind ? I do not think so. But we will try wont we...


Sure thing! It is always interesting to get someone else's view on things especially if nothing is 100% proven. Just to see how others think can open new ways of thinking or lead us down a path to look into other, possibly unrelated at times, ideas and theories which would either directly or indirectly affect the outcome.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join