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.
Originally posted by Thundersmurf
Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?
And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?
Valid point, but virtual particles don't strictly come from nothing, they borrow energy to exist...
This is in accordance with the uncertainty principle which allows existence of such particles of borrowed energy, so long as their energy, multiplied by the time they exist, is a fraction of Planck's constant.
source:wiki
and using Virtual Particles...
At each vertex in a Feynman diagram energy and momentum are conserved.
I here what you're saying about knowing though. If there was a space completely void of any kind of particle or energy, whatever came in to existence must be made up of other things. If there are no other things, then they can't make anything. Sounds good logically, but a small part of me still thinks that something can be created from nothing.
Good old logic though eh, I love it
Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
Originally posted by filosophia
Originally posted by Amaterasu
reply to post by filosophia
Some of those did, yes. Make My head spin. But the first lies on the ground that something can't come from nothing. This can be shown to be false in that virtual particles "spring from nothing." Or would You call them and their energy nothing?
And, in truth... How do We KNOW something cannot come from nothing?
We know something can not come from nothing, because a tree does not come from nothing, it comes from a seed. A person does not come from nothing, it comes from a womb. Fire does not come from nothing, it comes from heat. Heat does not come from nothing, it comes from the sun or an external source. Using that logic, they assume that the universe itself must also obey this law.
Something is called "virtual" because it is not real. Like a virtual girlfriend. If from nothing comes a virtual particle, that particle still does not have any reality to it, otherwise it would not be a virtual particle, but simply a particle. They say 'virtual' particle because they can't get around the axiom that nothing comes from nothing. And even if a virtual particle comes into existence, no matter how many virtual particles you add together, you can't have a real particle, in the same way that you can't add imaginary numbers together in the hopes that you will get a real number.edit on 18-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AboveTheTrees
You've written a nice proof of how logics can be illogical OR how wrong logical thinking is.
Originally posted by Raivan31
Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
Chickens lay eggs. If it reproduced by any other means it would not be a chicken. therefore the egg came first.
The first chicken-producing egg was laid by something else, perhaps a bird or dinosaur but it could not have come from a chicken because the egg produced the first chicken.
if the chicken had been born by any other means then it would not be a chicken because chickens come from eggs.
The egg came first, especially if it wasn't a chicken egg.
Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
Here is an interesting one
If there was an omnipotent god,
would he be able to create a stone that he couldn't lift
Originally posted by Freedom_is_Slavery
Here is an interesting one
If there was an omnipotent god,
would he be able to create a stone that he couldn't lift
Originally posted by Raivan31
Originally posted by Julie Washington
...and it still doesn't answer what came first...
the chicken or the egg?
Chickens lay eggs. If it reproduced by any other means it would not be a chicken. therefore the egg came first.
The first chicken-producing egg was laid by something else, perhaps a bird or dinosaur but it could not have come from a chicken because the egg produced the first chicken.
if the chicken had been born by any other means then it would not be a chicken because chickens come from eggs.
The egg came first, especially if it wasn't a chicken egg.
Originally posted by Wolfpack 51
reply to post by filosophia
So in the beginning there was nothing. Nothing can come from nothing. So in theory we are not something, but nothing. As nothing we can never have something. Something can only be had by something which we are not.
Now if this train of thought is correct, we are nothing, then there is a flaw in the physics because if we are nothing, then even our communication is impossible because it is something.
Or is nothing capable of only nothing which is in reality something. But because we are not capable of understanding nothing, we have to exist as something until we can comprehend the true value of nothingness.
I quit. I like it better now that I had this conversation. I will never answer the question; What are you thinking about? with the answer nothing, because that topic confuses me to the point of a headache.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Amaterasu
Virtual particles come from host molecules which use them to transmit forces. The bigger a force, the longer distance a virtual particle exists. The less the force, the less distance a virtual particle exists.
Virtual particles also don't actually exist. They are a creation to help us understand things that are too small to see.
we can detect a something, we cannot see the something. And thus, it does not exist. It is merely the ghosting of something not there.
The zero point energy is just that. zero. It is an instantaneous existent thing that quickly stops existing.
The same reason why a photon interacts with itself on a double slit experiment. The photon, for a brief moment, exists in all possible states.
Energy cannot be extracted from this fact. If you did, the photon ceases to exist in all places but the source you extracted it from. Likewise, extracting energy from a virtual particle would simply suck the energy out of the host molecule.
They are amusingly similar to Tesla's wireless energy thoughts.
Originally posted by CharterZZ
reply to post by filosophia
It just goes to show that the human language we have made up just isnt good enough to describe the universe.
Or alot of other things for that matter.
Interesting read anyhow.edit on 18-9-2011 by CharterZZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Taupin Desciple
#'s 3 and 4 are nothing but algebraic (sp?) equations that only prove that if you overthink and overcomplicate something enough, you can disprove that it exists. Like movement. Every time someone types something into the text box and hits "reply", they are disproving the Greeks' movement theory by moving their fingers.
Algebra can try to dispove reality all it wants, but when reality rears its head once again, it shows those types of equations for what they are: A thinking mans folly.