It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# The Theory of NoThing

page: 2
6
share:

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:35 AM

Originally posted by Ark005
So if I get this right basically the Big Bang was more like the Big Split.
Where the negative and the positive ,which had been existing together, be came two separate entities (universes).
Which would inply that there is a Negative Universe. Not like we would be able to tell that as any interaction with it would be negated by the very nature of our two universes.
I only say this because if the Big Bang created this universe then that would imply that the positive universe (ours) split from the negative universe thereby creating both.
edit on 1/11/11 by Ark005 because: found an error

There are many ways to ponder but this is something I ponder often. There is a positive and negative to this reality so this makes more sense to me.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:36 AM

Zero can be a lot of things, besides NoThing. I have used your example many time to others;
(-3, -2, -1, + 1, 2, 3 = 0)

-If we have zero degrees temperature, that does not mean there is no Temperature.

- Many would say that the infinite is; NoThing.
And that is because we can not observe it; We can only observe a degree of finite. A degree of our finite universe. And a degree of whats within it.

- There is a distance between us and the infinite: There is a distance from You (1) to the infinite (0).
If i ask you; how far is it exactly from you to the infinite?. Impossible to say right?.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:36 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
Oh well forgive me for using the term incorrectly. I don't know if you are technically correct, but I'll take your word for it.

To be fair, I was going off my knowledge in computer programing, that makes that distinction, not official definitions. A quick online search reveals it can go by both definitions.

The context you were using it, seemed more like the undefined/valueless version though. And applying 0 to that as well. When zero and nil are treated the same, then it's a definition of nil that is defined and has value, because 0 is defined and has value(A value marked a nothing is different from no marked value at all).

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:37 AM

That's exactly what I said only more complex.
Your theory states that for every 'positive' particle there is a 'negative' particle. And that the Big Bang was the release of the energy that held them together in the neutral state. Therefor there would have been a Split (or two Big Bangs: One 'positive' and One 'negative'), but the observation of the Split could only been seen from one side as an explosion.
Thinking on this gives rise to the question what caused the Big Bang (Big Split)? If the universe was in a neutral state, what caused it to deviate from that?

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:38 AM

Interesting idea.

To create matter/antimatter one needs positive energy. But what if we were able to create positive energy by separating it from an equivalent amount negative energy. The total energy would still be zero.

We would have positive energy create matter/antimatter and negative energy to create exotic matter/antimatter(with negative mass), have a big bang and a exotic big bang.

The only problem is to keep both universes away from each other. A particle with negative mass would accelerate towards a positive mass particle which would be pushed away by the gravity of the negative one creating a self-accelerating system, hehe. The total energy of this pair would be zero btw.
edit on 1-11-2011 by moebius because: fix typo

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Mister_BitWell in layman's term....

If I write the game rules I win the game. Simple really.

What we know to be correct or incorrect is only decided by those rules (mathematics,physics etc) that mankind has created.

But those rules are written to get us as close to the truth as possible. As I said, all of our knowledge has the potential to be flawed. However, we use strict rules to choose what's likely enough to be true that it's reasonable to accept.

Not having rules to determine the truth. Or making up your own rules to allow something you want to believe, is far less likely to give you an accurate view of reality.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:42 AM

You cannot have negative anything or nothing... you may have zero but you can't have nothing

Nothing is absolute, cannot be added to or subtracted from but you can with zero
I am concerting a real concept into a mathematical concept, I clearly explained that in the OP. If I have 0 things in my thing-box, I can say I have NO THINGS in my thing-box. It's not that hard to conceptualize, 0 simply represents an absence of distinct value. Even negative numbers have a distinct value, and it is relative to the ORIGIN POINT. The concept of 'nothing' needs to be considered from a mathematical perspective, not the way you are thinking of it.

Does this not make sense to you?

1 + nothing = 1
1 + 0 = 1

1 - nothing = 1
1 - 0 = 1
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:46 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

You cannot have negative anything or nothing... you may have zero but you can't have nothing

Nothing is absolute, cannot be added to or subtracted from but you can with zero
I am concerting a real concept into a mathematical concept, I clearly explained that in the OP. If I have 0 things in my thing-box, I can say I have NO THINGS. It's not that hard to conceptualize, 0 simply represent an absence of distinct value. Even negative numbers have a distinct value, and it relative to the ORIGIN POINT. The concept of 'nothing' needs to be considered from a mathematical perspective, not the way you are thinking of it.

Does this not make sense to you?

1 + nothing = 1
1 + 0 = 1

1 - nothing = 1
1 - 0 = 1

I see what you are saying from a mathematical point of view, but seriously, ask yourself this one simple question..

IF and I mean IF manmade understanding of mathematics is fundamentally flawed where does all this leave your theory?

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:48 AM
For those who haven't hear of it recommend reading up on the Casimir effect.

Wikipedia.

I'm personally not thoroughly versed in it, so I'm not gonna claim I am. However, it's one of the things used by some to show how nothing is something on a quantum scale. I'll personally read up on it too.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:53 AM

IF and I mean IF manmade understanding of mathematics is fundamentally flawed where does all this leave your theory?
This math is so simple it could not be wrong. We are talking 3 of the most basic numbers in our number system. The math is simple addition or subtraction. If our number system was wrong at such a fundamental level it wouldn't work for SO MANY things. All mathematical propositions/theorems require undeniable and demonstrable proof of their truth.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:59 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

IF and I mean IF manmade understanding of mathematics is fundamentally flawed where does all this leave your theory?
This math is so simple it could not be wrong. We are talking 3 of the most basic numbers in our number system. The math is simple addition or subtraction. If our number system was wrong at such a fundamental level it would work for SO MANY things. All mathematical propositions/theorems require undeniable and demonstrable proof of their truth.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

If you had nothing and I mean Nothing I cannot "add" to that, because Nothing is absolute... I could give you an apple, then you have an apple.... but I have not "added" that apple to Nothing, that apple already existed in its own state.
By the same account, if you took the apple away from me, you are not subtracting from nothing, you are moving the apple.

That is reality, now if you look at it from the "mathematical" point of view then correct, but we live in reality not some equation.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:03 AM

If you had nothing and I mean Nothing I cannot "add" to that, because Nothing is absolute... I could give you an apple, then you have an apple.... but I have not "added" that apple to Nothing, that apple already existed in its own state.
Yes, but the Big Bang theory claims that all the energy essentially came from the void of nothingness. That's why they say before the Big Bang 'nothing' existed. It was the spark that started everything. It created that apple. The apple may exist now, but you must ask where did it initially come from? It came from nothing! It's illogical to say that the Universe started with things in it, because there's no rational way to explain where they came from. The natural state of reality is nothing. My theory simply aims to explain how things (like in the Big Bang) could actually come from nothing. There is always a logical way to explain these things (haha). You can't just say it came from nothing and that's that. You need to explain the mechanism behind it, which is what my theory aims to do.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
If you had nothing and I mean Nothing I cannot "add" to that, because Nothing is absolute... I could give you an apple, then you have an apple.... but I have not "added" that apple to Nothing, that apple already existed in its own state.
By the same account, if you took the apple away from me, you are not subtracting from nothing, you are moving the apple.

That is reality, now if you look at it from the "mathematical" point of view then correct, but we live in reality not some equation.

You are talking about moving mass around, and then 'debunking' by saying it's only getting moved around. Strawman. The real situation we're talking about, lacks that error, so it's pointless to use it.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:09 AM

I know I am nary a math geek or even very good at it but. I do believe I already debunked the OPs theory. Or Maybe what I stated was so ignorant that the op simply decided to ignore my statements.

Therian

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

If you had nothing and I mean Nothing I cannot "add" to that, because Nothing is absolute... I could give you an apple, then you have an apple.... but I have not "added" that apple to Nothing, that apple already existed in its own state.
Yes, but the Big Bang theory claims that all the energy essentially came from the void of nothingness. That's why they say before the Big Bang 'nothing' existed. It was the spark that started everything. It created that apple. The apple may exist now, but you must ask where did it initially come from? It came from nothing! It's illogical to say that the Universe started with things in it, because there's no rational way to explain where they came from. The natural state of reality is nothing. My theory simply aims to explain how things (like in the Big Bang) could actually come from nothing. There is always a logical way to explain these things (haha). You can't just say it came from nothing and that's that. You need to explain the mechanism behind it, which is what my theory aims to do.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
The Big Bang theory is exactly that though, a theory and a theory based on theoretical mathematics.

Now the apple analogy I used has just given me an idea... that apple wasn't an apple to start with, it was a seed and grew to be an apple.
Could it not be that the Universe "grew" from something infinitely small (and I don't mean a bang), in that it still came from something but something so small we are yet to be able to quantify it?

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:12 AM

Originally posted by xxsomexpersonxx

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
If you had nothing and I mean Nothing I cannot "add" to that, because Nothing is absolute... I could give you an apple, then you have an apple.... but I have not "added" that apple to Nothing, that apple already existed in its own state.
By the same account, if you took the apple away from me, you are not subtracting from nothing, you are moving the apple.

That is reality, now if you look at it from the "mathematical" point of view then correct, but we live in reality not some equation.

You are talking about moving mass around, and then 'debunking' by saying it's only getting moved around. Strawman. The real situation we're talking about, lacks that error, so it's pointless to use it.

Well that's the rub of it....

The reality of a real situation as opposed to that based on theoretical mathematics.
edit on 1-11-2011 by Mister_Bit because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:17 AM

I was about to address what you said in a moment, but I'll do it now.

Uhm. I think there might be a problem with the concept. If you have a -1 or a + 1 you still have something since you are speaking in terms of an opposite or third state.. Saying -1 + 1 = 0 is the same as saying 1+ -1 = 0 correct? So either way you would have to have had something from nothing just to begin the formula?

The formula of -1 + 1 = 0 is simply describing the total sum of all all 'things' (negative and positive). The negative Universe would have a total negative-mass equal to the mass of our own Universe. So the total mass of both Universes is 0. The net result is nothing. You simply can't get something from nothing (as in the Big Bang theory) without having some way to balance it out.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Therian

I know I am nary a math geek or even very good at it but. I do believe I already debunked the OPs theory. Or Maybe what I stated was so ignorant that the op simply decided to ignore my statements.

You said two things, that the theory failed at the very beginning part of claiming something could come from nothing, which is what the theory explained how it could do.

Second thing you said was the claim there was some unknown third state we've yet to quantify. Which is possible, but far too baseless to choose as an assumption.

Originally posted by Mister_Bit
The Big Bang theory is exactly that though, a theory and a theory based on theoretical mathematics.

Now the apple analogy I used has just given me an idea... that apple wasn't an apple to start with, it was a seed and grew to be an apple.
Could it not be that the Universe "grew" from something infinitely small (and I don't mean a bang), in that it still came from something but something so small we are yet to be able to quantify it?

The Big Bang Theory actually says that everything is expanding from a single point. And says nothing about how that point came to be. Widely accepted(hence why it's a theory. If it wasn't thought to be undoubtedly true it wouldn't qualify as one). Yes, the big bang theory is often tied into with this stuff, but for the most part it is very irrelevant.

Ironically, the big bang theory states that everything expanded("grew") from a single, possible infinitely small space. Just like you proposed. The Big Bang Theory doesn't propose a bang either, that's a rather common misnomer.

However, what you are proposing, is that everything kept coming from a smaller and smaller something, and an infinite and infinitely shrinking cycle. As I've said, it is possible(as everything is). However, there's no substantial reason to believe that is likely to be true.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:23 AM

Yeah but that doesn't actually describe anything. You can call it anything if that how you call nothing. Point of fact no matter what you use to get 0 as your nothing marker. Either way you would need something one side of the equation or the other to start the need for a balance. Be it negative or positive either way you would need One to get the other.

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 10:24 AM

I recommend this watch to everyone interested in this thread. If anyone finds it informative, they may be interested in the other topics the show get's into, airs on discovery channel.

Though, the depth of the theory does get somewhat butchered being simplified to the casual audience. It still gives a good explanation. I haven't read the book he wrote, but It seems like it gives a better depth on it.

top topics

6