Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Theory of NoThing

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by spy66

Originally posted by Mister_Bit

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 


If you think in the terms of a absolute vacuum. The vacuum becomes negative when particles are present.
So the absolute vacuum which would be neutral (neither positive or negative), actually becomes negative. Because of the particles.


In our terms a absolute vacuum would be non existent (Nothingness/infinite).

edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)

Well no, a vacuum is a vacuum which is something.

For something to be finite, positive or negative logically they exist.

This brings us really to quantum theory and chaos theory which no-one can really argue with because they are like faith, you either believe or don't.


Of course it is something, but to us it is nothingness/infinite, because we can never prove its existence.

The absolute vacuum is the true Zero (0). We will never discover.

Well if Nothing in this context is the absolute vacuum, I theorize that the Universe came from the vacuum, that is to say it came from the almost nothing but still something.




posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


fine two equal states that + and - when assembled they become nothing 0. However to be positive or negative they would be something. or two somethings to become that nothing which is basically saying with the big bang back wards instead of two universes it was just time expanding both back wards and forwards at the same time. and even with said time. Nothing would have to be truly nothing. Something does not come from nothing. In order for The big bang that sudden Pop something had to start it. Be it a chain reaction or a vibration It really doesn't matter. Nothing had to interact with something even if it was itself which would be the only answer.

Imagine Nothing as a wave pattern going in a circle. Eventually the wave would contact itself. Creating a ripple off itself. As soon as you assign imaginary values to it you lose it. In order for it the react to itself it has to have values. Or does it? Its like a snake eating its own tail. Maybe nothing finally got so full of itself its exploded. Did someone say true nothingness is a vacuum. Whats happens when a vacuum bends and starts eating itself?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 




This brings us really to quantum theory and chaos theory which no-one can really argue with because they are like faith, you either believe or don't.
Well, once again, the math really speaks for it's self in those areas of science. If it weren't for several major components of quantum theory your computer wouldn't even work. The most fundamental aspects of a CPU are based on quantum phenomena. As for chaos theory, it is equally as important and prevalent in every day life. Everything from the movement of smoke and clouds, to the patterns found on the plants and animals can be described and rationalized by chaos theory.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 




This brings us really to quantum theory and chaos theory which no-one can really argue with because they are like faith, you either believe or don't.
Well, once again, the math really speaks for it's self in those areas of science. If it weren't for several major components of quantum theory your computer wouldn't even work. The most fundamental aspects of a CPU are based on quantum phenomena. As for chaos theory, it is equally as important and prevalent in every day life. Everything from the movement of smoke and clouds, to the patterns found on the plants and animals can be described and rationalized by chaos theory.
If you accept the theory.. yes. Like I said before, you write the rules, you win the game.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 




Well if Nothing in this context is the absolute vacuum, I theorize that the Universe came from the vacuum, that is to say it came from the almost nothing but still something.
Whah?!? If nothing is assumed to be the absolute vacuum, you can't say it is 'still something'. The true state of nothing can't be conceptualized within our minds, that is why you are having trouble understanding it. Much like infinity, it's an abstract concept that doesn't seem plausible in the real world, however, these things are often more than real. Once you really begin to understand the laws of quantum mechanics you can see that reality operates on highly abstract notions (which can be verified) and you need some really crazy math to understand it or predict how it will function under any given circumstance. But the math does work, and many modern day appliances utilize quantum ideas.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   

You hear a lot of things about quantum mechanics, that it's about light being both a particle and a wave, that it's about the hydrogen atom having discreet energy levels, that it's about randomness, this and that. From a computer science perspective quantum mechanics is simply a generalization of probability theory where instead of probabilities which are non-negative real numbers, we replace them by these numbers called amplitudes which can be complex numbers so in particular they can have minus signs in them. And for whatever reason, nature seems to prefere things that way. Once all of the quantum phenomenoa that people talk about like entanglements, interference and so on, they're all just sort of logical consequences of this one change that you make to foundations of probability theory. So, contrary to popular belief quantum mechanics is sort of unbelievably simple once you take the physics out.

www.youtube.com...



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 




Well if Nothing in this context is the absolute vacuum, I theorize that the Universe came from the vacuum, that is to say it came from the almost nothing but still something.
Whah?!? If nothing is assumed to be the absolute vacuum, you can't say it is 'still something'. The true state of nothing can't be conceptualized within our minds, that is why you are having trouble understanding it. Much like infinity, it's an abstract concept that doesn't seem plausible in the real world, however, these things are often more than real. Once you really begin to understand the laws of quantum mechanics you can see that reality operates on highly abstract notions (which can be verified) and you need some really crazy math to understand it or predict how it will function under any given circumstance. But the math does work, and many modern day appliances utilize quantum ideas.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)
I think you mis-read what I said.

I said the Universe came from the Vacuum, not the Absolute Vacuum which in the context of that post was taken as meaning Nothing.

A Vacuum is "something" so the Universe came from something and not nothing.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GalacticJoe


You hear a lot of things about quantum mechanics, that it's about light being both a particle and a wave, that it's about the hydrogen atom having discreet energy levels, that it's about randomness, this and that. From a computer science perspective quantum mechanics is simply a generalization of probability theory where instead of probabilities which are non-negative real numbers, we replace them by these numbers called amplitudes which can be complex numbers so in particular they can have minus signs in them. And for whatever reason, nature seems to prefere things that way. Once all of the quantum phenomenoa that people talk about like entanglements, interference and so on, they're all just sort of logical consequences of this one change that you make to foundations of probability theory. So, contrary to popular belief quantum mechanics is sort of unbelievably simple once you take the physics out.

www.youtube.com...
Well there we are... Once you "make this one change to foundations of probability theory"

In other words, once WE change OUR rules the Universe behaves as it supposed to, case rested.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Therian
 




fine two equal states that + and - when assembled they become nothing 0. However to be positive or negative they would be something. or two somethings to become that nothing
Well, it's more like, the somethings and the negative-somethings become nothing. But you are basically correct. You can only have something if you have a negative-something, because that way you are retaining an equilibrium. You can legitimately take something from nothing if it's balanced with a negative something of equal (but opposite) value.


which is basically saying with the big bang back wards instead of two universes it was just time expanding both back wards and forwards at the same time..
I'm not really sure what you are saying there, some clarification or more detail would be handy.
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 




A Vacuum is "something" so the Universe came from something and not nothing.
How can I explain this. You could insert any word in place of "vacuum" and you could say it's "something". But if you are actually talking about the absolute state of nothingness, you are describing an abstract notion of 'an absence of any[color=gray]thing'. You are describing something, but what you are describing is 'nothing'. Now that last sentence is quite an absurd statement, but I hope you can see what I mean.



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by Mister_Bit
 




A Vacuum is "something" so the Universe came from something and not nothing.
How can I explain this. You could insert any word in place of "vacuum" and you could say it's "something". But if you are actually talking about the absolute state of nothingness, you are describing an abstract notion of 'an absence of any[color=gray]thing'. You are describing something, but what you are describing is 'nothing'. Now that last sentence is quite an absurd statement, but I hope you can see what I mean.
I see what you mean but I did quantify what I meant as "vacuum = almost nothing"



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx
 





WOW! Thanks for sharing that video dude. It turns out Hawking agrees with me on this! He even uses the term "negative-energy". I don't agree with him when he says the "negative-energy is spread out through space". It's a vague answer and hard to believe, it would be virtually impossible to detect anything in the negative reality imo.

His analogy of the process is quite good though. Digging a hole and piling the dirt into mound is a good way to picture it. The hole is like the negative version of the mound. As for his theory about the start of the Universe, I don't believe it's correct. If time didn't exist before the Big Bang, then I would like to know why it would suddenly exist.

He says if you reverse the Universe back to it's initial starting state it would be an infinitely small and infinitely dense black hole, where time doesn't exist (time also stops when you enter normal black holes). But right there you already have a black hole which has seemingly come from no where. Then suddenly the black hole decides to expand and kick start time.

It amazes me how at the end of the video Mr. Hawking claims we have figured it all out. After 3000 years science finally knows all the secrets of the Universe, where it all came from and how it all works. Give me break. We aren't even close. Well we are getting there. But it is certainly premature to claim we've already figured it all out.

EDIT: I think the important stuff starts at 20:00 in the above video.

EDIT: I'll tell you what's also funny. People don't believe in free energy, yet in the above video Mr. Hawking states something along the lines of "People once told me you couldn't get anything for free. But now after a life time of research I am led to believe that you can get a whole Universe for free"
edit on 1-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   
I'm calling BS. You relate this theory to math by comparing positive and negative integers. I understand that every number has a negative and if you put them together you get 0 or whatever balance... but when you introduce anti-matter, negative-matter, and regular matter, you are talking about another aspect of existence than cannot be compared using math.

not to mention "dark" matter.
edit on 1-11-2011 by Gwampo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I have a question for you since you have knowledge with math.

-question; How can a constant change? How can something that is infinite change and form/create finite?

If you have just the mathematical symbol for infinite, where or how would you get the other mathematical symbols to create finite.; "The other mathematical symbols and values in our equations??.

There is only one possibility.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


I have a comment for u to ponder.

What is nothing? Until we know what "nothing" is, then there is no way to decide how everything was created.

I'm thinking it'd be almost impossible for our current brains to handle!

Great post though, very well thought out and written. Good job OP.

I'm sure ill be back to consider your theory some more



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
The Theory of existence for the most part, is based on coincidence, randomness, and chaos after the big bang. What created the big bang? Who knows? Where I get my kicks is a bunch of people who believe mankind came about through, coincidence, randomness, and chaos are trying to put order into the universe.

Science would tell you there is orders and laws that all matter and physics must obey yet when we get to creation of the universe we throw out all order and laws to try to explain the so far unexplainable. What’s it going to be, Order or chaos?

My two cents

Bring on the flaming. lol



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
Personally speaking I see it this way. One cannot say that there was nothing before the big bang. However, we can say that this universe did not exist. Wether this universe is just one fluctuation in a massive waveform which constantly inflates, contracts and then inflates this universe, or another universe in perpetuity, one cannot say.

Theorising on these issues without the capacity to examine the reality of the situation is a little impotent dont you think?



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by MamaJ
 
... Nothing to it
... BUTT JOINT!!!... as U know... "It doesn't dark matter... if it don't make sheeple m
la"


May peace be with you... The greatest treasure in the quantum string K' Kardashian something universe







edit on 1-11-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: How do U like those quantum apple bottoms
edit on 1-11-2011 by CosmicWaterGate because: Forgot nothing... BUTT who knows anything at all :puz... Until U go... oh wow!... Oh Wow!!... OH WOW!!!... Heavenly Love

extra DIV



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 


"If time didn't exist before the Big Bang, then I would like to know why it would suddenly exist."

In a state of pure nothing, nothing changes. Change is one of the most fundamental and absolute-governing mechanics of our universe (I would say the ultimate enabler and of everything we know -- also a kind of inescapable law, but one we should not curse, as without it, reality as we know it simply could not be). I would time is only relevant in a dynamic (non-static) universe, as everything is related to CHANGE over time. Time is dependent on change and vice-versa. Once you have change, you can have have units for perceived time (seconds, minutes, years, decades).

So that's why I would say that time started existing. Because the universe went from being static (if the true beginnings were a nothing state) to dynamic, and "time" is dependent on some rate of change (remember that time is perceived differently based on whether you are a hummingbird or a person -- basically by your "cycle count" to throw in a computing analogy). However, regardless of who's perceiving it/whatever actors are involved, time requires change, which couldn't exist in a static pre-universe state with no possible meter for time.
edit on 11/1/2011 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 1 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ChaoticOrder
 

If nothing existed, its paradoxical. For nothing to exist, existance doesn't exist. Clear enough?





new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join