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 HarryTZ
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by honested3
If there was nothing, but something 'popped' into that nothing, then that nothing has become that something.
Good thread, it shows it is more plausible to believe in something that 'popped' into nothing, than it being nothing all along. It shows greater proof for intelligent design than anything else. Look Jiggerj, we sort of agree on something! ; )
LOL I'm claiming there is no such thing as nothing. The somethingness wasn't created. It was always here.
www.newscientist.com...
'Vacuum fluctuations' is just another word for nothingness, wouldn't you agree? So now, even 'somethingsness' is nothingness!
Matter is built on flaky foundations. Physicists have now confirmed that the apparently substantial stuff is actually no more than fluctuations in the quantum vacuum.
The researchers simulated the frantic activity that goes on inside protons and neutrons. These particles provide almost all the mass of ordinary matter.
Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum
Originally posted by spy66
I am trying to describe what the infinite space must have been before particles and matter appeared. All you guyes are talking about is a space filled with particles and matter and getting nowhere.
You gyes are talking about a space filled with matter and particles. But dont care much for the space.
It seems the confusion (as I see it) comes about as you seem to be implying that space was originally an absolute vacuum? Yet everything that exists, also came into existence with space itself (though not in the form we see now).
Or are you proposing a completely hypothetical vacuum that exists outside of existence (that we know of)? This is where god usually falls down in these type of debates IMO. He can never be observed inside of existence, was there and continues to dwell in "non existence". In other words, he seems to be a hypothetical construct that is completely consistent with something that doesn't exist and never has. If that's god, I can agree.
“Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space … Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another.”
In other words, Absolute Space is the study of space as an absolute, unmoving reference point for what inertial systems (i.e. planets and other objects) exist within it. Thus, every object has an absolute state of motion relative to absolute space, so that an object must be either in a state of absolute rest, or moving at some absolute speed.
we have a viable theory of the universe back to about 10-30 seconds. At that time, the currently observable universe was smaller than the smallest dot on your TV screen, and less time had passed than it takes for light to cross that dot."
-George F. Smoot, Winner of the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics
Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by KBadger
Computer programs are, in themselves, ideas. They have simply been given a medium by which to express themselves to our senses, so that we may be able to efficiently manipulate them in a manner that is communicable to the rest of the world. in that way, we interact with each other through the manipulation of ideas.
But I agree. Just because there is nothing, doesn't mean there can't be something. And really, when we say "nothing", all we're really saying is that we are unable to discern a break in the pattern of nonexistence. That's not saying much, considering our senses are privy to about 2% of the 0.000000000001% of the universe we are familiar with. Not only are we terribly estranged, we're also terribly blind.
We really shouldn't even have an opinion on where the universe comes from. That's like a 2nd grader having an opinion about the economy. It might be interesting, but there's no reason to take it seriously.edit on 29-5-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
It is not a paradox. Everything is nothing.
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
How is really accepted that all the energy of the universe was in the tiniest possible dot. How does that make any sense? That sounds completely meaningless. Unless the energy of the universe is non physical and non material, and the big bang was the turning on of a program, and the shortest time period after the big bang was the beginning of an algorithm, then that would make at least a little sense.
Actually it wasn't contained in anything.
after originating and being contained in the tiniest imaginable space
There was no matter until a while after the inflation began. Nor was there dimension. No time either for that matter.
If you compressed all the matter of earth into its theoretically most compact, dense state, you are saying it would be dimensionless and sizeless.
Somewhat, because early on there really wasn't anything to be logical or not. But mostly it seems that you don't really understand the theory. But that's not unusual. To get a handle on it you need to let go of some ideas about what time and space and matter and energy and the primary forces are. Because they weren't they same then (at the very, very, beginning) as they are now.
This theory is illogical.
Actually it wasn't contained in anything.
There was no matter until a while after the inflation began. Nor was there dimension. No time either for that matter.
Somewhat, because early on there really wasn't anything to be logical or not. But mostly it seems that you don't really understand the theory. But that's not unusual. To get a handle on it you need to let go of some ideas about what time and space and matter and energy and the primary forces are. Because they weren't they same then (at the very, very, beginning) as they are now.
In the Universe, as it is now, that's true.
Lol, logic is eternal. I mean and use the term in the most basic form, of cause and effect. Things have to occur because things cause those things to occur, this cant not be the case.
Originally posted by Phage
In the Universe, as it is now, that's true.
At the very beginning of the Universe, not so much. At the very beginning there was no time so there was no causality. That changed pretty quickly once things, including time, started.
Originally posted by Phage
Since it is expanding that means it was smaller than it is now, before now.
Extend that back in time and you end up with a singularity.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Originally posted by Phage
Since it is expanding that means it was smaller than it is now, before now.
Extend that back in time and you end up with a singularity.
From our position in the universe it looks like all the galaxies are expanding away from us, giving rise to the idea of reversing them into a singularity. But, if intelligent life exists in a galaxy far far away from us, they would look up into the night sky and see all things moving away from THEM, and they would come to the same conclusion. Only, from their perspective, reversing the expansion would bring these galaxies to a singularity in THAT direction. Right?
there was nothing,then 2 particles colide creating our universe,logical?obviously nothing can not exist reason being that theres something. If nothing existed then there wouldn't be anything would there? Nothing is impossible because there is something here. Implications for life after death as nothing is impossible so where do we go? Theres no such thing as "nothing"
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
So you are saying; There was nothing, then out of nowhere, just for fun, everything appeared, starting expanding after originating and being contained in the tiniest imaginable space (for some illogical reason)?
There is no way that can be explained logically. If you compressed all the matter of earth into its theoretically most compact, dense state, you are saying it would be dimensionless and sizeless. And then you can place 99999999999% more matter into that same (now non existent) dense volume of nothing matter non space, without increasing the 'size/area/energy density" of that dimensionless non existent volume that you put everything?
This theory is illogical.
In that singularity there was no space, therefore there was no time. Without space and time there really are no other physics going on.
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
there was nothing,then 2 particles colide creating our universe,logical?obviously nothing can not exist reason being that theres something. If nothing existed then there wouldn't be anything would there? Nothing is impossible because there is something here. Implications for life after death as nothing is impossible so where do we go? Theres no such thing as "nothing"
Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by spy66
So you are saying; There was nothing, then out of nowhere, just for fun, everything appeared, starting expanding after originating and being contained in the tiniest imaginable space (for some illogical reason)?
There is no way that can be explained logically. If you compressed all the matter of earth into its theoretically most compact, dense state, you are saying it would be dimensionless and sizeless. And then you can place 99999999999% more matter into that same (now non existent) dense volume of nothing matter non space, without increasing the 'size/area/energy density" of that dimensionless non existent volume that you put everything?
This theory is illogical.
Originally posted by symptomoftheuniverse
reply to post by spy66
Nothing is impossible. If nothing existed there would not be anything. Are you saying there are different types of nothing?
You must eventually realise that nothing is impossible,that you are a part of everything. Its impossible to be appart from everthing.