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.

 

Intelligent first cause: WHY IT IS IMPOSSIBLE

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The problem with your logic is that by your definition movement in a vacuum would be impossible.


Not if there was something in the vacuum. Think hard on this image.



"Nothing" has no qualities that would allow it to fill in the space that my hand previously occupied. If that 'nothing' DID fill in that space, then it isn't nothing.


If it's all nothing, maybe there's no space to fill.
I now have a large headache.




posted on May, 29 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
"So, if I were to pop into a realm of nothing I would be totally stuck and couldn't move." Not sure what you mean here. Just because there's nothing to move, doesn't prevent you from moving.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The truth is........ There never really was a big bang. The spirit never really moved. It only 'THOUGHT' of moving. It only 'THOUGHT' to create. That being is unimaginable for we are in it's mind. Some call it God, but I've moved away from that word. I now call it 'The ALL' for that what it is.

The universe is mental. That is all it is. We can not reach it;s presence and we can not help it. It just is.

Now why is it impossible? What exactly is impossible inside of the mind? The only impossible thing is to think it's impossible.



posted on May, 29 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by FyreByrd
 


By non-local I mean the absence of space and time.


LOL - that is not the definition of the term. When you say it that way then you have non-local nothing and it's opposite local nothing - eh?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


This is literally a proven scientific fact. All matter descends into nothingness.

Fiddlesticks!

Kindly direct us the scientific literature that proves this 'fact'. If you can. If it exists. Which it does not.

0 = infinity indeed. Who taught you maths? The barber?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


0 is not the same as infinity, infinity divided by a number is still infinity.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
This whole thread is based on observations of our current physicality....

Perhaps...(just sayin) our current Universe was caused by something existing outside of this Universe....

The effect doesn't have to occur within the cause....And, obviously, just because we see the effect, does not mean we will ever see the cause.....

A2D



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


This is literally a proven scientific fact. All matter descends into nothingness.

Fiddlesticks!

Kindly direct us the scientific literature that proves this 'fact'. If you can. If it exists. Which it does not.

0 = infinity indeed. Who taught you maths? The barber?


www.newscientist.com...



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by StarsInDust
 



Wow, you are someone who does a heck of a lot of over thinking about absolutely nothing


Now just an offbeat minute here. I'd like to know what in the hell makes you the Judge of such thinking ?
Of both the amount and whether or not it's about nothing ?
What kind of credentials give you the right to judge as this is clearly more than an opinion ?
From a materialistic and scientific observational point of advantage there quite obviously hasn't been near enough thinking about this so .... I'm gonna stop there and let your imagination fill in the _.

edit on 30-5-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by bbracken677
reply to post by jiggerj
 


The problem with your logic is that by your definition movement in a vacuum would be impossible.


vac·u·um
/ˈvakˌyo͞o(ə)m/
Noun
A space entirely devoid of matter.

I do have an issue with this definition. Does the word 'matter' also include quantum waves and particles? I don't know.


The other issue you should have is:
Is a vacuum created inside a chaimber the same as a open vacuum in space. In space vacuum is surrounding matter. In a vacuum chaimber, matter surround the vacuum.

If you put something inside the vacuum in the vacuum chaimber, you would create a even bigger difference.


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



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Interesting subject.

Using the computer simulation analogy, how would you account for the ever expanding universe?

Would this expansion just be part of the simulation's model so as to replicate or illustrate reality, or does a computer simulation normally expand?



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Is a force intelligent? Does one look at the properties of a magnet as being intelligent? Many of the forces at work in the universe are very similar to that of magnets, they attract the repel they combine into all sort of forms and shapes... why exactly does there has to be some kind intelligence behind this process again? Oh right there doesn't need to be any... all you need is an unimaginably large amount of what we call time.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by peashooter
 


0 is not the same as infinity, infinity divided by a number is still infinity.

You are quite right. It wasn't I who said that 0 = infinity, but the person to whom I was replying in that post.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by HarryTZ
 

The spacetime continuum is not 'nothing'. It has energy – both the dark and conventional kinds. It expands. Virtual particles emerge from it, and if they do not immediately self-annihilate, become real.

The idea that matter emerges from quantum fluctuations in spacetime is not new. String theory predicts it, and string theory is about fifty years old. Even people who don't like string theory, such as Lee Smolin, agree that matter emerges from spacetime.

Two years before that New Scientist article you posted, an ATS ex-member who is also a physicist, Neon Haze, posted a thread announcing the publication of Smolin's contribution to quantum-gravity physics, the concept of spacetime braids.

There is not, and has never been, any such thing as 'nothing'.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to OP
 

What I said on HarryTZ's thread largely applies here, too. It is no more possible to prove logically the nonexistence of an intelligent first cause than it is to prove that such a thing does exist.

God is, and must forever be, a matter of opinion.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by HarryTZ
 


This is literally a proven scientific fact. All matter descends into nothingness.

Fiddlesticks!

Kindly direct us the scientific literature that proves this 'fact'. If you can. If it exists. Which it does not.

0 = infinity indeed. Who taught you maths? The barber?


www.newscientist.com...


Thanks for that article. But, I didn't see anything that supported the idea of a state of absolute nothing. Fluctuations aren't nothing. 1% mass isn't nothing.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by UKToday
Interesting subject.

Using the computer simulation analogy, how would you account for the ever expanding universe?

Would this expansion just be part of the simulation's model so as to replicate or illustrate reality, or does a computer simulation normally expand?


The universe is expanding, this simply means the farthest 'edges' that matter or energy have reached.

It is kind of irrelevant. yes galaxy A is floating farther from galaxy B, but to all the matter and objects and energy within each, nothing changes at all, business a usual you might say.

How does this tie into the theory i accept? Well again its rather irrelevant, where any matter or energy's are, only matters when they interact with others, the space between is nothing more than a grid reference with no data in it, takes up no resource and therefore an infinite amount of space is possible to start with. When we have a piece of data in every available space then we may have a problem, but thanks to gravity thats not possible


A rather elegant solution to a theoretically infinite space, on a finite platform.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 05:55 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Unfortunately, physicists do not have an answer to your question.
To use a mathematical example, physics begins trying to answer the questions of what events occurred from number 0.1, it assumes 0.1 as the 'State'.
How this 'State' formed has no answer.
Physicists don't waste their time trying to answer what 0 was, or how it existed.
It will probably remain unanswered for the rest of time.



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by jiggerj
 


0 equals infinity. Everything 'in between' is just an illusion, created by the relative.


'0' certainly does not equal infinity to a physicist, or a mathematician.
Do some reading



posted on May, 30 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamnotadoctor

Originally posted by HarryTZ
reply to post by jiggerj
 


0 equals infinity. Everything 'in between' is just an illusion, created by the relative.


'0' certainly does not equal infinity to a physicist, or a mathematician.
Do some reading


A absolute empty infinite space is absolutely neutral. "0" is also absolutely neutral.

A absolute empty infinte space is not nothing it is just empty of matter. It is a dimension of just one infinite source.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join