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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Astyanax
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.
Originally posted by jiggerj
Now, imagine that I popped into a realm of absolute nothing. When I try to move my hand I am going to have a serious problem. I can't push NOTHING out of the way. NOTHING has no qualities. Also, if I could move my hand, NOTHING cannot fill in the space that my hand previously occupied. If something DID fill in that space, then that something is SOMETHING and not NOTHING.
So, if I were to pop into a realm of nothing I would be totally stuck and couldn't move. But, the truth of the matter is that I wouldn't even be able to pop into a realm of nothing. What in that nothing realm would move aside to allow my body to exist there? NOTHING can't move aside. NOTHING has no qualities that can be manipulated.
If there was ever a time of nothingness, there would still be nothing because this state wouldn't have the qualities necessary to move aside to allow the universe to fill it in.
What you are describing is a vacuum, a place that is filled with nothing. I don't understand why you think a place filled with nothing means you cant move, movement isn't dictated by matter (unless that matter is large enough to impede movement) its executed through the use of energy. If I'm not able to move that means something is stopping my movement, which means I can't be in a place filled with nothing because theirs something there stopping me. By putting yourself into a "realm"of nothing you just turned yourself into that realms "god" you have supplied that place of nothing with matter. Now whether you have the ability to manufacture matter from your own body, which is the only way the christian God could create the universe.. Or your a "seed" god meaning when you die your body decomposes (Bangs) and creates usable matter for that realm to create new material with your original matter. I can see where you were trying to go with your theory, but there were just some holes in it. The idea that nothingness is void of matter, has nothing to do with movement or the amount of space inside of a area.
Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by spy66
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.
Good thinking. I also have to ponder why the universe is in a vacuum in the first place. Nobody stood outside of the universe with a vacuum to pump out...?...whatever turned this space into a vacuum. If the universe had an explosive beginning it would have ADDED pressure, not removed pressure.
Originally posted by jiggerjI can't push NOTHING out of the way. NOTHING has no qualities. Also, if I could move my hand, NOTHING cannot fill in the space that my hand previously occupied. If something DID fill in that space, then that something is SOMETHING and not NOTHING.
Originally posted by bigcountry08
reply to post by spy66
which would mean either something (A god) would have always had to have existed, or something opened the lid of our vacuum tube and jumped in.
Originally posted by Biigs
Originally posted by jiggerjI can't push NOTHING out of the way. NOTHING has no qualities. Also, if I could move my hand, NOTHING cannot fill in the space that my hand previously occupied. If something DID fill in that space, then that something is SOMETHING and not NOTHING.
What you have described is exactly what you would expect.
You cant moving something thats not there.
If you put something there to move and move it, there's something there. Well yes of course there is somthing there, because you just put it there.
Whats the problem?
Also, when the big bang happened or God turned the lights on, the nothing ness was there first, this nothingness is actually the rules that anything inside must abide by. So when there is no particles in a region of space, there are still the rules in place ready to make the particles conform to.
A region of space that has no rules, is not part of our universe, technically speaking a true "nothingness"edit on 30-5-2013 by Biigs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Astyanax
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'.
Originally posted by Astyanax
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.
The answer to me is quite obvious: Space