Plasma Ribbon Confirms Electric Sun

a reply to: dragonridr

Are you trolling me or are you that bad at thinking?

Define the word nothing, and then make your statement.

Nothing has no qualities besides the quality of having no qualities.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
a reply to: dragonridr

Are you trolling me or are you that bad at thinking?

Define the word nothing, and then make your statement.

Nothing has no qualities besides the quality of having no qualities.

The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously decay towards thermodynamic equilibrium.Or in simple terms you always need energy added to a system to decrease entropy. The only state the universe can have with true order is nothing. If anything exists in the universe its no longer ordered.

Now lets discuss that arbitrary limit you say science placed. In a system such as our universe there will be whats called a ground state. According to the third law of thermodynamics a system at absolute zero exists in its ground state. This means entropy is determined by the degeneracy of the ground state. In the case of our universe this ground state is what we call zero point energy.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Define the word nothing, and then make your statement.

Nothing has no qualities besides the quality of having no qualities.

Look at it this way, here's a link to the definition of nothing, and then they use it in some examples:

www.merriam-webster.com...

Here's the first example:

There's nothing in my hands.

We can look at that two ways, the macro scale and the micro scale. The person saying that probably means they have nothing obvious in their hands.

But, if you put their hands under a microscope, it's not a true statement. There are little bits of dust and dirt, and many microorganisms. So even in that example, in a way, it's nothing, but in another way, it's not really nothing if you look at it differently. Nearly all the other examples listed would have similar properties where nothing means nothing in one context but in another context it's obviously nothing. Here's an even more obvious example:

"You think that's bad? It's nothing compared to what I went through."

If you understand this context, it's obvious that nothing doesn't always mean strictly nothing. In this example it means something that is relatively small and insignificant but obviously it's something, in spite of calling it nothing.

“Are you hurt?” “Don't worry. It's nothing.”
In this context, again nothing is probably not really nothing, but probably an occurrence so small that it's nothing to worry about, like maybe someone falling down.

If you know my history, I have a habit of crying "dictionary abuse" when people abuse the dictionary, especially pseudoscience promoters. But I have to say in this case, while I understand the point you're trying to make about the word "nothing", I have to say that based on these and other usage examples, it's apparently often the case that nothing isn't really nothing, if you look closely enough.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I cant believe you are defending this.

Those are all unscientific phrases. That has nothing to do with the ultimate, most should be scrutinized, definitions and discussions about the fundamental nature of reality.

Nothing means 0.

Something means .000000000000000000000000000000000001 and beyond.

do not try and defend this snide childness.

do not use the term nothing in a phrase loosely, when the nothing you are describing contains something. Use the term 'a lesser amount of something', or ' a less dense something'. Do not use nothing in such statements.

This isnt a game, this isnt trying to trick your way to truth. We arent battling or fighting, there is no winning if you convince me your trick is good at tricking you, and can trick me to if im stupid enough to let it.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Those are all unscientific phrases.

True but remember I also said this:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't see "nothing" as a physics term. ...

Krauss may use the term "nothing" in a book directed to the public, but do you see the word "nothing" in any scientific papers describing the vacuum? I haven't.

So decide if you want to talk the real complex physics terms, or if you want to talk in "simplified language" for the general public using physics that's not too deep.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Those are all unscientific phrases.

True but remember I also said this:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't see "nothing" as a physics term. ...

Krauss may use the term "nothing" in a book directed to the public, but do you see the word "nothing" in any scientific papers describing the vacuum? I haven't.

So decide if you want to talk the real complex physics terms, or if you want to talk in "simplified language" for the general public using physics that's not too deep.

Yes ok, you are made of nothing because atoms are nothing really, you are nothing. Everything came from nothing, everythings nothing, yay.

a reply to: ImaFungi
If you're broke, and you take out a $1000 loan from a loan shark, you have $1000 in one hand and a debt note in the other hand that sort of cancel each other out. I wouldn't say it's nothing but it adds up to zero.

I guess some people have the idea that certain aspects of the universe can also add up to zero. I have no idea if that's true or not but I understand the concept. If the concept is true then the creation of the universe could be something like broke person getting a loan from the loan shark, because your balance sheet is still zero.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ImaFungi
Those are all unscientific phrases.

True but remember I also said this:

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
I don't see "nothing" as a physics term. ...

Krauss may use the term "nothing" in a book directed to the public, but do you see the word "nothing" in any scientific papers describing the vacuum? I haven't.

So decide if you want to talk the real complex physics terms, or if you want to talk in "simplified language" for the general public using physics that's not too deep.

Yes ok, you are made of nothing because atoms are nothing really, you are nothing. Everything came from nothing, everythings nothing, yay.

Einstein demonstrated that neither mass nor energy were conserved separately, but they could be traded one for the other and neither mass nor energy were conserved separately, but they could be traded one for the other and only the "total mass energy" was conserved. The most famous relationship between the mass and the energy given by Einstein is E = mc2. Well in QM we made another discovery time can be traded for energy.Within the limits of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, changes in mass, energy, position, momentum and time are allowed that otherwise are impossible.Heisenberg showed that the product of momentum and position as well as the product of energy and time cannot be known in the usual sense to a precision less than of the order of magnitude of Planck's constant which is a very small number (about 10^-34 joule sec) but not zero. Now this means we can exchange time for energy as welland when you realize the universe didnt start as zero time. We dont know how long it took for the fluctuation to occur or even why it was different but given enough time the uncertainty principle guarantees a universe will apear where before nothing existed.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
If you're broke, and you take out a $1000 loan from a loan shark, you have $1000 in one hand and a debt note in the other hand that sort of cancel each other out. I wouldn't say it's nothing but it adds up to zero.

I guess some people have the idea that certain aspects of the universe can also add up to zero. I have no idea if that's true or not but I understand the concept. If the concept is true then the creation of the universe could be something like broke person getting a loan from the loan shark, because your balance sheet is still zero.

the somethingness still has to come from somewhere (still has to be existent). You failing to grasp this and dig yourself an infintely deep whole into nothingness, is frightening but humoring, and I implore you to continue because it is only making me feel more confident about my position within the totality of our discussions. Now I know for certain I have been on the right track. Thank you, thank you.

originally posted by: dragonridr
but given enough time the uncertainty principle guarantees a universe will apear where before nothing existed.

And by 'where before nothing existed' you mean; 'where before an equal quantity of non baryonic and leptonic matter existed, just in a form that doesnt look like this universe does right now'.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
but given enough time the uncertainty principle guarantees a universe will apear where before nothing existed.

And by 'where before nothing existed' you mean; 'where before an equal quantity of non baryonic and leptonic matter existed, just in a form that doesnt look like this universe does right now'.

No not at all nothing existed before the big bang. our universe could have spun off a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. The nothingness in this universe was unstable and could have caused a fluctuation in the vacuum.This would cause our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Just imagine bubbles being created and destroyed our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles. Bottom line is one possibility is before the big bang universes just exist as bubbles in the 11th dimension at least according to string theory.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
but given enough time the uncertainty principle guarantees a universe will apear where before nothing existed.

And by 'where before nothing existed' you mean; 'where before an equal quantity of non baryonic and leptonic matter existed, just in a form that doesnt look like this universe does right now'.

No not at all nothing existed before the big bang. our universe could have spun off a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. The nothingness in this universe was unstable and could have caused a fluctuation in the vacuum.This would cause our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Just imagine bubbles being created and destroyed our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles. Bottom line is one possibility is before the big bang universes just exist as bubbles in the 11th dimension at least according to string theory.

The total quantity of energy that exists now has always existed and will always exist. I am right. You are wrong.

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
but given enough time the uncertainty principle guarantees a universe will apear where before nothing existed.

And by 'where before nothing existed' you mean; 'where before an equal quantity of non baryonic and leptonic matter existed, just in a form that doesnt look like this universe does right now'.

No not at all nothing existed before the big bang. our universe could have spun off a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. The nothingness in this universe was unstable and could have caused a fluctuation in the vacuum.This would cause our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Just imagine bubbles being created and destroyed our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles. Bottom line is one possibility is before the big bang universes just exist as bubbles in the 11th dimension at least according to string theory.

The total quantity of energy that exists now has always existed and will always exist. I am right. You are wrong.

In the extremely large cosmological regime (e.g. Big Bang, inflation, general relativity, not anything relevant on Earth) this isn't completely true as the issue gets more complicated.

motls.blogspot.com...

Summary at the end:

But that would take us too far. The main lesson here is that general relativity is not a theory that requires physical objects or fields to propagate in a pre-existing translationally invariant spacetime. That's why the corresponding energy conservation law justified by Noether's argument either fails, or becomes approximate, or becomes vacuous, or survives exclusively in spacetimes that preserve their "special relativistic" structure at infinity. At any rate, the status of energy conservation changes when you switch from special relativity to general relativity.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ImaFungi

originally posted by: dragonridr
but given enough time the uncertainty principle guarantees a universe will apear where before nothing existed.

And by 'where before nothing existed' you mean; 'where before an equal quantity of non baryonic and leptonic matter existed, just in a form that doesnt look like this universe does right now'.

No not at all nothing existed before the big bang. our universe could have spun off a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. The nothingness in this universe was unstable and could have caused a fluctuation in the vacuum.This would cause our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Just imagine bubbles being created and destroyed our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles. Bottom line is one possibility is before the big bang universes just exist as bubbles in the 11th dimension at least according to string theory.

The total quantity of energy that exists now has always existed and will always exist. I am right. You are wrong.

In the extremely large cosmological regime (e.g. Big Bang, inflation, general relativity, not anything relevant on Earth) this isn't completely true as the issue gets more complicated.

motls.blogspot.com...

Summary at the end:

But that would take us too far. The main lesson here is that general relativity is not a theory that requires physical objects or fields to propagate in a pre-existing translationally invariant spacetime. That's why the corresponding energy conservation law justified by Noether's argument either fails, or becomes approximate, or becomes vacuous, or survives exclusively in spacetimes that preserve their "special relativistic" structure at infinity. At any rate, the status of energy conservation changes when you switch from special relativity to general relativity.

My statement is completely true and it is for the most extremely large perspective.

I dont mean the total energy in a cup, or whatever you define the universe to be, I am speaking of an absolute truth.

I know it is true, that the total quantity of energy that exists right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now, and right now is always equal. Has always been equal. And will always be equal.

And by energy I mean energy/matter.

a reply to: mbkennel

Get your truth here! Get your absolute truth! Extra Extra read all about it! Hot truth here! Buy none get none free (in terms of universal lunches)! But let me give you this absolute truth for free!

There is a finite quantity of stuff that exists!
Do you know what the word finite means?
do you know what the word quantity means?
Do you know what the word stuff means?
Do you know what the word exists means?

There is a finite quantity of stuff that exists!

This finite quantity of stuff 'transforms'!
A total quantity of finite stuff, and the stuffness of it is dynamic,
it changes, but there is always the same amount in total!

This finite quantity of stuff exists right now!

That is true!

A fininte quantity of stuff exists now!
It is changing! It is transforming!
But a finite quantity of stuff still exists now!

Oh to be clear, by quantity I dont mean digits or numerals or countable pieces, I suppose I mean mass and energy. That is to say, in a vacuum, one apple, is equal to the 5 small cups of apple juice that can be created from the one apple. Yes differing quantity in a counting way, but equal quantity in an equal quantity of stuff way.

A finite quantity of stuff has always existed!
This is truth!
A finite quantity of stuff exists now!
This is truth!
A finite quantity of stuff will exist tomorrow!
This is truth!
A finite quantity of stuff will always exist!
This is truth!

If your theory does not include these truths, can your theory be correct?

Well we have the conclusion to the theory, which is the present day.

We take the conclusion, and try and work backwards, to create the premises that led to this conclusion.

And the premises that were arrived at are stated as such by dragonrider in this thread, that 0+0 = (a finite quantity + infinite time) i.e. ~999999 atoms + ~999999 joules + time.

The present knowledge about the current physics of our accessible reality may be true. My statements are undeniably true, noone has proposed a valid argument against them, the only things that have been proposed are faulty math equations and concepts using man made muddled terminology and misinterpretations of tools used to 'best as we can' measure reality, to try and do what I am doing, easily and obviously, which is make true statements about the nature of reality.

The statements dragonrider has been making are undeniably false. What he is saying with words, are impossible to occur. I have spoken the truth regarding the nature of stuff/energy/matter and its eternal finite quantitative existence.

The reason dragonrider is false, is because he takes this stated truth, and is trying to use invented ideas and misinterpretations to make it false. What are his motivations of denying these truths? Why can his theory not be based off of these truths? His premise for the beggining of the universe cannot be true, if it does not consider the truth I have stated.

Given the self evidential and absolute truth of my statements, his statements, which attempt to conflict and contradict my statements, are automatically false.

Only statements, whether made by man, alien, machine, or animal, that contradict, fail to grasp, or ignore, the objective truth of reality as it exactly is at all times, are false.

All a man can do to make a true statement or thought, is express, yes with math, and/or words, the exact truth contained in the only source for truth itself, reality.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
My statements are undeniably true, noone has proposed a valid argument against them, the only things that have been proposed are faulty math equations and concepts using man made muddled terminology and misinterpretations of tools used to 'best as we can' measure reality, to try and do what I am doing, easily and obviously, which is make true statements about the nature of reality.

You used to be interested in learning physics, as in the blog article I linked to, instead of exhibiting megalomania.

originally posted by: ImaFungi
My statements are undeniably true, noone has proposed a valid argument against them, the only things that have been proposed are faulty math equations and concepts using man made muddled terminology and misinterpretations of tools used to 'best as we can' measure reality, to try and do what I am doing, easily and obviously, which is make true statements about the nature of reality.

By stating various things over and over, and asking to be proven wrong, does not mean the statements you have made are true (if people do not or can not prove you wrong). what this is is a fallacy of logic. It is partly why I get frustrated sometimes discussing subjects which are not trivial, and are reduced to trivial statements of the use of language and rather child like games of "Well did you go and do it yourself, no? so how do you know" Getting into philosophical discussions about meanings and truths is fine, if that is what it is. Trying to do full circle and re-attach unkempt air walks through the clouds back to reality is not something that is easy to argue against without the serious party sounding like a bully or exhibiting arrogance.

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: ImaFungi
My statements are undeniably true, noone has proposed a valid argument against them, the only things that have been proposed are faulty math equations and concepts using man made muddled terminology and misinterpretations of tools used to 'best as we can' measure reality, to try and do what I am doing, easily and obviously, which is make true statements about the nature of reality.

You used to be interested in learning physics, as in the blog article I linked to, instead of exhibiting megalomania.

I was just making a true statement. Because a lot of the things that have been recently being discussed were attempting to ignore or deny the truth. It didnt seem fit to continue trying to fit a singularity hole into an infinite peg. I am not interested in learning physics that are not truthful.

Can you please point something out about what I have said in my previous post that is false, so I may prove you wrong.

If yes, then I shall gladly do so. If no, then yes, we agree that the claims dragonrider have been making are false.

originally posted by: ErosA433

originally posted by: ImaFungi
My statements are undeniably true, noone has proposed a valid argument against them, the only things that have been proposed are faulty math equations and concepts using man made muddled terminology and misinterpretations of tools used to 'best as we can' measure reality, to try and do what I am doing, easily and obviously, which is make true statements about the nature of reality.

By stating various things over and over, and asking to be proven wrong, does not mean the statements you have made are true (if people do not or can not prove you wrong). what this is is a fallacy of logic. It is partly why I get frustrated sometimes discussing subjects which are not trivial, and are reduced to trivial statements of the use of language and rather child like games of "Well did you go and do it yourself, no? so how do you know" Getting into philosophical discussions about meanings and truths is fine, if that is what it is. Trying to do full circle and re-attach unkempt air walks through the clouds back to reality is not something that is easy to argue against without the serious party sounding like a bully or exhibiting arrogance.

This often happens when people try to grasp difficult subjects with only a cursory understanding. Theyll say things like you should be able to explain it without the math. Not realizing the math is the answer like the video i posted from Hawkings hes running you through it step by step but instead of seeking clarity and asking questions we get oh no math! I try to avoid hitting people up with math but sometimes theirs no avoiding it.

a reply to: dragonridr

Are you worried that your colleagues who have been working for years getting paid have been wasting their time and peoples money doing nothing, if it turns out, as obviousness would dictate, that their theories of getting a universe from nothing is false?

If the theory is not saying universe from nothing, meaning real true nothing, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 nothing nothing nothing 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0nothing nothing nothing nothing 0000000000000000000000000000000000 nothing nothing nothing 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00 nothing nothing nothing nothing nothing.

If the theory is not using that nothing, the true nothing, the absolute nothing, the reason the word was crated, in an absolute way, the way I am intending it, the way a physicist should be intending it, if they are talking in absolute and pure terms, not in a causal willy nilly way.

Then dont use the term nothing. If nothing doesnt mean nothing, when you use it. Dont use it. Because then you are wrong, for using it.

If nothing means 'not stuff'. And you are looking at an area that is 'not stuff', with a little spots of stuff in it. And then more stuff enters the area. Dont say that 'the area of nothing, creates something, so that means all that existed was an area of nothing, and it created all the something'. Say it in a more clear way. You are not fooling me.

You cant get something, made out of stuff, physical, energetic, real, stuff, stuff, something, something, stuff, thing, matter, material, energy, particle, energy, stuff, physical, matter, energy, stuff, things,.

From; nothing, no stuff, no thing, no energy, no matter, no particle, no real, no thing, nothing nothing nothing nothing, true nothing, pure nothing, absolute nothing.

If you say you can. You are wrong, eternally, absolutely wrong. Comprehend this, and why, and then you will be right. Dont, and you will be wrong. If you say something can come from nothing, that statement is false. Right and wrong, true and false, matter, if you think they matter. I think they matter. Your statement is false. Your statement is wrong.