E = mc 2

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A black hole is not nothing.
It is a very high concentration of mass.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Which, in effect, means that zero is 1

Nooooo.
In fact, it means the opposite.
If reality were actually binary, 0 would not be 1.

Binary math and esoteric numerology are decidedly different. One is scientific, the other philosophical.

But i agree with you, and get what you are saying.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Binary math and esoteric numerology are decidedly different. One is scientific, the other philosophical.

So...what sort of forum are we in then?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

A black hole is not nothing.
It is a very high concentration of mass.

Yesh...i didn't say that. Or at least, not on purpose.

My point is that energy is "something".

In the universe, there is no "nothing".

a reply to: Phage

Origins and Creationism.

I don't see why The Mysteries can't have their say in the matter of creation.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In the universe, there is no "nothing".

Depending upon the scale. At a small enough scale...that's a matter of philosophy. Or something.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In the universe, there is no "nothing".

Depending upon the scale. At a small enough scale...that's a matter of philosophy. Or something.

Nothing is only an idea that is defined by Something in comparison. Even if Nothing existed at the smallest level it would occupy some small space and exist in time.

But that's not what nothing is. It's only an idea.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

But that's not what nothing is. It's only an idea.

Could the same be said of "everything?" I can grasp the idea of everything on my desk. A bit worse at everything in my house.
Isn't it all matter of scale?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But that's not what nothing is. It's only an idea.

Could the same be said of "everything?" I can grasp the idea of everything on my desk. A bit worse at everything in my house.
Isn't it all matter of scale?

It's a matter of scale and the absence of scale.

Within 'scale'....it's a matter of scale.

a reply to: Phage

Energy is not matter. Matter can be converted to energy (quite a lot of energy) and energy (quite a lot of energy) can be converted to matter.

I agree with the above statement, you could compare energy to electricity, it pulses and flows, cut the source of power, and all you have is copper wires(matter). So then once again what is the source of power ?
Interesting thing about electricity you can't see it running down the wires, but if you ever got a shock from 410V you sure know it's there.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I agree with the above statement, you could compare energy to electricity,

Electricity is a transfer of energy.

So then once again what is the source of power ?

In the case of electricity, it is a difference in electrical potential.

Interesting thing about electricity you can't see it running down the wires, but if you ever got a shock from 410V you sure know it's there.

Volts don't mean much. It's the amps that count.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But that's not what nothing is. It's only an idea.

Could the same be said of "everything?" I can grasp the idea of everything on my desk. A bit worse at everything in my house.
Isn't it all matter of scale?

I think it would.

A quanta of 1 "everything" to match a quanta of zero nothings.

LOL....round and round we go.

a reply to: Phage

Are you sure?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: MotherMayEye

But that's not what nothing is. It's only an idea.

Could the same be said of "everything?" I can grasp the idea of everything on my desk. A bit worse at everything in my house.
Isn't it all matter of scale?

I think it would.

A quanta of 1 "everything" to match a quanta of zero nothings.

LOL....round and round we go.

The scale is only usefull if matter and particles take up Space and time.

Without matter, particles and motion there are no energies, temprature or time. All you have left is a vacuum.

How would you scale a absolute vacuum ? The scale would be absolute neutral.

a reply to: spy66

an absolute vacuum?

sounds like a quanta of 1 to me. 1 absolute vacuum.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: spy66

an absolute vacuum?

sounds like a quanta of 1 to me. 1 absolute vacuum.

A absolute vacuum is absolute free space. A Perfect vacuum is not absolute free Space.

- Absolute vacuum is a quanta of 1 absolute vacuum of free Space. It would also have to be the actual scale to measure what is and what is not within its Space.

To use the scale you first have to Accept that the absolute vacuum of free Space exists.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

YES!

I have a shape in mind, too. I think of a torus with the big bang being our last exit from the vortex.

The shape of the torus is 'Space,' and the motion in and out is 'Time.' And it's all perpetual.

Also, if we travel one direction on the torus in time, perhaps another universe exists traveling the opposite way so that we can define our own path by comparison.

You might like this, it shows how a yin-yang is a 2D representation of the torus:

www.youtube.com...

I found this interesting comment

Physicists have long studied the nature of the universe. But some go a step further into the unknown (and probably unknowable), contemplating what lies outside the boundaries of our universe.

The "outside the universe" question gets tricky right off the bat, because first you have to define the universe. One common answer is called the observable universe, and it's defined by the speed of light. Since we can only see things when the light they emit or reflect reaches us, we can never see farther than the farthest distance light can travel in the time the universe has existed. That means the observable universe keeps getting bigger, but it is finite – the amount is sometimes referred to as the Hubble Volume, after the telescope that has given us our most distant views of the universe. We'll never be able to see beyond that boundary, so for all intents and purposes, it's the only universe we'll ever interact with.

Beyond the Hubble Volume. We know with some certainty that there's "more universe" out there beyond that boundary, though. Astronomers think space might be infinite, with "stuff" (energy, galaxies, etc.) distributed pretty much the same as it is in the observable universe. If it is, that has some seriously weird implications for what lies out there.

On Albert Einstein who was clearly an agnostic from all his comments.

However, Einstein's God was not the God of most other men....to more ordinary mortals — and to most Jews — looked like a variant of simple agnosticism...years later, asked by Ben-Gurion whether he believed in God, "even he, with his great formula about energy and mass, agreed that there must be something behind the energy."

I agree with Einstein there must be something intelligent with massive energy.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

When i look at this image, it is the background that catches my attention.

Because it formed the torus. Just by observing the black background you know that the tores is a finite.

a reply to: FearYourMind

Energy is equal to matter times the speed of light squared.

This is incorrect. The energy equivalent of a certain mass of matter is given by the equation. It doesn't mean that matter is energy; sorry, Barcs and everybody else, but it isn't. It is convertible to energy, the same way gasoline is convertible to smoke. You don't say gasoline is smoke; and no more is matter energy.

This, by the way, renders the OP's proposition rather meaningless. Both matter and energy came into existence at the Big Bang. Using mass-energy equivalence (Einstein's equation) and giving gravity a negative sign, we see that the total mass-energy of the universe is zero. Nothing came from nothing.