How can something come from nothing?

Go do some reading I am not your Tutor.
If you can find a flaw in what I wrote come back with proof.
Those who are properly informed on the matter already know there is no flaw in what I wrote.
I have better things to do then providing proof for any new A2K'er who comes in asking for clarification. Your lack of knowledge on the matter it is glaring to say the least.

You did not provide sources. I guess people want me to answer to "zero is balance" because of my work in ancient cultures, possibly where I wrote that.

I do not believe that Einstein mentioned nothing. You have to be careful when you're using zero or when you're using zero as balance. eye roll. Zero is not the singularity in Einstein's work.

The balance in modern math is 1, indicating a whole item exists. So it is the same with things that cancel eachother out.

Zero means nothing in English though, in the math system, it means just nothing. There's no ideology other than that. There's no hinting either. The idea of balance is actually one.

No I won't expand on my work on ancient cultures and the number system or maybe I will but it's sort of like, not the Greek system though I understand English has a hard time understanding one culture, like as in nullifying.

No I do not know of any physicists who have talked about this forum subject, but I don't read their work.

The problem with English math is that it is a Greek math, and 0 is not Greek it's Mayan and Chinese, and possibly Indian, and maybe Egyptian. 1 is Greek balance. Relativity theories and all other theories are Greek meanwhile. When talking about theories, of the universe, you should use 1 and not zero for the singularity.

You can't ignore the zero in math. 1 plus 0 = a greater number. It has value whether you agree with it or not.

correct.

I want to know who is saying that zero is balance, or who is saying that the Singularity (Big Bang) is zero and zero is balance? Because that means they don't know that One is balance, aka the Singularity loool..

That would fit in well with my stated ideology that it is copied from Latin wrongly and it wasn't Einstein. The singularity, is obviously one, number one, the digit that represents balance in Greek math, what English uses (English uses Greek math.)

English uses two systems of math.

I don't think anyone wrote that, I think he or she the poster just made that up. Because that would mean that 'physicists' don't understand Greek math. I mean the theory is certainly greek, regardless of where Einstein got it from and it doesn't come from nothing if it is Greek because the Greeks don't believe in nothing, only the Americans do lately anyway. The perfect unified balance is "one thing exists", in Greece. On this point Greece might not have even used a Zero.

Ex nihil nihil fit. (this philosophy theory applies in Greek multiplication too)

It's a Greek math but then it's not a totally Greek table, that 0 doesn't really belong between 1 and negative 1.

To be quite honest I wonder if "The Singularity" is wrongly translated Number 1.

If you cared to pay attention no one said zero is not 1...what was said is that zero represents an ideal balance between forces that cancel each other out but that in good truth are not perfectly balanced. For instance the amount of matter and anti matter was never balanced just as the distribution of energy was not perfectly homogeneous. Sure in the least you must know this is perfectly accurate information. Next time you want to make a critic read carefully.

If you want my very personal speculative account on why zero is not only 1 but the perfect 1 it is precisely because zero hints at what a perfect balanced 1 would be, a balance between everything. Perfect unity. truth be told if such perfect balance existed you would never have a 2. Change would be non existent.

there is no "pay careful attention." There is no "hint." either. That's not what you said, period. That's taking something I said, which is highly original by the way, rewording it and writing it back to me with "what you meant to say." You're illegal thinkers, and it's basically the case that, you're criminals, in America or wherever you are, probably Western world, but modern, modern criminality. Illegal thinking is clearly the case in everybody's post.

You had no reason to write anything like that in the first place. In the first place, illegal thinking was involved, straight up illegal. Where I come from there is a such thing as illegal.

To me you're a heinous criminal, and I am greatly angered at the correspondence, because you're doing something for villainous purposes, and the purpose is to pretend to be original and to be thoughtful at that, and you're not, that's clearly not original-that's not what you wrote, and mainly that you're still wrong, as usual but if I correct you again is it going to be your thoughts too?

I think people don't understand how pissed off I am when they can't or refuse to learn how to think legally or when they behave themselves purposely illogically in motive.

The purpose of the board entirely is to pretend to be original. I'm proving your work, your original post, and the subject of a few other posts ahead of yours, is not founded in physics like you said it was and therefore not your work as you don't know where it is from.

Still wrong by the way.

yea, this is like the American Police, why I hate the police---they act like these posts talk.

You are an idiot. What you said (regarding zero being one) is basic 101 information theory is not original nor is any distinct from what I said. You are a troll and a very dumb one. Good bye clown !

This is straightly like the police. When I say criminal, I just meant, not in a way which means that the police are good. Because this is the police, you can't correct them either. If you say anything that has a clausal statement in it, they can't understand it; actually if you say anything with vocabulary in it, they can't understand it, on top of which you can't correct them. So you have to sit there and endure their illogical behavior, sometimes in words.

This is exactly like the American police. Basically 6th grade in an adult. I cannot put up with the p0lice, I can't put up with the average citizen either. I can't put up with "Fil Albuquerque" and his motive, apparently to disquise originality.

I can't put up with anybody actually. I'm positively not from here, positively not, not in the truest of senses.

The posibility that physics has the Singularity wrong, is not beyond me to entertain, but I really think, you just made that up, that it was "physics everyone knows"

I'm looking up Limits right now to see if your use of zero is justified by what you said you used to justify it (sources which you refused to provide.) Well it's not justified in Chemistry which is the Atom bomb (the atom bomb is the representation of Einstein's theory supposedly. Balance between electron and protons equals 1, number 1, atom.) Limits is where it would be though, if what you said you justified it with actually exists. When I wrote about 0 that way I was writing about Mayans. Looks like English ZERO is still ZERO.

You see that window at your left ? yeah ? go ahead jump ignoramus !

the point was that 1 doesn't represent what zero represents, which is what would be required for the original post to make sense-basically saying an ideal isn't the definition as in paraphrase: where the definition of zero is nothing the ideal is balance. The assertion is that 1 is the proper unit for balance, not zero, and one is or may be then the intended unit for the "Singularity." The assertion is that English zero still means nothing, and doesn't mean balance.

"The renowned mathematicians among the Ancient Greeks, who learned the fundamentals of their math from the Egyptians, did not have a name for zero, nor did their system feature a placeholder as did the Babylonian. They may have pondered it, but there is no conclusive evidence to say the symbol even existed in their language. It was the Indians who began to understand zero both as a symbol and as an idea."

ex nihil nihil fit.

the use of the word singularity is suspicious given greek science, philosophy and general history, suspicious of one.

zero is really not balance, in English. Its one atom. But not in limits though, apparently, well limits isn't science. So...ultimately the problem is cross cultural beliefs mixing into English because I really don't think people are getting their stories straight.

the problem with ex nihilo has evolved, so to speak, discovering the cultural history of zero is part of it. Are we making sense? Did 1 mean number "zero" in Greece, without "nothing" attached? (I have literally some research to do) Quetzalcoatl's theory, his universalis, is the origin of zero as we understand it-I can tell by the diagrams.

Does anyone have a book with a lucid discussion of ex nihilo?

Ex Immater: Meanwhile fire as a definition or suggestion for the existence of immater stands, because, fire is also the primary colors.

the constituents of matter are exactly hot and cold, encapsulated. Something that is tied between two ends thinks of itself that way, and perplexed-matter must be tied between atleast two ends. But there are things that exist only in matter, and that is why they come up with these sciences or need them (immortals.)

immater doesn't have any of the problems of matter, time or space.

http://www.abbl.lu/sites/abbl.lu/files/history/images/liber%20abaci.jpg

The Liber Abaci: the first book to bring numbers

See this is called a "half moon ship" (I am told, by...well obviously an immortal)

buyoncy is the topic then, when 0 is introduced, not here but, elsewhere, as you can see from the way he places or writes the numbers, sometimes in right triangles, but here to display the "wave affect"; on a triangular ship it would be different, but this is a gravity ship, a half moon ship.

how old do you think my immortal friend is? 1202, the liber abaci. My immortal is the one teaching me these things and it is literally preposterous to challenge me, on the streets, either because, this is where history begins. My immortal is the originator of the other immortals.

Usually I am answering by myself.

the problem is that there is no such thing as ex nihilo. I mean, does it just sound profound? I don't know. Where is it? Which book fathoms it clearly? It's original masterpiece is where? Nothing "hints at." There has to be an original master work.

so far, look I have made progress, and I'm writing of course yet another treatise on the origin of zero, under which I have placed Slope; slope isn't traditional Greek-slope comes after calculus, which if there is any ex nihilo concept, draws its origins from there. The origins and meaning of slope which are now myth, rare anyone to know it, are here established.

It's basically between Greek thought and Egyptian thought, which is the assyrian nations, to India, and the combination of the two in Europe. Greek thought must be interpreted but it is sort of explicit, there is no zero. Of course Egyptian, also rather explicit, there zero begins, as a word, Nile. One can really presume some of us are Greek in thought and some of us are Egyptian.

Of course we really know Calculus came off a boat. Calculus may be Egyptian, possibly Hypatia's work the results of her vast and renowned traveling because it seems to be a combination of Platonic wisdom and pragmatics.

Begin, excerpt:

"Math from Greece: a ratio in balance is represented by the number 1, in fractions and in balanced equations which are essentially the same thing where something is equal to something else, ratio 1 or ratio at all. This is the same in chemical formula. It is the same in quantity one atom, too, in science.

Balance at Zero, is weight, obviously Egyptian.

The problem is whether "Singularity" meant 1."

From your point of view. I thought that all the points of view here on a2k belong to FM ... and you are only his armor-bearer.

... and do you have any evidences that the Big Bang could be viewed as 'science' in any understanding of the world?

Nice try, but no cupie doll; try to post the entire post. You do understand how one statement out of context works, don't you? Maybe not; that would expect too much from ignoramuses like you.