55
   

How can something come from nothing?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2014 12:06 pm
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I read whatever I can on astronomy and cosmology...
     What have you read, F. about the Time-Space Coninuum. What does it mean?


Way beyond me, Herald...and it sound even further beyond you.


Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
I have three telescopes, one refractor and two reflectors...
     It doesn't matter how many telescopes you have - what matters is the diameter of the mirror.


You mean the diameter of the mirror in my refractor???


Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
... and although I do not do as much personal viewing these days as I did earlier in my life, I still occasionally do it.
     How do you manage with the light pollution?


Light pollution is a problem...and since I live in an urban area near to New York City...it is a major problem. But, as a casual viewer, I put up with it...and see what I can.




Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
...buy a telescope; set it up; and look at what is available to see.
      I have a telescope, and also access to telescope with 16 m mirror, but I prefer to analyse the data from the large observatories.


Ahhh...you analyse data from the large observatories.

Why do I think you are full of yourself...and of (shall we call it) fertilizer.



Quote:

      You didn;t answer the question: what have you seen through the telescope about the Big Bang that the other people don't know. Why don't you simply answer the question.


Where did I say that I have seen things through my telescopes about the Big Bang...whether other people know it or not?

Are you keeping up, Herald...or are you in a dream world?

Don't you realize the folly of making stuff up...and then asking someone else to explain the why's of the made up stuff?
kiuku
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2014 08:38 pm
this design seems to work about that movie I mentioned, the Never Ending Story. This semantics makes sense too: "a nothing" it would be a nothing or the nothing.

So maybe we are being infiltrated by The Nothing. When The Nothing infiltrates things start disappearing, or in other words, going extinct, however there for no reason at all. But a similarity can be drawn here, how things here are going extinct, so as to say we are being plagued by a Nothing.

How it works, well something doesn't come from nothing, ever, so if there was another world that believed that things come from nothing; they might be working some kind of magic wherein things appear to come from nothing but they just get traded out from another world, like ours; it has to come from somewhere. That's how The Nothing works: someone believed in it. Because they believe in it, things disappear until we believe in the nothing too. Ultimately though it (the magic) will stop working and there will be very little but not nothing, just like in the movie.
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2014 09:22 pm
I give up
I can't make anything out of this something for nothing business
MWal
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2014 10:53 pm
@neologist,
Love from this degenerated world? Please and thank you.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2014 12:23 am
@kiuku,
kiuku wrote:
So maybe we are being infiltrated by The Nothing. When The Nothing infiltrates things start disappearing, or in other words, going extinct, however there for no reason at all.
     Forget about the reason, just concentrate on the concept of Nothing.
     If we suppose that our Universe 'along the edge/-s' is simply connected surface, closed 3D manifold, homeomorphic to a sphere, it doesn't matter what the shape might be (and who or what has created it) - it is closed space, within which the things exist. Outside that space nothing of this world exits, right?! O.K.
     There are two possible cases:
    * The first case scenario is when outside the surface of the spherical homeomorph (that we call Universe) there is absolutely nothing, so no Nothing outside can possibly exist, if we define that Nothing cannot possibly exist into Nothing, for otherwise we have to reconsider and to revise fundamentally a lot of sciences.
    * The second case scenario would be the case when outside the Universe there is another World - another Universe, or anti-space of ani-matter, or any-D space (up to 11D eventually), or eversed gravitational continuum, or whatever. No 3D object, with 3D thinking and 3D understanding of the world and 3D shape can pass through that edge/-s - neither physically nor at conceptual level.
     In that case we have Nothing that exists outside and independently of our perceptions and understanding of the world. In this case scenario the Nothing exists and is actually Something from another world, considered at a level of a more general point of view, but comprises Nothing from our constrained point of view, and is inaccessible in the general case to our world, and only in extreme cases (that we know nothing about) can anything from the other World can break through the boundary surface and came into our Universe, and vice-verse.
    If we define strictly the Nothing (as non-existence of anything) the question is how can the very Nothing exist (as a concept, for example, in our understanding of the World)? If the representation of Nothing exists in our mind, there is Something of the concept existing somewhere (at least its definition), and that Nothing automatically becomes Something. So, IMV the absolute Nothing cannot even exist by itself, owing to contradiction in the self ... let alone to be able to create Something.
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2014 01:16 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Way beyond me, Herald...and it sound even further beyond you.
     I might have some idea but I am not sure whether it is exactly that one.
    When you look through the telescope you see different celestial objects at different distances, right? Suppose you see a star there, let say 5 ly away. You don't see the star - what you see is where the star has been 5 years ago. So you have to put a digital timestamp on the star of the photo, to designate that on this photo that star has been at that position 5 years ago (you don't know where it is at present, nor what its brightness might be right now, nor even whether it still exists at present, etc).
    So what you see in the night sky is not a photo of the space at present, but various pieces of various states of what the Universe has been throughout time. Time actually does not exist as a physical dimesnion and no other interpretation of Time-Space continuum has any physical meaning. The only one making physical sense is objects with timestamps, shot at some moment.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2014 03:01 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Way beyond me, Herald...and it sound even further beyond you.
     I might have some idea but I am not sure whether it is exactly that one.
    When you look through the telescope you see different celestial objects at different distances, right? Suppose you see a star there, let say 5 ly away. You don't see the star - what you see is where the star has been 5 years ago. So you have to put a digital timestamp on the star of the photo, to designate that on this photo that star has been at that position 5 years ago (you don't know where it is at present, nor what its brightness might be right now, nor even whether it still exists at present, etc).
    So what you see in the night sky is not a photo of the space at present, but various pieces of various states of what the Universe has been throughout time. Time actually does not exist as a physical dimesnion and no other interpretation of Time-Space continuum has any physical meaning. The only one making physical sense is objects with timestamps, shot at some moment.


And what does that have to do with anything I have said???

My point was clearly stated...namely, that "the universe" (whether as we suppose it to be or as an illusion) seems so interesting to me...that anyone who lacks interest in it...must be a very dull person indeed.

That is the entirety of what I said.

I do not pretend that I can contribute in reasonable fashion to the intricacies of the cosmological or astronomical sciences...in a forum devoted mostly to giving advice to people who want to know how to tell one's mother that she is not as good a lay as one's sister...which even Dad will agree with.

Anyone who lacks interest in this situation in which we humans find ourselves...MUST BE A VERY DULL PERSON INDEED.

Okay?
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2014 07:37 am
Quote:
Frank Apisa said: "the universe" (whether as we suppose it to be or as an illusion) seems so interesting to me...that anyone who lacks interest in it...must be a very dull person indeed.

It's like wallpaper mate, some people might like a particular pattern, but other people might find it boring.
For example as Oscar Wilde lay dying he said "Either that wallpaper goes or I go"
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2014 11:52 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
My point was clearly stated...namely, that "the universe" (whether as we suppose it to be or as an illusion) seems so interesting to me...that anyone who lacks interest in it...must be a very dull person indeed.
     With such location you can hardly see anything of the Universe. You can observe only the pollution of light, reflected in the air pollution, comprising emissions of CO2, NOx and SO2.
      What is the Universe so interesting to you as you don't even know what its form actually is - whether it is a 3D or 4D sphere, or eversion of sphere or torus ... or some highly distorted space (& time 'continuum').
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2014 11:58 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
My point was clearly stated...namely, that "the universe" (whether as we suppose it to be or as an illusion) seems so interesting to me...that anyone who lacks interest in it...must be a very dull person indeed.
     With such location you can hardly see anything of the Universe. You can observe only the pollution of light, reflected in the air pollution, comprising emissions of CO2, NOx and SO2.
      What is the Universe so interesting to you as you don't even know what its form actually is - whether it is a 3D or 4D sphere, or sphere or even torus eversion ... or some highly distorted space (& time 'continuum').


The universe, whether it is what we commonly consider the universe or if it is an illusion of some sort...is incredibly interesting to me.

It is my opinion that anyone who lacks interest in it...is a very dull person indeed.

And all that nonsense you are spewing to make my (and others) interest in the universe seem trivial or not worthwhile...becomes one of the things about this universe that I find so interesting. It is amazing that there are people so petty as you, Herald.

Anyway, sorry you have to live that life you are living. But you have more control over it than you imagine. Try to short circuit the nonsense!
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 03:19 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
It is my opinion that anyone who lacks interest in it...is a very dull person indeed.
     F., this statement is invalid ... as a statement, and it doesn't matter whether it is your own opinion, or you have read it somewhere.
     1. Your understanding of 'interested in the Universe' and the understanding of the people around you might differ ... significantly. What you understand under 'interested' is watching the stars (in case you are able to see them at all through the city smog). Under 'interested in the Universe' other people may understand another thing: like modeling the gravitational continuum, interpretation of the Time-Space paradigm, postulated by Eistein, or what has been right here, in this very place where the SS is right now - before the point of time 4.8 Bya.
     2. Some other people may be interested in the topological aspects of the issue - what is the form of the Universe and how far it may go. You cannot call the people who are not interested in drawing eversion of spheres (turning halfway inside-out and in the ideal case achieving one common surface from 'inside' to 'outside') dull, moreover the people who are interested in the form of the Universe, but are not interested in watching the city dust particles through the telescope, to be labelled as dull as well.
     3. The astronomy is a hobby - neither superior nor inferior than any other hobby. You cannot call the people that have hobbies different from your own one - dull, let alone 'everybody. who ...'. Actually you can, but it is a hooligan statement.
Frank Apisa wrote:
It is amazing that there are people so petty as you, Herald ... Anyway, sorry you have to live that life you are living.
     F., you hardly can feel pitty and sorry and regret whoever with statements highlighted in boldface black. This boldface spoils the whole impression of compassion and it juts you out that you don't care a whit. If you persists to improve your theatrical show-image perhaps you should find some other colors that are more appropriate for the purpose, like grey, yellow, or magenta, for example.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 03:37 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
It is my opinion that anyone who lacks interest in it...is a very dull person indeed.
     F., this statement is invalid ... as a statement, and it doesn't matter whether it is your own opinion, or you have read it somewhere.


It is not "invalid"...even if you disagree with it.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 08:07 am
The materialistic atheistic "universe-worhippers" HAVE to worship it because it's all they've got..Smile
This vid pokes fun at Sagan, one of their ringleaders-

0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 08:38 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
F., this statement is invalid ... as a statement, and it doesn't matter whether it is your own opinion, or you have read it somewhere.
     It is not "invalid"...even if you disagree with it.
     1. IMV the boldface should be only on 'is not invalid', and invalid should not be in quotation marks. With that quotation marks 'invalid' is to be read as 'valid', and 'it is not valid' is exactly what I am saying ... and you are actually confirming it.
     2. 'Anyone' supposes 'all people' (that don't have a telescope at hand) ... 'are dull', so it is enough to find to you at least one person who does not have a telescope, but is obviously not dull, like for example the top ten neurosurgeons on the planet, or the top ten investors, etc. Actually I would be interested if you would be able to prove it - that anyone who has a telescope has an IQ as a minimum the one of Einstein.
     3. You are not the one to tell whoever what he/she should be interested in. The good news is that you personally have a telescope at hand. Some people like collecting data, others like analyzing them - what is the problem. BTW, from logical point of view the people that like analyzing the data should be a little bit smarter than those doing the field-work - collecting the data ... purely hypothetically.
     4. Whether I agree or disagree with the statement - it doesn't matter. This statement is invalid mainly because it makes a fake correlation between observation and smartness (the more one watches, the smarter he will become) ... and also because it makes a generalization on the ground of one example only - your personal opinion ... and it doesn't whether that opinion is justified or unjustified - the statement is invalid for any interpretation.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 08:53 am
@Herald,
Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
F., this statement is invalid ... as a statement, and it doesn't matter whether it is your own opinion, or you have read it somewhere.
     It is not "invalid"...even if you disagree with it.
     1. IMV the boldface should be only on 'is not invalid', and invalid should not be in quotation marks.


Ahhh...I think I have discovered the reason for our differences, Herald.

You have me mistaken for someone who gives a rat's ass about your view.

That's it!


Quote:
With that quotation marks 'invalid' is to be read as 'valid', and 'it is not valid' is exactly what I am saying ... and you are actually confirming it.


That makes so little sense, that even you should find it preposterous, Herald.

Do you?



Quote:
     2. 'Anyone' supposes 'all people' (that don't have a telescope at hand) ... 'are dull', so it is enough to find to you at least one person who does not have a telescope, but is obviously not dull, like for example the top ten neurosurgeons on the planet, or the top ten investors, etc. Actually I would be interested if you would be able to prove it - that anyone who has a telescope has an IQ as a minimum the one of Einstein.


What in the name of the universe are you trying (unsuccessfully) to say?

How can you stand knowing that this gibberish with your name attached is going to be out here for anyone to see?


Quote:

     3. You are not the one to tell whoever what he/she should be interested in. The good news is that you personally have a telescope at hand. Some people like collecting data, others like analyzing them - what is the problem. BTW, from logical point of view the people that like analyzing the data should be a little bit smarter than those doing the field-work - collecting the data ... purely hypothetically.


Are you ever going to make a point worth considering?

Quote:

     4. Whether I agree or disagree with the statement - it doesn't matter. This statement is invalid mainly because it makes a fake correlation between observation and smartness (the more one watches, the smarter he will become) ... and also because it makes a generalization on the ground of one example only - your personal opinion ... and it doesn't whether that opinion is justified or unjustified - the statement is invalid for any interpretation.


That is pathetically gratuitous as an analysis of what I have said, Herald. You gotta do better than that...or you will look even more the fool. I have made absolutely NO comments regarding "observations and smartness"...nor would I. You simply made that up so that you could argue against it.

My point is (and has been all along): It is my opinion that anyone who lacks interest in the universe...is a very dull person indeed.

What problem do you have with that opinion?

Jeez!
0 Replies
 
kiuku
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 02:12 pm
does everyone understand why it has to be "a nothing" or the nothing, classically, and not just nothing? That's why they say a vacuum or a space hole. "A nothing" is really what they mean to say when they say a vacuum.
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 02:29 pm
@kiuku,
kiuku wrote:
"A nothing" is really what they mean to say when they say a vacuum.
     Nothing is not really a Vacuum. Vacuum is space that is devoid of matter. It may have some kind of a field, for example, like gravitational continuum (whatever this may mean).
     Just don't ask me how a field can exist without a quantum material carrier of the energy. With or without the field the Vacuum has Space, and the Nothing has no Space at all, for it comprises nothing. Nothing is the absence of anything ... and Nothing will come out of Nothing as the proverb says.
     When you have Nothing on the first side of the physical equation, you cannot have any dimension on the other side of the equation, for the other side should have the very same dimensions - in this case none. Hence 'Nothing will come out of Nothing' is valid for any interpretation of the statement, in other words one cannot have Something out of Nothing as a result of any physical transformation ... like the Big Bang 'theory', for example.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 02:30 pm
@Herald,
Not correct; vacuum has energy within it.
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 02:39 pm
We talk of "empty" space, but it's not really empty because space can be stretched and tweaked like a gigantic soft rubber ball under gravitational effects, and also do funny things (time dilation) to anything travelling fast through it.
So space must be made of something..Smile
0 Replies
 
Herald
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2014 02:40 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Not correct; vacuum has energy within it.
     Ci, so and so you are well acquainted with the matter, why don't you tell us what is the form of the Universe and what is the form of the Gravitational Continuum (if exists) within the context of the form of the Universe?
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 11:47:43