north

the thing is that graph paper is two dimensional my graph paper , so to speak , is three dimensional it has volume , a sphere

apparently you can't

just one question was the vibration frequency by each atom accounted and if so how ?

I didn't ask if time had essence because time doesn't I would never ask " if time has essence " I know better it doesn't yes

Ghost Hunters they try but one night !!? give me break as for the rest agreed !!

I use Sound Reasoning above all else when I think as you've read

you are Refreshing Martin , you truly are Refreshing why is it then allowed that these programs can even be produced without current info ? damned frustrating really should be interesting thanks north

Martin if the Universe is expanding then could this not be simply an illusion ? for example and this is my biggest argument against BB is that when thinking three dimensionaly why would not all expansion from say 100 different galaxies around our galaxy , come to a conclusion that there is null expansion ? because all perspectives from different galaxies would see expansion toward us

I perfer thinking in terms of phyiscal dynamics , and the consequent interactions by objects since ultimately thats what all mathematics comes down to ( what came first the physical reality or existence of objects or mathematics ? obviously the physical ) does that mean I disrespect the mathematics or that mathematics isn't important ? no now I'm going to assume your going to disagree with my stand but then what can I say I think the way I do

Hi Martin I'm I overly argumentative ? some may think so but not really just questioning the Reasoning behind some ideas , its my way I've been doing this for about 5 yrs now and noticed that there are some very misguided ideas this one of the misguided ideas that something can come from nothing it can't ( not just here but on other sites as well , manytimes ) and it keeps coming up , unfortunatly therefore my response to the concept of nothing it keeps coming up what can I say yes how can I help it anytime there is a program about cosmology the Big-Bang comes up no good if talking about nothing has become irrelevant I'm all for it but some people still think about " nothing " however you are alluding to myself I think here no problem I'm ultimately after the truth , whether that means I disagree or agree with conventional science or mainstream science so be it and my thought process is Reason first logic latter the difference is that Reason gathers in knowledge and derives a conclusion and logic is the consequence of the reasonable conclusion hopefully none of the above , at least I certaintly wouldn't want to be Martin I thank-you for post , for it seems it was needed as to what I was about and for staff and others to understand where I'm coming from its my fault of course for any misunderstanding towards myself . I tend to come in heavy and fast but I do enjoy thought throughly , I always have hence my posts but to be fair also to myself though , just so that you understand as well , I am on other sites as well and you see certain patterns of thinking by many people from many different perspectives , they are all trying to figure it out in there own way and I'm use to that north

the Universe is infinite and infinity is proven by the existence something rather than nothing so the Universe is not finite

no problem there guy , no problem

good then we are in agreement now the implications of this relisation....

no it does't but from a physical point of view , forget the equations for a moment , this makes no sense does it ? objectively I mean then what appears to be nothing where those equations were applied is not true there was always something there in the first place thats my point you see this is part of the pervasive thinking out there that " equations allow this or that " this thinking is erroneous . in reality it is the physical Universe which ALLOWS the equations to be correct thats like the old philosophical argument that we produce the Universe , which of course is wrong perhaps but the uncertainty principle is based on the energy of the particle but the less energy a particle has the position and momentum can be known just mathematics , grid mathematics which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about mathematically but to the object(s) they were always there , something , its just that you trying to find them , " appear " is the key word here mathematics does not make or create energy/matter EVER it discovers

I asked you a question and if this trolling to you then so be it define nothing I want to know how you define nothing look this how I define nothing ; nothing has no space ( no place to manifest ) , no ability to change ( or time for those of you who perfer ) , no depth and no breadth or therefore no dimensions ALL of these properties of which something has

so then nothing was not really nothing in the first place since nothing it seems has potential pure nothing has NO potential whatsoever no not really

and the Reason is ?

well lets start here ; can nothing ever produce something if nothing can to you define nothing

I know neither of these people so they are irrelevant so can you not see the reasoning of my last post ?

time is irrelevant it plays not part in the " before " BB really or in any discussin about existence really what is relevant is whether energy/matter existed before BB and they most certainly did otherwise you get into the something vs nothing discussion of which something always wins

it seems so it seems oh I forgot:D

think about what you just posted space can help ? how ? space has NO physical substance in and of its self and gravity is based on the physical , physical objects so to you , time is based on gravity and gravity is based on physical objects and therefore time is based on physical objects and the ability of these objects to move other physical objects by gravity hence the essence of time , the movement of physical objects and the resultant measurement of this movement by using time rationally thinking

I put this way is there anything in this Universe , our Universe , that we lack , physically ?

I don't have the money to by it so be so kind as to give your argument I disagree the essence of time is all about movement or energy of objects and their interactions and the consequence(s) of their in the change of position because of an objects energy or movement if ten objects were frozen still in that moment of position how does the addition of time change anything of their position ? time doesn't , at all

true but this is what is happening and this is pervasive , throughout all of physics and astronomy for this is not the first time that I have persented this argument which is ; that space has some substance asscociated with it and that time has some sort of energy associated with it both associations are entirely error simply put you can't grasp space and time , no matter how much is entered into an equation will NEVER change the situation between two or more objects EVER but what will change the situation between objects is the energy which is inherent within the objects and the energy which is from the object and projected out beyond the object its self hence a movement and therefore hence a measure of " time " that this happens because of the objects themselves nothing more nothing less