pcalton

Vaugeries you see, I see clarity. I would clarify more if you wish.

"What? The only reason anyone ever posts here in "speculation" is because they know its a speculation and know that it could easily be wrong, and if they didn't think it was wrong they would post it in something like theoretical physics or whatever respective subject it is and those people are usually religious fanatics who get banned," ....."Only reason" ...like you can read minds? ....."...know that it could easily be wrong." Yes, I'm not absolutely sure and besides I would hate to be looked at as a Know-It-All. ....I can imagine how religious fanatics could spoil or hijack a potentially productive forum, them damn nit-picking fundamentalistic know-it-alls! "I don't think I've made a single post in the speculation section where I didn't doubt by at least 30% that I was right. I notice that a lot of times certain staff/experts members seem to get "fed up" with longer topics, but it doesn't seem most people think they are super geniuses to me, " ....My head spins when you use double negatives. ....Reversed-Referential-Index: often identified by sentences ending with the word "Me." "and you would get mad a lot less often if you didn't assume everyone thought they were." ....I think I agree with that. The more I think I know the less open I am. Often I remind myself that things may different than they appear and that in the quantum world the seemingly impossible happens. "This post has been edited by EquisDeXD: 17 October 2012 - 08:20 PM" Nothing unreal exists. Space is unreal. Void is unreal. Time is unreal. Massless particles are unreal. If gravity exists (probably) it would be made of matter and real. Light is made of particles and real. Light particles and other particles move in a curvature trajector. Particles in motion are real. The insides of particles are full of stuff. Particles are connected to other particles by stuff that have vibrations, tension, tortion, and trajectories. Particles and the stuff connecting them are in motion mostly together. Many particles seemingly match up with similar particles and are in motion together. These moving particles push/pull other groups of particles causing gravity-like effects.

Many thanks for the welcome. I intend to be open and learn here.

Thank you. I'm cautious in my wording and in keeping within the rules of the forum. Knowing that even in this speculation forum the ideas need to have some scientific evidence backing it up. Knowing that what some scientific-minded folks don't always agree. I do agree I was very non-specific and it was my intention. I will become more specific gradually. Mainstream-physics is not without naysayers. Intrinsic properties of particles, how they may connect, how they group and ungroup are areas where I will become more detailed.

Particles may contain properties like multiple forces, vibrations, or wobbles that could cause them to cluster with particles with similar properties. These clustered particles might together create a force and/or a push/pull on other particles. Perhaps, these particles, are connected by a medium that transfers vibrations/information and helps them stay together. I've become aware that theoritical scientist are working theories of quantum gravity and I thought how these ideas may offer effects to consider. I'm sure you'll let me know if this is posted in the correct place and if my idea is absurd, nothing new, or just hogwash. I'm thick skinned, so fire away.

>>>Explaining scientific stuff sometimes put my brain in a twist. Your first sentence have quadruple negatives, but I still followed it and agree. Theoric nothing is where I started 30-years ago and concluded then that stuff had no option but to pop into existence. We seemed so far apart while all along we have similar theories. My theory goes on... Existence is not optional. "Why is the Universe here?" Because it had to be, it is, and it is here. Or, it's here because this where it popped into existence. Furthermore, all particles popped with intrinsic properties, of which could explain a theory of everything. >>>Explaining scientific stuff sometimes put my brain in a twist. Your first sentence have quadruple negatives, but I still followed it and agree. Theoric nothing is where I started 30-years ago and concluded then that stuff had no option but to pop into existence. We seemed so far apart while all along we have similar theories. My theory goes on... Existence is not optional. "Why is the Universe here?" Because it had to be, it is, and it is here. Or, it's here because this where it popped into existence. Furthermore, all particles popped with intrinsic properties, of which could explain a theory of everything. >>>Explaining scientific stuff sometimes put my brain in a twist. Your first sentence have quadruple negatives, but I still followed it and agree. Theoric nothing is where I started 30-years ago and concluded then that stuff had no option but to pop into existence. We seemed so far apart while all along we have similar theories. My theory goes on... Existence is not optional. "Why is the Universe here?" Because it had to be, it is, and it is here. Or, it's here because this where it popped into existence. Furthermore, all particles popped with intrinsic properties, of which could explain a theory of everything.

I like your post and the quandary I believe it identifies. Looking at galaxies as they were billions of years ago does make me stop and think what's really going on now? Additionally, I wonder about theories that involve things we can't see. Some scientist think the have seen what is probably the black hole at the center of the Milky Way. Maybe so, but the theories poping up about what can or cannot escape the black hole, what really happens at the event horizon? We can't see it really, nor can we see dark matter/force/energy, and now some are talking about Boson field/energy. Sure you can measure around the black hole and conclude that must be the black hole causing that wobble, but still, how many light years ago did that wobble happen?

"Nothing real can be threatened, nothing unreal exists..." I'll try again to explain. Again, I have had ideas like yours myself. The idea of something from nothing seemed to explain a beginning. I'm not sure we even have the same definitions for terms. I'm not sure the who, what, when, where the forum turned to a forum of insults. I'm not not here for insulting goings-on. If I have offended you I apologize. Please, stop yourself from referring to my mind being open or closed if we/you/me can be courteous and respectful with each other I would enjoy continuing. As I mentioned, I once believed that first there was nothing. That was 35-years ago. At that time, my thinking shifted and I concluded that Nothing was impossible. I understand that you disagree. I can't think of anything you have written that I haven't already considered over the past 35-years. I studied and discussed the Casimir effect. However, his vaccume was man-made containing waves/fields. Something that I've been thinking about... Nothing as you propose, was it big or small? Was it a void?

Please clarify "information." It not being matter. Does information involve waves or vibrations? Please clarify "information." It not being matter. Does information involve waves or vibrations?

Wallow in your own rant.

Where is that "Scientific Evidence?" Probabilty of what?

Why would someone want to know why the universe is here? Why, I think is a question without scientific validity as an answere. Wanting to know why seems like wanting to know the cause. Then, by knowing cause might help understand the effects. Many science-minded folks have settled with the big bang, but others go beyond or before the big bang with theories of multiple universes in rows or bubbles, in strings, in other deminsions and so forth. I do find it fascinating to entertain my mind with these ideas. I'm just as fascinated with quantum physics and how the tinest particles may relate to the biggest of masses. Also, nature seems to reval patterns and forms that may also relate to quantum mechanics and astrophysystics. I have studied religious groups learning about the various beliefs, rituals and rules. I have studied and experimented with chemistry and elements but in a very limited way. And, I have researched what could be described as the obscure, on the cutting edge or the complex and not so well known theories, sciences, religions, rituals and not too talked about ideas and practices. Metaphysics, meditations, neuro-linguistics, anthropological linlinguists, Gestalt and various therapeutic modalities to included hypnosis, trance induction, embedded suggestions, cult and other tyes of deprogramming. I have had a few disappointments because my process inputs sometimes processn without my observation, but sometimes even some persons come to me at a later date and let me know they had processed awakening for the good. I have a wide range of studies and beliefs but find I'm open to ideas that may expand my understandings. This has been a forum that not been very productive for me and I plan to wander on after only a few other posts.

I'm using my phone to post making it cumbersome to go back and forth on the post and the post you are referring to is only a quote name Let's say whatever writing of yours does not involve time. I can't tell as I explained. If you were to go back to your very first post you refer to "Before" is that not a reference to time? Not the word "time" but referring to time before matter. You repeated at least one other reference to time in or of nothing. I'm not search it down again. Didn't exactly follow that.

Still you mention time in the nothing you write about. Still you are making something from nothing. "there's nothing limiting the probability" >>>Nothing itself limits everything. Nothing is Nothing, period. Probality means nothing to nothing. It seems you are over-trying to establish there was a nothing from which came a beginning. I had a chiken-egg like battle in my mind for thirty years. I tried to imagine infinite nothing at the point of creation, I tried giving nothing a value of one and blowing it up to make it matter. Finally 35-years ago I concluded what works well for me for now...i.e., everything there is, has always been.

>>>I'm back to the start because it seems we are drifting and tangling terms and ideas. Nothing=zero probability +probability+time +ability to create matter. Is this what you are saying?

The mind's-eye sometimes called "third-eye, inner-eye, a sphere of thought, abstract thinking. When I meditate I picture stuff in my mind. The images often play out and conclude problems relating to science. Sorry, I was looking for helpful input and failed to name it. I believe it's safe to say my ideas are out of the mainstream. You are welcome to give it a name and place it where you think the most appropriate. BINGO! You've said so well, thanks.

Time, there you got me. What is time? You seem to be saying time is a noun. Time looks? Then it would have to be a noun, right? And, if time looks forward and backwards, not outwards, then where is time, from where is time doing its looking? Does time have a shape? Size? Is time made up of particles? Let me be the first to name the particles of time... "Tictokitucles."

Perhaps, probably, more than likely, what else could it be other than a predicted black hole? I suspect that us what it is. Then I ask about the so called "Event Horizon" yet to be seen, and the hole itself. At one time it was supposed to let nothing escape, now that his been proven wrong. So many unproven theories, String, Branes, Mulitiple Universes, Parallel Universes. Bosons, new elements in the Paticle Zoo, Dark this and that..., science is really so far from understanding what stuff is out there

>>> "Nothing" a term and topic that has led to more circle-like conversations, often leading to name calling and belittling that needs to be banned from our language. So, from now on I vote no nothing. No not nothing. No nothing not, no no no.

What?

I've been called a "Pseudoscientist" and thought I was being complimented and encouraged. Duuuugh. I wonder if any psuedoscientists have ever come up with true scientific fact and/or later found it was not pseudoscience but real science? Perhaps definitions will help. I have read many science-minded writers who seem quick-draws when it comes to debunking but their language is full of words and phrases that suggest over-filtered Opinions and they are very defensive of their ideas. At least their attitudes seem to blindly stick them to old ideas without any reconsiderations Eienstein seemed to think that as far as intelligence goes, imagination is more important than knowledge. Also, he seemed to follow absurdity.