The Null Theory

[SilverRevlis]

:eyebrow:The Null Theory at first sounds incorrect. How can something which does not exist effect reality and the Universe. Or even how can nothing itself have influence. Think about null potential and hand in hand with such kinetic energy. If you drop a ball from a great height it can wipe out a city and nature abhors a vacuum. In fact The Null Theory can even explain all of motion in The Universe for things keep trying to fill empty space/void. This is in no way confused with ether which is just 'closer' to nothingness. Now, the zero-point-field theory plus many others state there can never be 'nothing' or 'empty space' in The Universe, however such instances state nothing of what is outside The Universe and actually underlying the greater reality and The Universe itself... The beauty of The Null Theory is the infinite null potential of energy it can provide...

Edited September 4, 2009 by swansont
removed unnecessary all-bold

[swansont]

You could define dark instead of light, you could define cold flow instead of heat flow. But the models work better with light and heat. Describing stuff works better than describing the absence of it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Myself, I prefer the null hypothesis.

[SilverRevlis]

You apparently do not believe in Eastern theories... To respond in one sentence: If everything is not moving through nothing then would not the actual friction of all the underlying em fields burn everything up. Also, to pose another question, how else do you allow for an infinite Universe with infinite energy? Even scientists, like Lynn McTaggart support this possibility. Or, is this the section where new opinions, meanings and theories go to when this thread should be in Modern and Theoretical Physics

[Mr Skeptic]

Or, is this the section where new opinions, meanings and theories go to

 

Pretty much. At least here it's on the web whereas if you sent it through peer review they would just send it back. (uh, unless it was actually science). If you think Null Theory is science, it would help a lot if you linked to a peer reviewed article about it.

[JillSwift]

A theory - in the context of the scientific method - is something that explains observed facts. For instance: The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection explains the observed fact that there are a great number of species.

 

Keeping that in mind, what is this "null theory"?

 

What facts were observed? What methods were used to make these observations?

 

What is the theory itself? In what way is it falsifiable? What predictions does it make that can be tested?

 

I ask only because I prefer to know what it is that's being speculated on. Context is everything

[swansont]

You apparently do not believe in Eastern theories... To respond in one sentence: If everything is not moving through nothing then would not the actual friction of all the underlying em fields burn everything up. Also, to pose another question, how else do you allow for an infinite Universe with infinite energy? Even scientists, like Lynn McTaggart support this possibility. Or, is this the section where new opinions, meanings and theories go to when this thread should be in Modern and Theoretical Physics

 

It sounds a lot more like philosophy than a scientific theory.

 

Physics deals with some infinities. They aren't always problematic (e.g. renormalization)

[SilverRevlis]

I would like to strengthen my argument of The Null Theory:

1. Empy Round Container: To fill something it has to first be empty, this applies for all level of densities

2. Expansion of Universe. If the Universe is expanding, it is finite. If it is not expanding into nothingness, which allows for infinity, then it would burn up due to friction. What is it expanding into? Nothingness, therefore. Or, is it just one large infinite reality, not expanding. Of course, finite Universes within this infinite reality could be contracting and expanding.

3. What is opposite of Everything? Nothing, therefore. You cannot say there is only Everything without its opposite or that there is no number '0'.

4. If there is nothing outside of the Universe, which the zero-point-field theory is obtuse about, then the Universe and/or Everything could be trying to fill it... Nothing pulling plus the Big Bang would lead to acceleration. An explosion by itself does not cause acceleration.

5. Nothingness allows for faster than the Speed of Light travel. You are not limited by the medium having some mass. The information just teleports there instantly.

6. What other need is there for Gravity? Otherwise, everything just flies off into space, into the vast nothing...

7. How else can there be unlimited or infinite equations equalling 0? i.e. X -X = 0. Wow, what a coincidence...

8. You, once transformed from matter to energy to information (to spirit even?), therefore connect any 2 points (with co-ordinates) with each other at any distance and any plane with 0 Mass Information through Nothing. This is not limited by the Speed of Light.

 

As an addition, though this maybe a new theory, which not only I agree with, it would be appreciated not being mildly insulted with immature remarks like 'null hypothesis'.

I, also, do not deny that this would take a long time to prove since the requirement for it to be tested (next to Stargate) is the transformation of matter to energy to information to even spirit...

[Bignose]

word salad.

 

Can you make any kind of quantitative testable prediction? Or how about offer a test that would falsify this idea (it is not worthy of the moniker "theory" yet because there aren't any predictive capabilities yet)

[Gerry]

consider a boundary around what you define as nothingness.

 

what is inside this boundary? Is it possible, philosophically or scientifically, to contian nothing inside a boundary?

 

I say not on both counts.

 

It has something inside, that is, it has, at the very minimum, spacetime. Spacetime is not nothing, which, not irrelevantly, is not constant for different frames. Null space is not nothing, its null space.

 

It seems improper to suggest that nothing in spacetime, whether in or out of the known universe, is nothing absolute, meaning nothing in all frames.

 

Perhaps you could clarify your frame of reference; and, if there is one frame in your "argument", or many?

 

Alternatelly, what about nothingness as another means to describe potential. Potential to become something. If it can become something, how can it be nothing? Are you suggesting you can get something out of nothing? Seems a universe full of nothing absolute could never become something.

 

Can you experience nothingness? Is it within your grasp to encounter what is not there? Perception matters. This is philosophy, not science. However, if you can experience it, surely you can then measure it. And what if mathematics "shows" you nothingness exists, but you still dont "see" it, does that lack of experience then negate the analysis?

 

It seems flawed to say that because one cannot see, via measurement or experience, what "nothing" is, to assume its nothing at all. More accurate to clarify what you seem intent to define is "nothing you can see, analyse, or recognize", rather than nothing absolute. The need to create a philosophy is great when one does not have any other means to understand.

 

Is there a "nothing absolute"? I say not. There seems to be a universe full of energy, in multiple forms. Is nothing absolute opposite to this? Not in my way of thinking, for the absence of energy seems not to be nothingness.