Existence Ex Nihilo (NOT Creation Ex Nihilo)

[Ringer]

BUT IT IS...really...I wouldn't kid you about that. It is the connotation of nothing that needs clarification.

 

What is what? I apologize but I'm unsure of what you mean by this

 

 

Faith is a poor substitute for reason.

 

Reason is a poor substitute for evidence.

 

May sound presumptuous with my lowly BS (of course) in math and physics, but it seems to me the hypothesis of reciprocal balance complies with Occam's Razor. It does not refute the measurements and observations, it only interprets their inferences from a different perspective.

 

I'm not sure of what this hypothesis entails, a google search turns up other forums with posts from someone who appears to be you. Would you elaborate?

 

Theoretical physicists will be the first to admit dark energy/matter is just a hypothesis - and not the only explanation.

 

I don't know really anything about dark energy so I won't try to mention anything about it. Dark matter has plenty of evidence to support it besides the gravitational lensing. Are you saying that the evidence for it doesn't exist or that all the evidence to support it can be explained by a better model?

 

It's ALL ABOUT begging the question(s) - specifically "how was the universe created" and "when did it begin". Questions with false premeses BEG to be begged.

Even if all of the celestial bodies in the known universe were moving away from each other, it wouldn't necessarily imply an expanding cosmos. Given a finite number of moving objects randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume (the 'known universe' IS finite), all collisions which could occur WILL occur within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite distance, and eventually all of the objects will be moving away from each other.

 

Apparently you don't understand what I meant by that. The fallacy comes about because your proof lies in your conclusion. The conclusion must be true for the premise to be true.

 

I'm confused, are you saying the universe is infinite or finite? Since you say the known universe is finite are you implying the rest is infinite? If it is infinite how could something occur outside of its volume? You said the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time all collisions possible should have happened. If all those collisions have happened wouldn't they have, more or less, moved things away from each other? If things are, in general, moving away from each other for an infinite amount of time there should be virtually nothing in our general place in the universe.

 

 

 

 

[THoR]

What is what? I apologize but I'm unsure of what you mean by this

If for each value in the universe there exists an opposite equivalent then the sum of every value is null (nothing). From a relative perspective, the equivalent of nothing exists, but from the perspective of infinity nothing actually exists (explained on the site)

Reason is a poor substitute for evidence.

Reason is based on evidence, not so for faith.

I'm not sure of what this hypothesis entails, a google search turns up other forums with posts from someone who appears to be you. Would you elaborate?

Yes, I am posted an a number of other forums. The simplicity of the Reciprocity hypothesis is obvious.

Are you saying that the evidence for it doesn't exist or that all the evidence to support it can be explained by a better model?

The latter.

Apparently you don't understand what I meant by that. The fallacy comes about because your proof lies in your conclusion. The conclusion must be true for the premise to be true.

Then cosmic inflation must be fallacious. Big Bangers explain the seemingly extra-logical phenomenon of galaxies receding faster than C as an illusion caused by the self-same cosmological expansion they seek to substantiate. "The conclusion must be true for the premise to be true."

I'm confused, are you saying the universe is infinite or finite? Since you say the known universe is finite are you implying the rest is infinite? If it is infinite how could something occur outside of its volume?

The universe if infinite. The known universe is that portion we can detect - it is NOT infinite, it is a limited subset of the universe. Semantics....go figure.

You said the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time all collisions possible should have happened. If all those collisions have happened wouldn't they have, more or less, moved things away from each other? If things are, in general, moving away from each other for an infinite amount of time there should be virtually nothing in our general place in the universe.

Yes, unless things moved INTO our known universe at more or less the same rate as things moved out, the neighborhood would be a ghost town. Hubble Redshift is not valid; hence cosmologists cannot accurately determine the velocities or the distances of bodies billions of light years away. What they calculate is fleeing may actually be approaching...and our miniscule lifespans make the study of cosmology so difficult. Edited November 24, 2011 by THoR