The universe and why 0 is impossible.

[too-open-minded]

Your probably more in depth with it than I am. I have really bad a.d.d and usually when I think about something its only a short matter of time until i'm on another subject. I really wish you would collaborate with me so I can see if were actually on the same page and not just broadly discussing this subject.

[Phi for All]

Not you so much as people making remarks about things like unicorns...

Learn to distinguish between someone showing an idea to be wrong and someone attacking you personally.

 

To be honest if I went deeper into my hypotheses you really would think I was a crackpot if you don't already. I would rather just throw some concepts out and ask weird questions.

If this is the way you choose to learn, fine. But you need to stop confusing ideas with the person who has them.

 

As I said before, the vast majority of ideas people have are wrong, but they can often lead to successful ideas. Neither successful nor unsuccessful ideas make the person who has them brilliant or stupid. Take your "self" out of the equation, and realize that criticism of your ideas is not criticism of you.

[O'Nero Samuel]

I have to agree with you on that. Criticism should ignite one to work harder, if not for anything, to prove his point.

[studiot]

I have to agree with you on that. Criticism should ignite one to work harder, if not for anything, to prove his point.

 

In which case I would like to ignite you to work harder by properly reading posts so that you do not attribute comments to the wrong poster.

[too-open-minded]

Look if I start talking about a multiverse people arent even going to pay me any attention, I'm better off beating around the bush and trying to develop concepts with others perspectives. I haven't even started college yet and don't plan on being able to produce a viable hypothesis until i atleast have my bachelors.

 

People can ridicule the ideas I propose all they want. It seems kind of personal when my room and unicorns get involved. They can talk about my ideas, me, or both all they want.

I'm not the kind of person who wants to prove a point the only motivation I get is the fear of our species dying off on this planet. It just gets a little annoying when people call me or my ideas crazy, I know i'm crazy to some degree. I just hope its not to the point where my thoughts are irrational.

[O'Nero Samuel]

In which case I would like to ignite you to work harder by properly reading posts so that you do not attribute comments to the wrong poster.

Thanks for the advice, I think I'd do just that.

 

In which case I would like to ignite you to work harder by properly reading posts so that you do not attribute comments to the wrong poster.

Thanks for the advice! I think I'd do just that.

[Cabwood]

Is there any strong indication right now that the total mass, and total energy, and total volume, and total anything of the entire universe (all of it) is not zero? It seems to me that every parameter we use to define the cosmos can have its equal and opposite, and that when the whole is viewed from outside, it's quite possible that nothing would be seen because it all adds up to nothing.

 

If true, then the universe doesn't exist at all, except for those who can't see all of it. Which is all of us. If true, then all we see is a small bunch of things which form a part of the total nothing.

[illuusio]

I can totally understand that zero thing. If there is no motion there won't be any force. And because there is universe, zero is impossible

[too-open-minded]

Yeah lol, i'm not saying the concept of nothing is impossible but that the universe is in constant motion. It didn't arrive from nothing because it couldn't.

 

I mean you have 5 apples and eat 5. You have 0 apples but what makes up those apples is still floating around.

 

Gravity effects everything in the universe, this bothered me for awhile. Gravitational field having no boundary. Then it kind of hit me, the universe is finite but it is in itself a whole. Theirs less dense parts of spacetime, but theirs never nothing.

 

Their is emptier space but not empty space.

 

 

 

 

[zorro]

Beyond the Universes and all of their magnetic, gravitational ..... fields; is nothing...... No mass, no energy, no gravitational fields, no magnetic fieilds, no electrical fields, no curved, warped space, no light, no time. .... no hot dogs; NOTHING. Despite this, there is everything. How come??

 

zorro

 

 

http://vimeo.com/23526796

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdvWrI_oQjY

Edited September 8, 2012 by zorro

[zapatos]

Yeah lol, i'm not saying the concept of nothing is impossible but that the universe is in constant motion. It didn't arrive from nothing because it couldn't.

I just read A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss and this book makes the argument that the universe may very well have come from nothing. He said "The lesson is clear: quantum gravity not only appears to allow universes to be created from nothing - meaning, in this case, I emphasize, the absence of space and time - it may require them."

 

A great book covering many aspect of science I see being discussed here every day, presented at a high enough level for me to understand (although I'd be hard pressed to summarize it. ). You may wish to take a look at it.

[too-open-minded]

I'll be sure to give it a look.

 

Beyond the universe is nothing. but is nothing really their?

[zorro]

I'll be sure to give it a look.

 

Beyond the universe is nothing. but is nothing really their?

 

No one knows for sure. The Big Bang and Higgs takes us to an origin. Taking one step back , we address "Nothing". If those can then be broken down, then we continue back to nearly nothing and must stop because we cannot produce "Nothing". Matter cannot be produced or destroyed.

 

We still are stuck with "Everything from Nothing".

 

Zorro

 

I'll be sure to give it a look.

 

Beyond the universe is nothing. but is nothing really their?

 

No one knows for sure. The Big Bang and Higgs takes us to an origin. Taking one step back , we address "Nothing". If those can then be broken down, then we continue back to nearly nothing and must stop because we cannot produce "Nothing". Matter cannot be produced or destroyed.

 

We still are stuck with "Everything from Nothing".

 

Zorro

[khaled]

You know about Everything from nothing theory,

 

given that we have a quantum creation operator and annihilation operator:

 

1. when a matter crash into its anti-matter, they annihilate .. resulting in energy

 

2. when a creation operator is activated, energy is consumed to create matter and anti-matter

 

When all matter sums up, we get Zero, because for every matter there is anti-matter .. this is symmetry

Edited September 14, 2012 by khaled

[zorro]

You know about Everything from nothing theory,

 

given that we have a quantum creation operator and annihilation operator:

 

1. when a matter crash into its anti-matter, they annihilate .. resulting in energy

 

2. when a creation operator is activated, energy is consumed to create matter and anti-matter

 

When all matter sums up, we get Zero, because for every matter there is anti-matter .. this is symmetry

 

hello khaled:

 

the quantum theory you speak to states: assumes that both matter and anti matter and all the rules are in place. At first cause set at nothing, there is no matter, no energy, no rules, no anti-matter, no ignition, no spark, no fields, no creation activator...nothing. Nothing cannot annihilate into something nor nothing.

 

zorro ......

[EquisDeXD]

My idea - For something to have mass it must be in motion. More motion shows more energy. More mass is more energy. Everything is energy just on a different frequency. Everything is in motion and nothing is at a halt. The universe like a photon, always in motion. For something to not be in motion means it would have no mass and no energy.

 

Could the universe always be in motion and never at a standstill? The universe has always been and hopefully always will be?

 

I suppose mathematically something can be totally at rest, but I suppose you are right to an extent because even if you could have perfect circumstances for an object to seem at rest, there's all sorts of little vibrations, and not to mention the uncertainty of position in the atoms themselves, but that doesn't mean 0 is impossible. If I collide one proton and one positron, the net matter is exactly 0, you have exactly 0 protons left over.

Edited October 16, 2012 by EquisDeXD

[too-open-minded]

Well I read a book that was wrong and then built my imagination off of the wrong knowledge I had, this thread just needs to get deleted.