Avalanche2001

You can't use a paradox to prove a paradox.

Life is a perfect example of this problem: life cannot be if death does not happen, but death cannot be if life does not happen. This is such with many opposites.

The passage of any light through a black hole would, in no way, increase its maximum speed. To outside observers, it would actually appear as if the light was traveling more slowly, and, as it reached the singularity, it would seem to stop completely before disappearing after some time.

Exactly

Well, you see, an arguably large mass is one that wouldbe able to invoke any law of physics. So arguably large is pretty much anything with a mass over zero. i.e. The singularity of a black hole would not be considered to have an arguably large mass. The force of the forces (my apologies for the redundancy there) is how much pressure, energy, or movement it makes. The amount of force of a force varies as to what object it is acting upon. For instance, gravitational force would still be the same on a mouse as a planet, but with less intensity. This situation can be likened to a circuit with a small bulb with an intake of 1.5 volts and a nine volt battery. The bulb only takes in 1.5 volts as it needs, but the battery feeds out a constant amount of voltage. Most objects can make a force possible. Magnetism, for instance, would not be possible without magnetic objects. Forces must exist because matter exists. But forces although forces are a cause of matter, they are not tangible; they are considered non existent in physics. They exist only in concept and by their effects. Stephen Hawking said that because there was gravity, planets must exist. If planets must exist because of gravity, Gravity must exist because of planets. Forces and what they act upon are dependent on each other. This is why forces exist. I'm sorry if my ,set answer wasn't clear enough and I hope that this one is.

If any object with an arguably large mass compared to that of the force of the forces possible, the forces would need to exist, such as gravity. without Gravity there would be no mass, and matter must have mass.

doing ˈduːɪŋ/ noun 1. the activities in which a particular person engages. "the latest doings of television stars" synonyms: performance, performing, carrying out, effecting, execution, implementation, implementing, bringing off, discharge, discharging, achievement, accomplishment, realization, completion, completing; More informal excrement, especially that of a domestic animal. "it is my duty to clear up the guard dog's doings" informal a beating or scolding. "someone had given her a doing" 2. informal used to refer to things when one has forgotten their name or when no one word easily covers them. "the drawer where he kept the doin

Introduction Nothing is the absence of something, yet it is something. It is a contradictory idea. It defines itself as the opposite of what it's form I, but not of its definition. Therefore it is not oxymoronic, only paradoxical. One cannot say that nothing is nothing, even though that is its definition, because it is still something; it is a concept. Saying that nothing is nothing would be like saying that the sky is the sky, or the ocean the ocean; it is non- definitive and redundant. Nothing is the absence of something, but is not nothing. If one was asked to explain why one imaginary object of one quality was better than another with different characteristics, it would be impossible physically because there is no physical object to compare an imaginary or sometimes hypothetical object to. It is same case with nothing, not, though, because of the absence of physical objects to compare it to, but because of the sheer number of physical objects to compare it to. The word something, (which we would compare the word nothing to) can literally mean anything. Therefore there is no specific thing with which we can compare the absence of things. This means that nothing has an infinite amount of antonyms, creating an infinitely negative paradox. If the opposite of an object or idea were to be used with that object or idea, it would result in no reaction, except in cases where the opposite did cause a reaction. Typically, non- reactive opposite forms are sequences, such as moving, or completing an action. Others can include description and ideals. This being Said, it is not the case for 'nothing'. 'Nothing' is only one negative with an infinite amount of positives, which creates the mathematical phrase [m-n+(i-n)]. The m represents the number of things that 'nothing' is contradicting. The n represents the total absence of things. The i represents the infinite, or total amount of things being referred to. This mathematical phrase defines the total amount of things which the word nothing is contradicting, minus the total absence of objects which are actually absent, plus the infinite amount of positive contradictions, minus n. One may ask how a double positive is possible in this case. The answer is that you can have a singular connecter to more than one thing- i.e. a set of blocks, of a pair of cars. Thus when exercising the mathematical phrase, one would end up with a very small and very large number being subtracted from infinity simultaneously. This is an example of quantum theory at work. This happens because although infinity is only one negative, it contradicts an infinite amount of things, including itself. Therefore it is infinity minus itself, but also minus one minus negative zero, the negative being 'nothing's self contradiction. This makes the phrase impossible to solve because of its imaginary numbers and self contradiction. Thus we see that nothing turns things into impossibilities and possibilities at the same time, creating an infinite amount, and a negatively nil amount of paradoxes. Although we see that nothing creates quantum paradoxes, that does not define nothing. It is not a concept which creates quantum paradoxes. It has no definition- it is nothing at all, so even saying that it was unknown would not suffice. The applications of nothing Nothing has no applications, yet an infinite amount. After the brief description of nothing which has just been read, one can grasp, fundamentally, that the applications of nothing are all both paradoxical and oxymoronic. Take, for instance, the singularity of a black hole, where it's mass is both infinite and zero or below. Technically, negative zero is below zero, therefore the singularity of a back hole is nothing. Another example is sight. The only reason you can see is because of light, and light takes about five seconds to travel to earth. Therefore you are seeing zero of the present. But you are also seeing your present, in which there it an infinite amount of light. Therefore this creates imaginary numbers, infinity and negative zero, or just zero itself. So you see nothing. Although this is true, you are not blind. This is because nothing is nothing, so nothing is nothing therefore it does not affect you. According to Parmenides nothing cannot exist because to speak of a thing, one has to speak of a thing which exists. Furthermore he adds that change does not exist by saying that by the logic that nothing does not exist, since things of the past can be spoken of, they must still exist. Which means there is no change. This is synthetic with the quantum theory, which states that everything happens and does not at the same time, which, if compared with the introduction, is seen to be a non- reactive opposition, and therefore nothing. Said Aristotle of Parmenides's reasoning: "Although these opinions seem to follow logically Ina dialectical discussion, to believe them seems to be next door to madness when one considered the facts." This is because, while Parmenides simply attempts to reason off of pure logic, Aristotle examines the facts. His theory was that some things are matter, and some are space, and space is not 'nothing'- it is a receptacle into which matter can be placed. This is the accepted theory. According to GWF Hegel, since, in this case, the thesis is that everything is pure being, and the antithesis is that everything is nothing, the synthesis, or solution, is that everything is becoming. Logically, since it is always coming, it will never be here, so nothing will ever change. Therefore, this matches Aristotle's theory, which opposes logic, which creates nothin, therefore Hegel's is also a paradox, which means that his description of nothing technically is nothing. If nothing is exactly equal to nothing, and nothing means nothing, than the opposite of his synthesis is the perfect description of nothing. So the best description of nothing is that it is not becoming- will never come, will never arrive. Nothing does not exist. Through viewing the applications of nothing, it can be proven that nothing does not exist. But this logic must be reinforced. Nothing does not exist The title of this passage states that -1\=\+1 and that 0=0. So it defines itself. The best proof that something is itself is the undeniable fact that it is simply not something else, and not nothing. If nothing is not something else and not nothing, it must be invalid. But it is not. Nothing is complete isolation. Nothing can be used to completely describe it. This matches the previous description,which says that nothing is never coming and will never arrive, therefore it is isolation in the isolation in the most desolate form attached only to a concept, but with no opposing force. As already proven , this amount of isolation cannot have an opposite, so it cannot exist. Nothing Since nothing can be used to describe everything, and when it does it creates a paradox, and when it creates a paradox, the paradox becomes suddenly never coming and never arrived, everything is nothing. Life is nothing. And since nothing is only a concept, life is only a concept, and everything else. The correct philosophy This proves that pure idealism is the correct concept, since nothing is everything, and everything is a concept. In pure idealism things exist because the concept must exist. Therefore nothing must exist, so every concept must exist. The thesis, antithesis, and synthesis Thesis My thesis is that everything is nothing, and that nothing is a concept, therefore everything is a concept. Antithesis The antithesis would be that everything is something, and something is physical, therefore everything is physical. Synthesis Nothing. Therefore my synthesis proves my theory.

There are no laws of the universe. These 'laws' you refer to are really just metaphysical phenomenon a which exist because they have the need to. If there were planets, then gravity would be needed, etc.

If things only existed when thought about or noticed, than technically, nothing would exist because you can only think about one subject at a time, so all others not being thought about by others, mostly specific objects would be non- existent part of the time. And if quantum theory states that no matter can be destroyed or created, how would that work? Things are constantly under change, and, supposedly only themelves when somebody thinks of them as itself, so mentally your theory is correct, but I do not believe it physically. Also, i can Imagine that your Theory is incorrect...

Your theory is paradoxical to itself, and therefore is equal to nothing by the logic of the quantum equation m-n+(i-n). Your input is greater than the output, which is equal to negative zero, so your theory is completely invalid.

Justice isn't definite so nothing can be proved about it.