Marco Wouters

Both of you, thanks for your insights... I just like to think about things like this, am not a "real" scientist. It does add food for thought.

Hi, I am new here, so complete stupidity…but as Flat-earthers also got some community going…let me give it a shot. Isn’t it, because energy travels from - towards +, you can also say that + attracts the energy? Wouldn’t that then make it so that the sun doesn’t shine but the objects around the sun attract the energy? Sucking the light towards it? To me it looks like light has more of a “sticky” property as a “shiny” property. If a part of the sun is not observed; does it then shine or not? Since, if nothing requests energy, why would it shine? If there is no “positive” to receive the energy then the “negative” does not hold value either or… am I just stupid? “The first law of thermodynamics basically states that energy is conserved; it can neither be created nor destroyed, just changed from one for to another, “The total amount of energy in an isolated system is conserved. The universe as a whole is closed”” Now again the question… If a part of the sun is not observed…so no planets, meteors or anything which can request energy; does it then shine or not? The sun shouldn’t shine, according to the first law of thermodynamics. It should not give away any energy if there is nothing to receive it at the other end... else you would lose energy and that’s an impossibility. This, to my opinion leaves open the question if the sun does truly shine or does the light get requested by its surrounding objects because they need the energy? in other words...does light stick?

Is there any reason to think that? In the big bang model, for example, the universe has always been homogeneously full of matter and/or energy. According to the big bang theory, one of the main contenders vying to explain how the universe came to be, all the matter in the cosmos -- all of space itself -- existed in a form smaller than a subatomic particle. I define everything outside of this "smaller than a subatomic particle" as empty. but due to my issue with emptiness fitting inside itself this also could not have been bigger as "smaller than a subatomic particle"... Now I don't do math...I just have strange questions and weird answers but to me it looks like that at the moment that one single particle of mass was formed it automaticly started to cancel emptiness out of existence... Since something then was...emptiness could no longer be...but if nothing is then emptiness infinitly big...

Emptiness I define as not holding any mass... Reality floats on one moment only...how it gets its information on what is to be reailty does not really matter yet at this moment. Quantum flux etc...thats a step beyond what I am looking at. How reality gets its information on what is real can or cannot be defined by us, I don't know yet For me...looking at reality as one frame in time...if emptiness cannot be since there is always a mass at every place in the universe then mass does not fit inside the space of emptiness... So if everything started as emptiness then mass does not fit inside this coat...time was created to make reality able to gain mass in an empty space by keeping the momentum flowing...time is just mass not fitting inside the emptiness which used to be before the Big Bang... I know I make huge jumps in conclusions but it's difficult to explain the details which float inside my mind... Discussions like this makes them flow easier

I know i am a bit wierd in explaining but...if 0+0=0 then it would mean that emptiness fits inside inself... When something fits inside itself, it no longer exists since all emptiness would fit into one single piece of emptiness... this means that nothing is empty.... and if nothing is empty then we basicly are connected to everything within the universe... Moving your arm should then technically create a change throughout the complete universe...small but still it should. It just a part of my thought that gravity works a bit different as everyone thinks...

My first time here…maybe just a stupid thought… If you put empty space inside an empty space…do you then end up with two empty spaces? Or is the one now no longer empty because of it containing the other empty space? Do they add up to more emptiness? Does emptiness absorb added emptiness without growing because you add nothing? Would that mean that all emptiness fits into nothingness since it actually can contain itself inside itself? If so then it is impossible to have an actual empty space…so emptiness should be able to expand… That’s strange since how can nothing add to something? Emptiness is a nonexistent thing; always something is? What exists outside something? Since for what we know…everything has an end so emptiness should also start somewhere…at the place where everything ends… Though…if emptiness cannot be, it would mean that the complete universe is connected by pressure…as everywhere something is… Everything touches everything through each other… Then you truly are the center of the universe and your ego is created by pressure… Your ego exists because everything seems to revolve around you…and it actually does… The complete Universe moves with each time frame…just a slight bit… Each frame shifts it’s pressure just a bit from all sides…but just slightly due to the size of it all… Average pressure and biggest deviation are negligible from frame to frame… This pressure is what formed all mass into what it is now… And the places were mass gathered is just the point which is weakest in pressure… Like water…mass would float towards that point in space… In time our Universe formed our planets and finally me… All done by pressure from the complete universe… The reason that we feel gravity is because the middle point of the earth is a bit weaker in pressure…so as all mass we move also in that direction… It is just that the mass from above pushes us down to this point in space…we are not pulled like a magnet… Just see the difference between you jumping and you taking a magnet of off a piece of metal… The two things are completely different…we do not stick to the floor… Just to add my definition of time… Time is just mass not fitting inside its coat of nothingness…