martillo

It could have been... Right. What I show is that it is totally compatible in Physics with the conclusion "Something always existed".

Good point, I don't remember who, was in a TV interview long time ago. May be it wasn't stated but just commented. The notion of the Big Bang and the notion of nothingness before it was being analyzed. The concept of absolute nothing is a philosophic concept first expressed by ancient greek philosopher Parmenides. In Physics nowadays the concept of an initial kind of nothingness appears but with at least some physics' laws and something obeying it (for instance the notion of virtual particles). I think both concepts can be reconcilled with that conclusion of "Something always existed" I reached. That philosophic "something" could be precisely the physics' concept of "initial nothingness", or initial "vacuum" with "virtual particles" or whatever... No, it is a philosophic expression. That's why I said "... if this is accepted as a postulate..." As I showed in the OP the concept of "Something always existed" can be derived from the concept "Nothing comes from nothing". This way the notion of ethernal Universe comes into place, of course, I know...

I have heard recognized physicists stating "Nothing can come from nothing" and if this is accepted as a postulate applying basic logic follows: As something do exist now (for instance we exist) it can be deduced that: _ The absolute nothing never existed. (If it it would have existed before nothing would have come up.) _ Something always has existed. Am I wrong in something? I think this is important in the tries to explain the origins of the Universe. The Universe didn't come from nothing then, it came from something. Something that could have always existed before. Not so easy to grasp may be but seems right... And if the above is right, must we assume that Space and Time are things that just always existed? Seems so...