Jump to content

fudgetusk

Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-3 Poor

About fudgetusk

  • Rank
    Quark

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. >>Can you provide any evidence or rational argument that it is not possible I already have provided a rational argument. Remember? No? I'll give it AGAIN. If the past is infinite and an infinite length of time cannot be crossed then the now that we exist in is impossible to reach. And that goes for any point in the past or future. Now concentrate on that notion, pleeeeease. Why am I having to repeat myself for you people? It seems I pose the problem, you misunderstand on purpose, then I have to keep telling you it because misunderstanding is slightly better than admitting I am righ
  2. There is no explanation. How could there be? Therefore we need to see that the universe is capable of being illogical. This opens the door for all things weird. I'll start again. There are only two options(forget what Hawking says: his third explanation is deliberately over complicated and impossible to grasp)either something came from nothing or something always existed. These two options cover all the bases. And they shape each other. Now if we realise that something cannot come from nothing(logically) then the past must be infinite and HAVE NO BEGINNING. The fabric that makes up ou
  3. The same arguments I already answered Pal. Go up and read. And why do they call it nothing if it is not nothing? why are they lying? because they are desperate to prove that something came from nothing. they can't so they lie and you believe it. I'm saying the world came from nothing but we should not regard this as a logical act. It cannot be explained by science and science should not be allowed to downplay this fact. If nothing is really something then we have to return to the only other option: that something existed for ever. But then we have to explain how an infinite amount of
  4. Why do I even need to demonstrate why it is BS when it is obvious? I am asking for a theory that starts with true nothing. You do not seem to understand this English word. Because you are damaged. YOu have been damaged by scientists. They have said "here's nothing" and shown you a picture of something. They've done that so many times you've developed Stockholm syndrome. The theory of zero energy is not nothing(with me so far?) it is a balance of positive and negative that results in a state of nothing. (got that?) true nothing would have no particles. no gravity. You've been had. KRauss is a
  5. Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing. not the ersatz nothing Krauss is espousing. which contains gravity and dimensions.
  6. Lawrence Kraus? Stephen Hawking? (Do you mean Krauss?)And what do they believe happened? I know Krauss wrote a book but what EXACTLY does he say about 'nothing'?(update: just listened to him on youtube talking about how the total energy of the universe is zero. so this is the same theory you already presented. which is BS except to those who NEED to believe it. Balance between matter and antimatter is not nothing. it is scientific flim flam. Here https://www.npr.org/2012/01/13/145175263/lawrence-krauss-on-a-universe-from-nothing he talks about it. and explains that even when you get rid
  7. Yep. You don't get it. All the theories of where the universe come from fall into the two categories. Which I have told you. Actually they all fall into one category: The idea that the universe has always existed. There is no one speculating about something coming from nothing. I don't know what YOU think the word logical means but it isn't the meaning every one else has. Sense and logic are the same. You are coming from the view that if it happens it is logical even if it goes against science and common sense. This is child logic. With an agenda. You cannot face the facts so you use sema
  8. >>a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. GENERAL PRINCIPLES. We have that with QM. Hence theory is correct.
  9. You think you are countering my arguments...but are not. I have no idea what you think you are doing but you aren't actually saying anything. You fail to understand the basic concept of there being only two options for where we came from. Both illogical. For you to be right you need to prove that nothing can become something. The zero energy hypothesis is not nothing. It involves matter being cancelled out. The matter is still there. This is ersatz nothingness. Scientific flim flam. LOts of people fell for it. Not me. "The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount o
  10. You seem to be getting hot under the collar. This always happens when I force people to see this issue. An Opinion can match logic. Therefore be logic. Logic does not have to be a fundamental law of physics. Food goes in your mouth. Is a logical statement. einsten did not include eating food in his equations. In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system in a given frame of reference remains constant — it is said to be conserved over time.[1] In other words, this law means that energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather,
  11. An opinion can be logic. And the evidence backs me up. No scientist has explained where the universe came from yet. But we are straying from the point. if science says "something can come from nothing" then they are wrong. It is basic logic that something cannot come from nothing. I put across the point that science itself says you cannot create energy. Is science wrong?
  12. when I say nothing I mean absolute nothing. No void. No reality. No possibility of anything existing. I have a pal into physics and we have had arguments about this subject. He sees nothing illogical about the idea that the past is infinite. But he knows the only other answer is illogical. So he's backed into a corner. It's easier to believe in an infinite past because the idea boggles the mind. Then he can say "why is it illogical?" and there is no answer to give because it is just something that is obviously illogical. Like the number one being the number two.
  13. Science itself says that you cannot create energy. You seem to know your stuff. could you take a look at this thread please?
  14. hypothesis hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/ noun noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. theory ˈθɪəri/ noun noun: theory; plural noun: theories
  15. When I say NOW I do not mean the now we are experiencing. Rather any NOW along the so called infinite timeline. I'm looking for examples of the universe acting illogically. I believe there is no logical explanation of where the universe came from. Scientists seem to have no answer. They are tackling the question with science, which is dependant on logic. They will never find an answer. Which means things like magic may be real too. Then you are saying the universe came from nothing, which is illogical. of course I bet you will now say "maybe there is no such thing as nothing."
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.