fudgetusk

>>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 right and you are wrong. >>Note that when Hawking and others refer to the universe being created from "nothing", they do not mean a complete absence of anything. They are referring to a pre-existing quantum vacuum with non-zero energy (because it is a quantum vacuum). And that previous state would have had to exist for some, possibly an infinite, time beforehand. I know. I'm the one telling you that. Remember? I just did it? I said no one is tackling the idea that the universe came from nothing. Then you told me about Krauss and Hawking. I looked into Krauss and discovered you were wrong. Now you are admitting you were wrong about Hawking. Neither are dealing with the idea that something comes from nothing. They are dealing with the idea that something comes from something. You made a mistake, again. God? oh for God's sake...who includes that on a science forum? Blaming God solves nothing because we then have to solve where God came from. That's why I do not include it? A knack for science? No it's called logic and common sense. Look up the words. A whole new world awaits you. Eternal return? It does not matter what form the universe takes. It either existed for ever or came into existence at some point from nothing.(both illogical) Why are you posing notions that do not counter my argument in any way? Seriously, people. THis is not hard. It is just hard to accept. And that's why you are messing me about. Sorry but what ARE you talking about? Nothing you say counters what I am saying. Please go back to square one and start again.

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 our universe must be infinitely old and HAVE NO BEGINNING. No point where it didn't exist. Which means that any point in time no matter how far you go back or forward has an infinity of time before it. So ANY point in the timeline has crossed an infinite amount of time. It has infinite amount of time BEFORE it. This is impossible. Never mind that HAVING NO BEGINNING is impossible. Now, unless someone can convince me that Hawking came up with a viable third option as he claims then the only way the universe could come about is impossible. I personally believe it came from nothing because that is simpler, but still illogical.

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 time could be crossed to get to now(read the thread if this does not make sense) No. Christ. Am I talking a foreign language? Are you all Polish? I am saying there is no explanation of where the universe came from. I'm not saying photons have crossed infinite time. This other guy is. They haven't. They couldn't. Because infinite time is impossible to cross.

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 liar and he's lying to scores of people when he claims he has discovered how the universe came from nothing. Your examples do not explain how the universe could always have existed. They simply show ways in which the universe changed. YOur first example is beyond me. I doubt you can explain it either. Please do. Let me rephrase the question. Tell me how an infinite amount of time can be crossed. And yes I am saying it is impossible to make something out of nothing. You cannot go from zero to one without adding a one from somewhere. I'm saying this still happened but it should not be considered a rational act. it is not something that can be explained by science. That's not what you said. Why are you people not able to read what I've already explained? If the universe always existed then that means there is infinite time before this point in time. To get to NOW you will need to cross an infinite amount of time, which is impossible. Prove photons can cross 'infinite time'. I expect you not to.

Exactly. time began at a certain point. from nothing. absolute nothing. not the ersatz nothing Krauss is espousing. which contains gravity and dimensions.

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 of everything space still contains gravity. that is bloody obviously because it isn't nothing. get rid of the gravity then we can talk about true nothing. and get rid of space time too. fact:scientists do not understand the word 'nothing'. Krauss is saying something came from something. He also talks about there being virtual particles in this nothing. THAT IS SOMETHING. He is saying the universe always existed...as I said. I bet Hawking is saying something similar.) And if you can explain how the universe has always existed then I AM waiting to hear that and have been since this debate began. Still waiting. Remember the problem: an infinite amount of time exists before NOW. you cannot cross and infinite amount of time. Explain how you can.

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 semantics to try and win back the argument. All you are doing is demonstrating your fear. I have demonstrated that the universe came from nothing by the process of elimination. Again you say nothing of any substance. You are indulging in flim flam. just as most scientists do when they encounter things they cannot understand. >>The matter is there now. It wasn't there when there was zero energy before the universe was created. Neither was the negative energy that cancels it out. So the hypothesis starts with nothing. From that it creates equal and opposite positive (matter and energy) and negative (potential energy) parts. Meaningless. If I can scratch SOME logic from this nonsensical statement you are saying nothing became zero energy? This is still something coming from nothing. Which is impossible and yet happened. >>They may or they may not. To assume they won't (because it would conflict with your beliefs?) is the height of anti-science. If you truly understood what I am saying, which you clearly don't(won't?) then you would know I am right. Again you have failed to understand the problem. All the evidence is on this thread. There are only two options of where the universe came from. Strange is so without understanding that she/he thinks there are more. She does not get that all the theories fall into two ideas. But what can I expect from an internet forum. I was deluded in thinking that you guys would be actual scientists. HAH! Boy was I wrong. AGAIN, there are only two ways the universe could come about. Either from nothing or it always existed. If you do not agree with this then PLEASE tell me the third option because nobody else has come up with one. There isn't one. We have eliminated the latter option. So therefore the universe came from nothing. FACT. But ignore all I've said and talk BS. Yes, I get it. You don't understand what I'm saying.

>>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.

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 of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.[1][2]" I never said food ONLY goes in the mouth. Might I suggest a course in basic English? He was ruling out the idea of an infinite past. The other option must be true although still illogical. Ergo something insane happened. Beyond logic.illogical. I have found it. You just cannot admit it to yourself. Please explain where the universe came from. If you think you have the answer why are scientists continually coming up with new theories? Because they haven't found the answer. Never will.

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, it can only be transformed from one form to another. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy >>That doesn't invalidate the universe being created from nothing (there are many possible reasons why; you have been given one which you have just ignored) Which was? >>Well, one possibility is that the net energy of the universe is zero Which ISN'T nothing is it. That's what I always come up against when I discuss this. "actually nothing may be something" I'm talking about absolute nothing which Michio Kaku ascribes to. http://mymultiplesclerosis.co.uk/btbb/michio-kaku-beginning/ Any scientist telling you that you can get something from nothing is really saying you can get something from something. It's a lie they tell all the time to avoid facing the fact that the universe is illogical. >>We have zero evidence that the universe came from nothing. And no evidence it didn't. All we know is that it was once in a hot dense state. We don't know how that came about or how long it lasted. We have zero evidence that santa exists. Therefore we do not believe in him. We have zero evidence that scientists can explain where the universe came from. Common sense would dictate that it is not a logical question when you face the facts laid out as I have.

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?

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.

Science itself says that you cannot create energy. You seem to know your stuff. could you take a look at this thread please?

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 a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. Seems very similar. I of course did not provide any evidence or principles.

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." which leads us back to the other argument that the past is infinite. You can tell I've asked this question before. It wasn't Zeno. His name began with A. he showed there were only two options of where the universe came from and both were illogical. As for your explanation. The past cannot be found but it did exist. I do think time exists.

Some believe the universe has always existed in some form. This is about getting around the idea of something coming from nothing. I have a problem with the idea. How did we get to now? An infinite amount of time is impossible to cross just as an infinite amount of space is impossible to cross. And yet people believe there is an infinite amount of time before this point we call NOW. How did we get to NOW? Seems to me that if you figure in an infinite past then no event can ever happen because it can always be set back infinitely. Not my idea but the idea of a greek philosopher.

Too soon to decide what is going on with physics. I don't think particles choose. There is simply more going on that we do not see. But where there's doubt there's room for theory.

Well I've been mislead by a modern physics book then. Typical. I've been trying to understand this idea for years and the data keeps changing.

But why does it not collapse on the side of the screen? by being bisected it is coming into contact with the screen so it should collapse and not pass through the slits.

That's physics from last year. I've started seeing new definitions . The uncertainty principle is explained by how we measure particles. By bouncing a photon off them it alters their position or speed depending on how you do it.

Not a religious book so much but Michael Newton phd JOURNEY OF SOULS. He's a hypnotherapist who regresses people to points BETWEEN lives, when they were in heaven. Quasi science. good read though. gives a kind of form of religion. Nearest you'll find to being evidence based.

Quantum uncertainty is about our ability to measure accurately. But then how on earth can a particle become a wave? The term 'wave' suggests something being all over the place. as I suspect shape. size and things like that are illusions that collapse from time to time. LIke volume in the core of a black hole.

666 is greek gematria and nero cesar comes to 666 in that system. In Hebrew gematria it is 616. That is why both numbers have been used. Nero was of course the biggest opponent of Christianity at the time of the writing of the book of revelations. He would burn them alive etc. Revelations sees a future Nero type person or Nero reborn. (oops. reincarnation?)

The photon wave collapses when it comes into contact with something. Why does it not collapse when it passes through the screen with the slits? Why does it split into two waves? THank you.