Alan McDougall

I will try again hot and cold are opposites " It is so Hot that it is Cold" is an Oxymoron. Of course I am curious I will address this subject as soon as nonsensical statement stop! I agree that it is much more an metaphysical subject than a scientific one

Now such intellect to come up with such logicmind-blowingly . Molecule was not stating an opposite what he stated was a clear oxymoron .actually very simple, albeit difficult? An idea or thing that is both Simple and difficult a clear contrition in terms I would add that "complete utter emptiness" is "something"and has at least three dimensions, in these three dimensions our universe does not exist, because space time is not emptiness but a fabric of reality. Emptiness might exist somewhere, but not in our universe.

Really that is mid-blowing logic. Monocle was not talking about opposites his statement was an "oxymoron" How can something that is very simple , be albeit difficult

Again you make an oxymoron by stating that your idea is actually very simple, albeit difficult?

It works please inform me how?

Nothing is not empty space or an absolute void of empty nothingness, nothing is nothing, and there was never nothing, there has always been something and that something is existence of which our universe might just be a tiny part of You stated above in red font nothing exists, now that must be the absolute oxymoron

Really! In my very limited understanding, the great answer of why there is something(existence) and not a total absence of everything (Nothingness,no vacuum viod,no space,no time,no forces, no matter, no energy, absolute nothing) will NEVER be answered by the scientific community. I thus,agree that this debate belongs in the philosophical forum, where it is. A more precise definition of nothing. Nothing is a state that is the simplest of all conceivable states. It has no mass, no energy, no space, no time, no spin, no bosons, no quarks, no superstrings, no zero point energy and no fermions-nothing. I believe any attempt to scientfically answer how exactly everything began is absurd, and irrational. In short, the only logical explanation for existence is that a being ( God?) created all existence or is existence itself I think we might be nothing more than a just tiny thought in the mind of this infinite, all powerful, eternal, omnicient entity. Try not to be so touchy, we can all benefit from a little correction at times

Are the universal fndamental constants realy constant? There has been speculation that the speed of light is slowing down, I read up on this and accurate measurement taken of LS over years has apparently shown a slowing, thereof? Was this just due to ever and ever more accurate methods of measuring or do you think this idea has any merit.? If this idea is really right why should the other constants be constant? Creationists use this idea with glee trying to tell us during the early universe Light Speed, was much much faster, which explains, somehow that god made the whole universe in just six literal twenty-four hours days. In my opinion, the constants need to be constant or the universe will decay, and fall apart into chaos, in a much more rapid rate that is allowed by the second law of thermodynamics, Entropy

I admit I was a bit fickle and "just wanted to have some fun" but some people got all serious and hot under the collar, so I will try to keep it more serious as follows: What has always bothered me, in the supposed infinite mass and gravity of the singularity from which the universe emerged (Exploded if you like) according to known physics, it was impossible for the universe to emerge and form, because time, did/could not exist and should have been static (Forever an oxymoron I admit)

How do you know first there was nothing and then exploded, "complete bunkum" Give me a better scientific answer? (Big Bang brought space and time matter and energy and the four fundamental constants that hold the whole thing together).At present that is far as the scientific community can go with the question? If we move further we must tackle existence itself, thus; is the universe all existence, at present that is all we can state at present, without going into wild speculations about the multi-universe or other dimensions of reality. With respectful recognition of your enlighten understanding that seems so far beyond my puny little brain, maybe we are living in a digital virtual program, with god like beings,learning to program from their version of "Object" right up to such a high level program, That has only four commants (1) this and that="that", (2) that and "this" ="this",( 3) that and that = this"(.4) this and this ="that" Hey! I just invented the DNA code!

Use one brain cell,please it is obvious what I mean , the just say the same thing in a very long worded paper, But if you insist I can do a little research and return. I seems to me that you might know the answer, I would be facinated how you the very first sentient entity in the universe, came to know and understand the ultimate question?

No you did not or you do not know your astrophysics, that is exactly what they say Of course there is a whole lot of nonsensical wild speculation , that will never, ever, never,ever, be answered scientifically

Most scientist say,"First there was nothing and then it exploded" HA, HA, HE, HE" THE "EVER EXISTING ONE", WHO IS EXISTENCE ITSELF IS THE PRIME CAUSE OF EVERYTHING.

Look around you at existence, it did not just pop up from nothing. God does not have to prove himself, to you or any other entity?

God is the most logical answer, in my very fallible understanding, it is a question that science with never answer!

There is the theory of "Presentalism", where a person only exist in the present, the past is gone and no longer exist, and the future is still to come and also does not exist. Only the present moment reflects reality.

If a person (a) is stationary in relation to a second person (b), who is walking towards him (a), time ticks slower for the second person (b) than the first (a). Thus the second person ages at an infinitesimally slower rate than the first person (a). Thus relativity is in action , even at a walking pace.

Hi, If time flows smoothly like a river, how can we say we have reached a moment in time? Or maybe time might move in disgrete packages, something like a movie frame, but then we must mix up movement into the argument< What are your thoughts of the question?

Thanks guys just when I thought I had an original idea I find out it is old hat, I will get the book if I can.

If we use a thought experiment and supposed an entity on a neutron star, could look out at the outside universe, would the enormous gravity field of such a massive neutron star skew time so that the outside universe would appear to move faster relative to it? We could take this further and suppose two entities on different neutron stars could look at each other, what effect would time dilation then have on each of the entities?

You might be right what I put out there was an idea that a few astronomers and astrophysicists have theorized I think it is called a block universe, I will check my facts and come back.

You really might find this link very interesting.

Hi finster, I really like your type of out of the box thinking, I find it profound and will study your diagrams and come back to you later. Science by the way says there is no such thing as totally empty void or space you propose. But that might be wrong , at the moment of the BB time did not exist so your point of it both happening and not happening is interesting. The singularity was supposed to be infinite in size and mass, thus did it occupy any space as your suggested, after all does three dimensional space have any meaning at the creation moment of the BB? Sorry!! for not responding sooner at first I thought you diagrams and thinking were beyond my understanding.

Please dont leave Denise!, you make real sense with your comments, we humans are limited by nature to observe only that part of reality we need for our survival. A huge part of reality is simply beyond our comprehension, such as how did Existence come to be and exactly what is existence and exactly where is existence (question mark key wont work) The noted atheistic philosopher Jean Paul Sarte conceded that this hope could never be achieved. Said Sarte, “A finite point without an infinite reference point is meaningless and absurd.” He realized that because human knowledge would forever be finite and limited humanity would never ever be in a position to have the ultimate big picture. And science has discovered that the further we push back the frontiers of scientific knowledge the more unanswered questions we have.