southerncross

oh ok, lets not even consider every place in the universe is completely seperate yet every place is the same place, a different place being different because it's at a different time. And what is laughable is the only alternative you lot have ever come back with, wormholes in space. Supernatural baloney, I may not be right but at least it is more feasible than wormholes. You cannot occupy the same space as another space maybe because you cannot also occupy the same time. Points are not connected by 4th dimension wormholes, there is no connection but there may be exclusionary boundaries. If you draw a wave you create places in the crests and troughs. If time is a wave it creates places in the crests and troughs. AKA space. And if the places are all the same perfect nothing then the places are all the same place. I only ever came here to ask if there was a scientific reason why not and what alternative there is, i have my answer.

Before there was time=nothing. (note:there may not have been before time) One place and one moment is nothing=here and now. Time is a wave and in all the crests and troughs of this wave are this one place and one moment. The one place and the one moment are seperated in the wave by distance and time from the next one place and one time but they still are all the one place and one time. One place and one time can be different in motion such as velocity, direction, rotation and spin but they still are all the one place and one time. A loop in time, like a bubble in water, well you either see where I am going or you don't. Nothing does not have to come from anywhere, the logic that the universe came from everything leaves the question where did everything come from? If your arguement is not every point in the universe comes from nothing and is the same point acting seperately in time, then you have to have some proof because this is a more logical arguement.

I don’t have all the answers but it seems to make sense that nothing is the only alternative to a supernatural answer for what the universe is made of. I can except that time alone is a natural occurrence “that just is”, that it moves as a wave and that the area (of nothing) within the bell curves of this wave is space. To marry the quantum and the classical world, if I may be so bold, what I suggest is an incredibly simple idea that all moments are the same moment (now) in time and all places are the same place (here) in space, of and in the individual bell curves of space/time. The struggle to understand I believe comes from our language, perspective/existence within the crests and troughs (loops of energy/matter?) of the time-wave, is the same moment and place at different times. Consider I am saying there is only one moment at different times, a failure of language not logic. Every point, empty space, physical matter or physiological cognition is the exact same point but with an individual existence/perspective. The individuals are moving, interacting, combining, experiencing as separate entities but they all are the same point.

I hope you have satisfied your need to feel justified now, the topic a year on is at the top of the page.

I have never had religious or supernatural beleifs poetic or otherwise, I have no idea what your talking about saviour was crucified and nails, check your facts that was not me. Points on opposite sides of the universe are connected, this is not mysticism, it is all to easy to dimiss what you don't understand. inow you have put up very little if any arguements ever to me, your not being helpfull.

Sure, it may require you change your story completely though. By using the memory of the past subject you live life as that person, sensing all that they sense and thinking all that they think. You do this for a relatively short time remembering the experience when you stop meditating or when you wake or however your story goes. In this way you experience another time without the need to travel through time via a machine. The story could go any way you want, as in you don't know youself while you are the past subject, which seems more real than the alternative, you become the subject in the past. The story could be more focused on the present and the change you have after the experience of past subjects lives. Hope this was food for thought.

Nothing by itself is nothing. Nothing at one moment and nothing at the next moment in time are still nothing but now nothing is relative to something existing elsewhere. When there is time there is space, and where there is a next moment in time there is next space. This would mean every point in the universe is the same point , they act independantly because every frame of reference that we consider a point is HERE/NOW relative to that point. (i.e. the only fundamental point is nothingness) So is it possible that time makes space, that space makes energy, that energy makes matter and matter makes you and me? Every point is HERE/NOW, there is no past and future apart from a memory or a wish. Every space is the same space (here) Every moment is the same moment (now) To exist in space/time, you must be relative to one of the here/now points that make it up. (a place/moment we call here/now in space/time, space being all the places and time being all the moments) You are here/now (nothingness), all other points are existing independantly eleswhere even though they also are you. Looking at the universe this way will give you greater insights to science I am sure.

Where is here and when is now, is it not the relationship between points of space-time that have any meaning? Am I not only -here and now- in relation to other points? That is it is not possible to be here and now without a relationship, without being relative to some other here and now. The question is what is the difference between one here and now and another here and now? 3333333 3222223 3211123 3210123 3211123 3222223 3333333 0 is the place holder for here and now and space and time exist only in the relationship with other points. The universe is in total balance, 3 is three places from 0 just as 0 is three places from 3. Relative to all points those points are all here and now. 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 0000000 Which is just 0 when you are not being relative to a particular point. Space is only the relationship between different, yet in balance, points of time. GRAVITY? Upset this balance 3333333 3222223 3211123 321012X 3211123 3222223 3333333 By blocking the expansions from 0 with matter X would you not get gravity? Nothing by itself is nothing but is nothing having a relationship with itself at different moments (moments in balance with one another) giving space and time a reality? QUANTUM? If there is an observer, would that observation not reset 0 at the point of observation? NOTHING? Is this not just a place holder for something? That is doesn’t here and now (space and time) not even exist except in the relationship. Crazy crazy stuff, nails go in each hand and one big one through both feet.

So zero for time is the place holder for now? And is zero for space the place holder for here? i.e. Here and Now in space-time is the relative zero point FOR every point? Like this: <...00000000000000000...> the universe. But relative to any particular point in this universe zero is the only here and now like this: <...54321012345...> Relative to the universe: This <...00000000000...> = just 0, in different ways it is both everything and nothing. i.e. Relative to a particular point it is the only here and now in time-space and relative to the universe it is every here and now in space-time(Every point being just 0 and just a place holder for particular points), the truth and the reality may be that both are correct depending on the relative perception. So speculating but in keeping with the above: Every point may be a meaningless zero point of here and now, a moment without time and a point without space. (would this be a definition for nothing, is nothing simply a place holder for something??) i.e. A moment without time: the zero point by itself, a place holder for time to start but which has yet to start-NOW. A point without space: again a zero point by itself, a place where space would start but has yet to start-HERE. Could it be that the relationship that is between 0 and 1... in both space and time cases is what creates our preception of space-time? So zero for time is the place holder for now? And is zero for space the place holder for here?

YT 2095 You said, “Zero is only a place holder”, not to be confused with the absence of anything. So zero is the place holder in space and time, a point is nowhere by itself, it needs to be somewhere in relation to another point. A point by itself cannot say it is HERE as this has no meaning, for HERE to have meaning there would have to be a THERE to be the place holder so you could say HERE is distance X from THERE. If you drew a number line with only the zero marked on it, it would still give more information than a number line with only a One marked on it. Zero would at least be a starting point where the One by itself would be meaningless. This thought seems only to address space so I was thinking the zero place holder for the time part of space-time would have to be the NOW. So is zero, in regards to space-time, a HERE and NOW point, which is a meaningless point without a THERE and THEN point to be relative to? Is HERE at zero and is NOW at zero, is HERE a place or just a place holder and is NOW a moment or just a moment holder? Is HERE and NOW by itself nothing? P.S. Thanks for all the other great responses and the interesting definitions, I wonder if Mr Skeptics circular argument stands when the NOTHING in question is strictly to do with space-time.

Hi hobz Very much what I was thinking, "nothing-space" that is. I may have changed my mind. I have learnt a lesson hear at SFN, that is there should be a reason why you believe something or you are just guessing and for some personal reason you are choosing to believe that guess is a fact. That said a best guess with supporting reasons is a good place to start any investigation. I would think these are all the options 1. Nothing does not exist 2. Nothing does exist 3. Nothing does not exist but something can be totally indiscernible 4. Nothing is a flawed concept I choose 3. Mainly because something would include both space and time and they seem inseparable. If you can divide any moment infinitely then you should be able divide any space infinitely. Nothing may have never existed it may only approach zero without ever reaching it. This is my best guess.

Hi again elas. We can see an image of the past? Do you mean a photo or drawing that really exists in the present? Because you then go on to say "the time at the point where the image was created is 'now' the same instant that the observer is experiencing." I am just saying that the image is not the actual thing. Also; and i am guilty of this as well, you are stating that time is infinite but the fact is we don't really know if infinity exists at all. THE UNIVERSE COMES FROM NOWHERE? (I should have included the question mark) >Hangs Head In Shame< I don't think i will continue with this thread but I will continue posting so thanks, lesson learned, I hope.

Nowhere remains nowhere. SPACETIME Imagine a time line of infinitely divisible moments, match each of theses moments with a line of infinitely divisible physical points. Merge the lines together into a single line of space-time. RELATIVE TO Every imaginable point is at the present moment and is at zero along the line. To the left are moments in space and to the right is moments in space relative to every zero point of space-time. (Zero is the same moment even if infinitely divided but space is indiscernible as it is reduced by infinite divisions) If I am one point and you are another we are at different places and at different moments but we are both at zero relative to ourselves and we both experience the present along the same space-time line. QUANTUM <00000000000000000000000000000> MACRO <9876543210123456789> Don't ask me to prove it, it is a speculation but do try and falsify it.

DEFINITION: Nothing in 3 dimensions is space. Nothing without dimensions is nowhere, it is not of a place. You could not have a vacume without a place to have it no matter how intense. Space is really space-time, the two cannot be seperated, space has to exist in a moment and a moment has to be relative to somewhere. I am only speculating here, if there was only one moment would there only be one space, i mean if there was no next moment and space-time cannot be seperated, then there would be no next space.

Ok back to conservation of energy: It said in wiki: If the zero point field energy density decreases as the volume of the universe expands. I took the "IF" as not knowing if the fabric of space becomes less dense as it expands. If it is not getting less dense then as the universe expands then more energy is still coming from its original source. From somewhere else? A doorway from some other place opens for an arbitrary moment and an arbitrary amount of energy is sent through then the doorway closes. This creates an arbitrary sized place that expands and becomes less dense over time. Or A doorway opens from somewhere else and stays open letting energy pour in creating space in equilibrium with energy. Any thoughts?

I see your point, do you see mine? I am not saying a place comes from nothing just that it didn't come some other place or a divine being. I am asking everyone here to speculate that a place, any place and all places, the universe, came from, was converted into or is a side effect of, something that is not a place and what that could be. I can have the same argument as you: If the universe came from somewhere else, how did it do this? Is there anything preventing other things appearing out of this other somewhere, or the universe going back into this other somewhere? From my previous post there was a wiki definition of the universe that pointed loosely to time as the cause for the effect of a place, so I find your whole post kinda negative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_field Nowhere became somewhere. It is also as simple as that. from wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe [edit] Definition as reality See also: Reality and Physics More customarily, the universe is defined as everything that exists, has existed and will exist. According to this definition and our present understanding, the universe consists of three elements: space and time, collectively known as space-time or the vacuum; matter and various forms of energy and momentum occupying space-time; and the physical laws that govern the first two. These elements will be discussed in greater detail below. A related definition of "universe" is everything that exists at a single moment of time, such as the present, as in the sentence "The universe is now bathed uniformly in microwave radiation". Everything that is somewhere comes from a moment called the present? The present is not a place but places come from it?

Go down the philosophical track a little, don't let testability be such a brick wall. You may find that further down this track there is something that is testable. Please, this is up for speculation if you have an ideas they only need be feasible. ok here is a speculation pulled from wiki: If the zero point field energy density decreases as the volume of the universe expands then, by definition, the upper bound for each quantum oscillator must be reduced and consequently the "average" total energy for each quantum space in the universe must be reduced correspondingly. Perhaps the Planck length is not a constant but stretches out as the universe expands? There would be some precedence for this in the stretching out of light in the cosmic microwave background radiation. There are three constants used to create the Planck length constant. Is it possible that the gravitational constant, always assumed to be constant throughout the expansion of the universe, is not a constant? This seems plausible, in view of structural changes that would occur in the universe as the fabric of space becomes less dense as it expands. Of the three constants included in the Planck length the gravitational constant seems to be most directly correlated with the expansion of this primordial field.

People find it hard not to assign a place or a person for the universe to have come from; extrapolate somewhere back and you get nowhere, I see no sense in complicating it further. It’s encouraging to see how much time and money we are willing to spend. The problem I encountered was nothing can be somewhere and nowhere. The vacuum of space is nothing in 3 dimensions and nothing that space came from and expands into is nothing in 0 dimensions, it is nothing that is nowhere or just simply nowhere. "Something", would be describing matter, to be ignored for the moment, let’s just work with nothing without a place (nowhere) and nothing with a place (somewhere). No. I think people find it hard not to assign a place. Other dimensions, in my opinion, are just another way to give a place to that which has none. Only places have borders, the universe is not "IN" nowhere, nowhere is not a place. I have spoke of the universe expanding "INTO" nowhere but this is incorrect also, the universe expands from nowhere (coverts nowhere to somewhere), what was once nowhere becomes somewhere but somewhere is not "IN" nowhere because nowhere is not a place. How does nowhere convert to somewhere? That is the question. I see no sense in assigning a place or a person for nowhere, extrapolate forward or back and this is what you get. You may start a thread: "The universe comes from other dimensions" or "The Universe comes from a God" but this thread is a thought experiment and assumes the universe comes from nowhere, and the question is how does nowhere convert to somewhere.

To keep things simple lets ignor the matter in the universe for the moment. The universe comes from nowhere, there must be an explanation as to why nowhere becomes somewhere and this leads people to think of highly speculative theories.

Yeah, Brane cosmology, the universe INSIDE a higher dimensional space called the "bulk". Like I said, people find it hard to not assign a place. I personally am comfortable with the universe coming from nowhere and expanding into nowhere and I see no sense in complicating it further. I do see that there must be an explanation as to why nowhere becomes somewhere and this leads people to think of highly speculative theories. Maybe i will start a thread in speculations

I think people find it hard to think of nothing without a place. I don't think people can apply physics properly without realizing they will always assign a place even when there isn't one. The big bang started the universe at a point somewhere and the universe expands into somewhere are both in my opinion not the proper (physics) way to think. The big bang started the universe nowhere and expands nowhere would be more accurate yet still incomplete. The bottom line here is a point is only a point because of it's relationship to other points and any point by itself has no place and is nowhere, the relationship between the points is what makes the universe, not the points themselves. If you think of the points as the universe you are assigning a place even when there isn't one.

Extrapolating out or forward into the “outer regions” you have the universe expanding into nothing that is nowhere, but of interest here is extrapolating in or back which seems to lead to the same point: A universe that came from a point of nothing that is nowhere expanding into the same nothing that is nowhere. If space is nothing in three dimensions then by extrapolating back brings us to a nothing in 0 dimensions. What I am trying to find out is this “nothing nowhere” concept what physicists’ consider to be where the universe came from and also what it is expanding into?

There is nothing that is somewhere as in a space that contains nothing, but can there be nothing that is nowhere? Ignoring the matter in the universe for the moment could the universe be a whole lot of nothing that is somewhere having originally come from a nothing that was nowhere?