[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com  It could be that space ends where there is no more electromagnetic (or other) influence to define it. Next to it would be nothing, but not in the sense that this "nothing" exists, since it could be that space defines existence. |
yes
this my contention.
further that when define that amount of space needed for , say atom , electron, proton , or a quark to exist in the first place , that this space is beyond the physical confinements of the nature of the particle its self. and when multiplied by the amount of the particles assumed to be in the Universe , you will get , approximately the expance of space that is now observed.
Quote:
| Perhaps nothing not only begets nothing, but it is also the case that "nothing" cannot even exist—and this is why there has to be something, thereby removing the horrendous question of "why is there something rather than nothing?". |
absolutely
north