[Fredrick]

Hello,

I think this is a good theoretical question (hypothetical question) to ask yuall. What I am interested in figuring out is: the possibility of the following hypothesis, not whether it is rejectable or not. Is it possible!?!?

With the term 'Empty Nest' the specific condition and location within the process of the Big Bang is meant, where during the process of materialization, the center area of the Big Bang was not involved; as in not actively partaking in the materialization itself.

In this hypothesis, when looking back in time, the center of the Big Bang is empty (hence the name). The center in specifics is not involved with materialization — but rather almost undisturbed. Empty Nest is proposed to be surrounded by materialization moving away from the nest, making the nest larger. As such, the process of the Big Bang is then comparable to the behavior of a balloon in which all air molecules are under high pressure when blowing up such device, and that close to all air molecules would move almost perfectly outward all around when that balloon is punctuated from all sides at once (which is of course a condition that cannot be performed on a balloon in a perfect way, but that delivery — close to perfectly executed — is one of the options for how the Big Bang took place). For the Empty Nest theory, the skin of the balloon is the primordial condition of our universe that does not belong to our universe, while the outward movement can be see as part of the process of materialization. Under such conditions, a few molecules in the center of the balloon would be stirred, but not shaken, while they are immediately surrounded by all other air molecules that move outward in all directions at varying speeds. As such, the process of materialization (which occurs in/during the outward movement) would then be an outward manifestation of propelled energy, while the center of the Big Bang does not participate in that process of materialization (though it can nevertheless be considered as a fundamental part of the Big Bang).

So that is the question out there. Would this be theoretically possible with the facts we know today, and if so what are the specific implications/requirements under which this theoretical outcome would have operated?

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Fredrick Hello, I think this is a good theoretical question (hypothetical question) to ask yuall. What I am interested in figuring out is: the possibility of the following hypothesis, not whether it is rejectable or not. Is it possible!?!? With the term 'Empty Nest' the specific condition and location within the process of the Big Bang is meant, where during the process of materialization, the center area of the Big Bang was not involved; as in not actively partaking in the materialization itself. In this hypothesis, when looking back in time, the center of the Big Bang is empty (hence the name). The center in specifics is not involved with materialization — but rather almost undisturbed. Empty Nest is proposed to be surrounded by materialization moving away from the nest, making the nest larger. As such, the process of the Big Bang is then comparable to the behavior of a balloon in which all air molecules are under high pressure when blowing up such device, and that close to all air molecules would move almost perfectly outward all around when that balloon is punctuated from all sides at once (which is of course a condition that cannot be performed on a balloon in a perfect way, but that delivery — close to perfectly executed — is one of the options for how the Big Bang took place); at least in theory. Under such conditions, a few molecules in the center of the balloon would be stirred, but not shaken, while surrounding them all other air molecules move outward in all directions. As such, the process of materialization (which occurs in/during the outward movement) would then be an outward manifestation of propelled energy, while the center of the Big Bang does not participate in that process of materialization (though it can nevertheless be considered as a fundamental part of the Big Bang). So that is the question out there. Would this be theoretically possible with the facts that we know today, and if so what are the specific implications/requirements under which this theory would have operated?

You have asked a very interesting question,let methink it over for a while,then get back to you.
kindregards michael.

[michellemfry]

First, you only asked if such a thing were possible. Second, if waves and wavefronts are not the answer then why do we imagine the expanding space as a large phenomenon while the cause of such a thing is never considered to be small. Drop a stone in the center of a body of water and watch the wavefronts. Drop dark matter in the center and the wavefronts should accelerate, and oops they do. Well what do you know? Could it be possible?

[Guille]

I believe it is possible. I agree with what Michelle said. A requierement is that you need to explain where all the energy of the universe came from? Of course, energy comes from force, and requiers force. But where is force from? Matter. And now one last thing, were is matter? In spacetime, in dimensions. Were are these dimensions, if there is nothing at all that exists? Nowhere. This is circular for it asumes the universe was empty first, but in that case, please someone who believes this give a good explanation of how the force of expansion started, and how does spacetime 'grow'?

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by <<<GUILLE>>> A requierement is that you need to explain where all the energy of the universe came from? Of course, energy comes from force, and requiers force. But where is force from? Matter. And now one last thing, were is matter? In spacetime, in dimensions. Were are these dimensions, if there is nothing at all that exists? Nowhere. This is circular for it asumes the universe was empty first, but in that case, please someone who believes this give a good explanation of how the force of expansion started, and how does spacetime 'grow'?

Let me be rude by delivering first the short answer: Good question, wrong format.

Here is the longer reply:
You are mixing up two sets of questions. One is "Where does our universe come from," the other is "How did our universe come into being?"
When asking where is the force from, the answer needs to either fit our universe's laws or the answer needs to clarify the beginning of those laws but does not fall under those laws itself. As you probably understand, I am not concerned with the question where matter came from; I do not see it as part and parcel - only as parcel - of Empty Nest.

The theory of Empty Nest is a spatial challenge about the set up of the laws of our universe; they do not necessarily have to fall under these laws - they need to explain them.

The question "Where is the force from?" is a question that fits our laws. It has been created with our laws in mind. However, it is also a question to put our noses in the wrong direction. A simplistic example of this question would be: Why was your great-grandfather not hit by a bus or horse so you would not have been born? This question does not matter to the family line (to you), since you were born, but, naturally, it does matter to those who lost dear family members in whatever accident. What I am trying to clarify is that no matter how deep your question - and coming from an absolute correct direction in itself - your question does not address the issue. The question whether Empty Nest is possible is based on that matter is, not where matter came from.

Don't get me wrong: I am interested in where matter came from, but I am not interested in the light of Empty Nest where matter came from. Empty Nest is about materialization that has - inherently - an empty spot in the middle - or not. The single moment of importance for Empty Nest is the very first second.

[mkirkpatrick]

I think that it is possible,and moreover most likely,but I feel you are not going to like my explanation?I hope I am wrong,we will see,the "Empty space and the baloon expanding with all manifestation on its surface,moving away from
what?here we get into difficulties over the meanings of words,and how we can understand one word,many different ways,like the word nothing or no-thing,now common sense will tell you that if I put nothing in i will take nothing out-period.absence of a thing=no-thing=no-sense!Matter to me is energy that has been "cloaked down"its vibrational frequencies have been lessened,and give the "appearance of form.Now here comes the controversy, I maintain that matter,and energy,are both products of mind,at the moment
of becoming from the "Void"=nothing,the nomena (protyle atom)the unmanifested Potentuality,Realized the Potentuality,and the manifestation
process began!!The empty nest is the "Void" the so called nothingness,but was in fact,the unmanifested potentual of all!We are all so to speak surfing on the skin of the baloon,as it continues ite "Inflatering journey"?
kind regards michael.

[Fredrick]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Now here comes the controversy, I maintain that matter,and energy, are both products of mind, at the moment of becoming from the "Void"=nothing,the nomena (protyle atom)the unmanifested Potentuality, Realized the Potentuality, and the manifestation process began!! The empty nest is the "Void" the so called nothingness, but was in fact, the unmanifested potentual of all! We are all so to speak surfing on the skin of the baloon, as it continues ite "Inflatering journey"? kind regards michael.

Interesting thoughts you have, Michael. I am going to use your idea to explain my idea better (though I have the feeling you already have a good understanding of what I am trying to deliver). If materialization can ultimately all be brought back to being products of the mind then Empty Nest is that product of the mind that is inactive. Thinking has to start at a certain point, no matter which topic we refer to, and while it does not have to be linear (actually in most cases it is not), there has to be a beginning (but not necessarily an ending). Various deliveries of thinking exist, and we do not consider them to all start at one and the same place. Yet the very beginning of thought itself all point to a common center. Within this center I claim there is an un-activated part, right in the middle. Moving outwardly, all active thoughts have there own speed, their own rhythm, their own sequence, which can nevertheless all be construed as coming from this one center (before realizing independency). Some thoughts are slow and take a long time to 'mature,' while others are fast and are 'finished' in no time or taken over by other thoughts quickly.

If our universe is a place where the ultimate ruler is thought then an inactive part of thought automatically exists in our universe as well. I consider the binary system a different but nevertheless also appropriate example. The only active ingredient of the binary system is 1, and the only inactive ingredient is 0. There are infinite numbers of 1s and 0s, yet the system itself as a whole can be seen as just 1 system; therefore it can be brought back as a whole to just one of the two numbers, which means that the 0 must then be in hiding inside this single all-encompassing 1, the number that portrays the entire system. On this level 0 is inactive, but must still exist because without the 0 the binary system does not function, and must therefore be there from the start.

[dleviwing]

Fredrick;
Anyone who attempts to find an analogy of the Big Bang and the state of existence prior to it, usually will conclude one of two philosophical paradigms; scientific or theological. Combining these concepts to one idea results in a paradigm of a consciousness of the universe itself.

Your idea seems to suggest an elasticity between the nothingness and the physical manifestation of existence that can be referred to as pressure.
Is the "Empty Nest" possible? – I would have to say of course it is if you can show fundamental laws of physics that provide functionality to this process. Personally I believe that the laws of nature that existed before the Big Bang are the real laws of physics and aRE today the same as they were then.

[Fredrick]

Hi David,

I see where you are going with your good reply, but to me it feels like you are overshooting the specific location a tiny bit of what I am trying to deliver. First, you will not find me using the term nothingness. I have nothing against it, but I find it a vague term that does not clarify antyhing specifically. I use the term nothing, just like finding nothing in my wallet is a moment of embarassment to me; I consider nothing one of the real aspects of my reality.

I use nothing at the center of the first second of the Big Bang as a spatial aspect of materialization; there is an absence of materialization in the process of materialization. Again, much like there is an aspect of having nothing in your wallet is indeed an aspect of our monetary economy. To talk about the economy and disregarding the fact that someone can end up with nothing does not surmount to discussing every aspect of the economy.

Whether or not there is a state before the current state of the universe is not a matter I need to delve into with Empty Nest since that would be like talking about the time before the monetary economy came into being; There is a real separation in that the first state (of bartering) does not deal with money at all, and the second state (the monetary economy) has some laws that are particular to that of monetary economy only, not to the first. Having said that, please understand that nobody should withhold you from talking about what was before the Big Bang, but you cannot force me into doing that either.

I only want to discuss our universe, and Empty Nest is about our universe, not about what was before. Indeed, the Empty Nest implies a letting go of pressure, and want to go one tiny step further than the current expansion as we know today. Expansion does clarify the direction of matter, but it does not calrify where it came from; Empty Nest would explain the direction of matter plus gives an indication that the propelled energy is turned into matter. In Empty Nest the center is empty not because there is nothing, but because it lacks the propellant, and therefore this area does not lead to materialization. Whatever was before the universe came into being, I state as much as anybody else from a scientific perspective: I have no clue, except that is was able to bring forth our universe. The laws of our universe do not necessarily have to be in place in that state; only the condition that these laws could be activated once the universe came into being. Potentially? Yes. Necessary condition? No. Just like the barter economy brought forth the monetary economy, but they are not based on the exact same principles, though they share many.

[mkirkpatrick]

Fredrick,most grateful for your generous remarks on my prevous post.
You said"empty nest is the product of the mind inactive"I agree it would seem so.I would like to further add to this though,"that the active part,the
(surface) is where we live!A type of binary system!Could well be!We on the
(surface) are (on)the empty nest on which,(propels)or pressures is off.I am
pretty useless at computer graphics,Fredrick,and have only justgot used to
a keyboard,so I will have to spell out the idea I have to express this concept.
A circle with a one in the centre,this to me represents the "idea" of on and off!The one in the middle is on,and we are surfing its wave,the circle is off and is outside of this manifested universe.One and none is where it all begun?


kind regards michael.