[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Graybeard The first quote gives no reason, (and I don't believe a reason is necessary ) for the birth of the contact universe, but seems to hint that it is an illusion, at a deeper level symmetry still exists. But to me the word symmetry implies .. more than one state .. that is, to have balance there must be two equal and opposite forces. The second quote implies a single 'nothing' that spilt into two opposite parts in order to obey 'main regularity' ..Zeroca .. you seem to imply that a split was a probablity ... a low probability but nevertheless a probability and that all probabilities eventually occur. The third quote is similar to the first and second, and into 'absolute unity' a ripple, so so small, began a journey. 'Perfect Symmetry' .. 'Absolute Unity' .. 'Main Regularity' ... I read these as similar terms ... We take the term 'Nothing' to mean nothing at all. But maybe there is no such thing and never was. What if, to create a nothing, you empty everything out (this takes energy applied from the outside)... and then you reach a point where there is an amount of energy left ... but in order to remove this energy and achieve your goal.. you have to put more energy in and thereby you contaminate the nothing. You are in a 'Catch 22' situation. Maybe all 'Nothing' has this problem. Maybe this is the true definition of 'Nothing' and always was ?? At any point this 'meta' energy could be released for any of the reasons quoted above ... or no reason at all. And the birth of the 'Contact Universe' occurs. ??? Just speculation .. greg

You have made some very interesting points and observations here Greg,lets hope
that there is more to come.

As my old grandfather used to say before "they" shot him,"If I was not so humble,
I would be proud of you?

regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You know Z, I just can't seem to understand why so many on this forum don't have a clue about the fundamentals and fundamental laws of physics. What is it___you don't believe the absolute laws of the conservation of energy/matter? These laws are absolute, even if taken all the way to classical infinity... In other words___there's no such thing as nothing... The basic fundamentals always existed___by the very laws of eternal physics... Where do you guys get this meta-non-physical non-sense...?

regards

Originally Posted by zeroca Big bang is the first “moment” of world birth. Was there anything before this moment? There was nothing, i.e. there wasn’t anything at all: no 3D-space and no 3D-body. Had nothing any capability to give rise to universe? I think it had. What king of capability? I think that only possibility to receive something from nothing is splitting of latter into two opposite parts, in order to “obey to main regularity” (figurative expression), i.e. no other way... The main rule, regularity that caused arising of the world from nothing was the "weakness" of nothing, the probability of which to remain unchangeable (undivided) equaled to 0.5 (see below): If nothing existed before the birth of the world and the arising of the world is splitting of zero into two equal opposite parts, then Why did a division arise within "nothing"? It hadn't realized itself before division, had it? And even didn't "get" anything after it? It distributed within itself the opposite phenomena to the different places of the space (gravitation-to one place, and the space empty of it (empty of gravitation)-to another) and to the different moments of the time, i.e. arranged several opposite phenomena one after another during the time (for instance: spring-autumn, summer-winter etc.), i.e. this process began to last during the time. What forced "nothing" to split into two opposite parts? What initial impact, impulse? And what was the reason? By Then there wasn't any of them, was there? And it was easier for it to remain zero? Again the same word- regularity!!! It's more than "nothing" and more than the universe with its attributes, having been created from the same "nothing"; Probability-it's a regularity too, and the probability, that "everything" would have remained within "nothing" as it had been, or "anything" would have changed equaled to 50-50%, that's to say that the probability that zero would have remained in itself unchangeable (without division) didn't equal to 1, but equaled to 0,5. I.e. zero had two possibilities, two alternatives: 1. That "everything" would have remained as it had been-unchangeable (but the mentioned condition of it didn't last during the time, as time didn’t exist), or 2."anything" would have changed (let's call it a possibility, credibility to change), and the change definitely meant its splitting into two opposite parts (because the change of the other kind within it is impossible, and what's more: if anything is expected to happen within nothing, it's expected to happen at once, as "at this moment" time doesn't exist... If we call the probability of something, that equals to 1- "steadfastness", (for instance, probability of falling out of six on a dice, on each side of which is inscribed six) and the above quality of zero-"weakness", we can say that the latter (the weakness) caused the birth of the world (i.e. zero included the code of the birth of the world in itself and there hadn't been necessity to force it "from the outside").

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie You know Z, I just can't seem to understand why so many on this forum don't have a clue about the fundamentals and fundamental laws of physics...

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Where do you guys get this meta-non-physical non-sense...?

You know Lloyd, I just can't seem to understand as well why so many on this forum believe that they have a clue about the fundamentals and fundamental laws of physics, and not only laws of physics, but of everything…
And why do they begin from criticism trying to prove that they are experts but everything told by somebody else is nonsense.
I express my opinion, I think so should you, but not about me but about the subject, which is touched in this thread…
If you doubt anything within my post, you can ask a question about it and I’ll do everything in my power to clear the matter.

Regards,
zeroca.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by Graybeard The second quote implies a single 'nothing' that spilt into two opposite parts in order to obey 'main regularity' ..Zeroca .. you seem to imply that a split was a probablity ... a low probability but nevertheless a probability and that all probabilities eventually occur.

Maybe I couldn’t’ perfectly get the essence of the quote from your post (please clarify it anew if you don’t mind), but I say that splitting of nothing into two opposite parts was necessity, inevitability and I try to explain it according to the law of probability:
As nothingness before world arising (Before so called “big bang”) was only phenomenon, i.e. nothingness “existed” alone within no time (I call this state nothingness in itself figuratively), so expected probable-credible-possible change must have happened at once (i.e. time started only at this moment - at the moment of change), but
Had nothing any possibility to change?
I myself see only possibility of it: splitting into equal opposite phenomena and I think this happened at once…
But why it happened? What was the primary cause?
This process didn’t require “outer intervention”. As I mentioned, the state of nothingness (before “big bang”) wasn’t “ferroconcrete”, it was unstable because of mentioned above probability. Nothingness (not itself acknowledging) had credibility to be the sum of equal opposite phenomena. The probability that nothingness would stay unchanged didn’t equal to 100%, i.e. it had the probability to change…

Regards,
zeroca.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by zeroca Big bang is the first “moment” of world birth. Was there anything before this moment? There was nothing, i.e. there wasn’t anything at all: no 3D-space and no 3D-body. Had nothing any capability to give rise to universe? I think it had. What king of capability? I think that only possibility to receive something from nothing is splitting of latter into two opposite parts, in order to “obey to main regularity” (figurative expression), i.e. no other way... The main rule, regularity that caused arising of the world from nothing was the "weakness" of nothing, the probability of which to remain unchangeable (undivided) equaled to 0.5 (see below): If nothing existed before the birth of the world and the arising of the world is splitting of zero into two equal opposite parts, then Why did a division arise within "nothing"? It hadn't realized itself before division, had it? And even didn't "get" anything after it? It distributed within itself the opposite phenomena to the different places of the space (gravitation-to one place, and the space empty of it (empty of gravitation)-to another) and to the different moments of the time, i.e. arranged several opposite phenomena one after another during the time (for instance: spring-autumn, summer-winter etc.), i.e. this process began to last during the time. What forced "nothing" to split into two opposite parts? What initial impact, impulse? And what was the reason? By Then there wasn't any of them, was there? And it was easier for it to remain zero? Again the same word- regularity!!! It's more than "nothing" and more than the universe with its attributes, having been created from the same "nothing"; Probability-it's a regularity too, and the probability, that "everything" would have remained within "nothing" as it had been, or "anything" would have changed equaled to 50-50%, that's to say that the probability that zero would have remained in itself unchangeable (without division) didn't equal to 1, but equaled to 0,5. I.e. zero had two possibilities, two alternatives: 1. That "everything" would have remained as it had been-unchangeable (but the mentioned condition of it didn't last during the time, as time didn’t exist), or 2."anything" would have changed (let's call it a possibility, credibility to change), and the change definitely meant its splitting into two opposite parts (because the change of the other kind within it is impossible, and what's more: if anything is expected to happen within nothing, it's expected to happen at once, as "at this moment" time doesn't exist... If we call the probability of something, that equals to 1- "steadfastness", (for instance, probability of falling out of six on a dice, on each side of which is inscribed six) and the above quality of zero-"weakness", we can say that the latter (the weakness) caused the birth of the world (i.e. zero included the code of the birth of the world in itself and there hadn't been necessity to force it "from the outside").

Merab,my friend,are you possibly implying here with regard the splitting in two,
the concept of Ying and Yang?I would be interested in your views on this.
best regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

That's my point Z, meta-non-physicians don't even recognize when science is being referred to___they take it personal. Metaphysics has no proof possible___none. Only science can be put in a test tube, and proved, etc., etc., therefore meta-non-physics is a non-starter___period... Z, there are no questions to ask of unproven brain states, referred to as meta-magic-physics... Try the cesium clock, for starters... Scientific accuracy to one second in 300k years... One of the absolute fundamentals of physics___radiation decay...[hint-just realize it exists under quantum/relative time frames, yet acts as a classical motion] Please, try to remove the meta-non-physical aligators from your thinking. Follow the cesium clock's true quantum relative cosmological decay of, 10^137 years, and just try, with trans-finite, and trans-infinite virtual logic to see what is truly there... All molecular motion and decay of matter always decays to real absolute finite matter and absolute infinite low entropy thermo-hydro-dynamic motion___always and eternally... The laws of radiation decay, represented by the tick-tick-tick of the cesium clock, require the entire space-time universe's decay, into tiny bits of absolute stardust, and to rejoin infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic motion and matter, at the time mentioned above... Don't try reversing the above, it won't work. Thermodynamics is a one way arrow of time; you'll need to use the other side of logic to build it back to the original absolutely real dark matter singularity, of re-quantimized and re-relativized matter motion___then re-explode it, to start space-time all over again___the entire infinite/finite circle must be completed... The path back from total universal decay, into infinite, non-quantimized and non-relativized, infinite space and its finite matter is also, most likely, 10^137 years of evolution, to thermodynamically equilibriate it's de-volution decay___the principle of equivalence... The entire S1 and S2, infinite space and finite space, are always in absolute thermodynamic equilibrium... Now, there's a start___fill in the blanks. If you need help___ask. I have the entire logic puzzle, as a single piece... And it's entirely based on real science___the tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom...as is most true and real physics...

regards,
Lloyd

Originally Posted by zeroca You know Lloyd, I just can't seem to understand as well why so many on this forum believe that they have a clue about the fundamentals and fundamental laws of physics, and not only laws of physics, but of everything… And why do they begin from criticism trying to prove that they are experts but everything told by somebody else is nonsense. I express my opinion, I think so should you, but not about me but about the subject, which is touched in this thread… If you doubt anything within my post, you can ask a question about it and I’ll do everything in my power to clear the matter. Regards, zeroca.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie That's my point Z, meta-non-physicians don't even recognize when science is being referred to___they take it personal. Metaphysics has no proof possible___none. Only science can be put in a test tube, and proved, etc., etc., therefore meta-non-physics is a non-starter___period... Z, there are no questions to ask of unproven brain states, referred to as meta-magic-physics... Try the cesium clock, for starters... Scientific accuracy to one second in 300k years... One of the absolute fundamentals of physics___radiation decay...[hint-just realize it exists under quantum/relative time frames, yet acts as a classical motion] Please, try to remove the meta-non-physical aligators from your thinking. Follow the cesium clock's true quantum relative cosmological decay of, 10^137 years, and just try, with trans-finite, and trans-infinite virtual logic to see what is truly there... All molecular motion and decay of matter always decays to real absolute finite matter and absolute infinite low entropy thermo-hydro-dynamic motion___always and eternally... The laws of radiation decay, represented by the tick-tick-tick of the cesium clock, require the entire space-time universe's decay, into tiny bits of absolute stardust, and to rejoin infinite thermo-hydro-dynamic motion and matter, at the time mentioned above... Don't try reversing the above, it won't work. Thermodynamics is a one way arrow of time; you'll need to use the other side of logic to build it back to the original absolutely real dark matter singularity, of re-quantimized and re-relativized matter motion___then re-explode it, to start space-time all over again... The path back from total universal decay, into infinite, non-quantimized and non-relativized, infinite space and its finite matter is also, most likely, 10^137 years of evolution, to thermodynamically equilibriate it's de-volution decay___the principle of equivalence... The entire S1 and S2, infinite space and finite space, are always in absolute thermodynamic equilibrium... Now, there's a start___fill in the blanks. If you need help___ask. I have the entire logic puzzle, as a single piece... And it's entirely based on real science___the tick-tick-tick of the cesium atom...as is most true and real physics... regards, Lloyd

What you have as a single piece my friend,is a loop for you to jump through,your
knowledge of physics is about as profound as mine of Martian landscaping!
regards michael.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Mk, I see your segacious inanity still rules you___absolutely___completely... Your pusillanimous antics of imbecilic pride, overwhelm your own mindless spiritual ego... Stick to inanity, it fits you, but then again, I know it's all you can do...

regards,

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick What you have as a single piece my friend,is a loop for you to jump through,your knowledge of physics is about as profound as mine of Martian landscaping! regards michael.

p.s.
If you were at all smart, you'd have noticed you criticized before the plot___plotless... Mk, you shouldn't use the word knowledge, when pertaining to yourself... You know, MK, a good thread starter might be; "Either Meta-Physics Is Fake Or Science Is Fake - Choose One Or The Other And Defend Why" I think this would really get to the heart of the matter/spirit controversy___maybe even a TOE will fall out...

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie If you need help___ask. Regards, Lloyd

Dear Lloyd!

I can’t pretend that I get anything from your reply. As you are older then me, let’s assume that you know a lot I don’t do. But please, say it in normal human language so as to make it understandable for common people like me.
Please specify, what kind of helping you are offering to me?
I need it but never asked you about it.

Best regards,
zeroca.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by mkirkpatrick Merab,my friend,are you possibly implying here with regard the splitting in two, the concept of Ying and Yang?I would be interested in your views on this. best regards michael.

Yes, my friend!

Just the concept of Ying and Yang; or the concept of plus and minus; or the concept of two opposite phenomena (it’s the same), so as to say the universe and every phenomena within it presents the unity of two opposite phenomena i.e. the whole universe is based on a principle of duality.

Dear Mikhael!

As this thread is about primary cause of “big bang”, I wouldn’t like to bombard it with concept of Ying and Yang and with considerations about this concept. Might Antonio doesn't like it. I want to be close to mentioned theme.

Best regards,
Merab.