[zeroca]

Originally Posted by GUILLE Try to think of nothing as a concept, not as a real fisical thing.

You are right, for instance I imagine nothing before big bang as an empty homogenous space without even any material point in it, and after bid bang as the greatest sphere (with infinitely large radius), within which the universe exists, but imagination is one thing and reality – another.

In principle the conversation was not about what nothing is and does it exist physically or not. Of course nothing is the same as nonexistence, so nothing doesn’t exist in 3-D space within time, i.e. it doesn’t exist physically, i.e. it doesn’t exist at all, but the main point of discussion is that I’m claiming that nothing (which doesn’t exist physically) gave birth of the world (which exists physically) by separation into two opposite phenomenon, which happens within nothing. But Omny (like greatest part of people) says that only something can experience separation, but not nothing (even separation into two opposite equal phenomenon), because as nothing doesn’t exist, so it can’t experience any sort of change, even it can’t be referred to as “it”.

I myself find most difficult to convey my ideas and to explain them to other people, as probably everybody does, so I try to do it with some indirect methods.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by zeroca You are right, for instance I imagine nothing before big bang as an empty homogenous space without even any material point in it, and after bid bang as the greatest sphere (with infinitely large radius), within which the universe exists, but imagination is one thing and reality – another. In principle the conversation was not about what nothing is and does it exist physically or not. Of course nothing is the same as nonexistence, so nothing doesn’t exist in 3-D space within time, i.e. it doesn’t exist physically, i.e. it doesn’t exist at all, but the main point of discussion is that I’m claiming that nothing (which doesn’t exist physically) gave birth of the world (which exists physically) by separation into two opposite phenomenon, which happens within nothing. But Omny (like greatest part of people) says that only something can experience separation, but not nothing (even separation into two opposite equal phenomenon), because as nothing doesn’t exist, so it can’t experience any sort of change, even it can’t be referred to as “it”. I myself find most difficult to convey my ideas and to explain them to other people, as probably everybody does, so I try to do it with some indirect methods.

1. First, nothing doesn't need to be imagination: it is a real thing, without being a thing. I also find it dificult to explain my ideas. nothing doesn't exist, but it is real because it is what we use to describe 0 (getting hard to xpalin).

if you have five apples and you change them for 3 oranges, but you give an orange each to three of you r friends. you are left with nothing.

Ok, im leaving the nothing topic because this thread isn't about it.

2. I think the wrong thing about thinking that nothing can be spiled to create something is that you have to describe how come something comes from nothing. I thing, something can be splited, and beocme something. I also think something can be splited and become nothing (Ok, matter can't be created or destroyed,. but I think this law is wrong). but I think that if you split nothing, you can only get nothing. and anyway, nothing can only be splited theoretically or philosofically, not physically, in the real world.

Also, when the universe was still the size of a golf ball, it wasnt' IN nothing. the universe was then, and still is now, everything. it isn't in nothing. because there is nothing out of the universe (well maybe other universes are also around there, but we still don't know) and out of the universe, nobody knows what there is, but I can guarantee, that it isn't "nothing".

there is a difference between being real and being fisical.

And, if you don't agree, try to think fisically in nothingness. can you? what do you see? vaccum space maybe? well then, you ARE watching something: you are watching space. And string theorists descovered in 1996 that d-branes were the actual fabirc of space and time. so when you whathc space you are whatching fundamental particles.

if there IS a fisical existance of nothingness, it escapes from our imagination and our mental, fisical and psicological capacities.

Guillermo Garrido

[davidgow77]

I think that the most important thing to take into account is that we have two fundamental phenomena in our universe; energy and space. If they are to have both come from nothing, then it should be possible to express space as negative energy (whereby a specific volume of space can be measured in terms of a specific negative energy per unit volume).

My ongoing theory identifies 1 cubic meter of space as being -8.168^06 J/m3, and specifies that each cubic meter of space is propagated in conjuntion with exactly 8.186^06 J of energy. In this way, it is simple to see how all the energy and all space within the universe is propagated from zero (nothing), and zero can be split ad infinitum into a positive integer (energy) and negative integer (space). The effect of gravity can be seen as two energy sources (masses) trying to occupy the negative energy of space to cancel eachother out.

A detailed description of this can be downloaded from my site (www.theoryofeverything.moonfruit.com) and from the TOE Library under Physics.

[zeroca]

Hello GUILLE!
We only entertain ourselves with discussions which sharpen our mind anyway, but practically I used the system based on nothing, so it isn’t so hard to imagine and even-to use.
For some reason people accept without arguing the permanent existence of universe, in spite of its unsteadiness on every level, and doubt about possibility of splitting of nothing into two opposite parts…
I only began this thread and the thread “Planet’s revolving” to show that space and body are opposite parts of the whole and even the mechanism of revolving comes from it. Somehow these two threads are identical. And I wanted to show that the whole universe has one main rule, one main basis, with which all phenomenons can be explained. All basic rules come from single fundamental one. I’m considering some method to explain it clearly, but couldn’t think over any so far... The chances to convince anybody are minimal.

Let’s made an assumption! that this universe really was born from nothing by the process of its separation into two equal opposite parts.
----What would happen, if told above were true, i.e. how would the universe behave in this case?

I’ll take for example the rotation of all planets – particularly of the Earth, because as a lot of scientists say, spin is the peculiarity of the whole universe (I believe it as well, if it makes any difference).

1. The fact that the Earth revolves around its axis, points out that it has angular momentum.
2. The fact that revolving happens permanently, points out that the Earth has permanent angular momentum.
3. For existing of permanent angular momentum there must be a permanent reason.
----I assert that the striving of the solid matter centripetally can serve for such reason, i.e. compression of solid matter from all sides to the center of planet is the reason for arising of repulsive centrifugal force.
----I.e. The center of planet replies to the permanent pressure of solid matter from all sides on it with repulsive permanent force, which’s directed opposite of its motive, i.e. radially from the center and ultimately makes planet to revolve.
4. And the reason for permanent striving of the solid matter centripetally is contained in opposite expansion.

----I. e. if consolidation and expansion are parallel opposite processes to opposite directions, then permanent expansion can be considered a locomotive force for planet’s revolving.
And that takes place on all levels of universe…

Animation:

Blue arrows – centrifugal expansion (the space – locomotive force of revolving)

Gray arrows – centripetal contraction (striving of the matter to the center – opposite of expansion)

Black arrows – centrifugal repulsive force inside the body (the cause of revolving)



or animation at http://autorestore.gol.ge/e7.html

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 I think that the most important thing to take into account is that we have two fundamental phenomena in our universe; energy and space.

isn't matter also considered as one of the fundamental phenomena of the Trinity of Existence (ToE)? Spacetime-Energy-Matter (SEM).

from , it can be surmise that the square power factor of lightspeed serve as transition probabilities between matter and energy.

from , the c serves as transition probability between energy and space.

by directly substitution, and the cubed of lightspeed serves as probability transition between space and matter.

[davidgow77]

Yes this is true from a certain perspective. However, matter is made up from energy and therefore cannot be considered a "raw material" if you like. Matter is essentially energy that has been removed from the space which it should occupy into its own 3-dimensional manifold (a 3-Calabi-yau manifold takes the form of either a proton or a neutron). Matter is simply energy that, although being spatially extended, does not occupy space (how could a clump of positive energy occupy a small volume of negative energy?).

The only two raw materials in the universe are thus energy (positive) and space (negative).

DG

[Guille]

Antonio Lao,

I agree with you.

matter (or mass) is as fundamental as energy or spacetime.

I beleive that probably at the beggining of the universe, just before the big bang, or just at the beggining of it, matter (or mass) wasn't so fundamental because of the high density of matte,r energy, high temp.... and matter could be included in energy.

but now matter is as important and fundamental for the universe as energy or spacetime.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by davidgow77 Yes this is true from a certain perspective. However, matter is made up from energy and therefore cannot be considered a "raw material" if you like. Matter is essentially energy that has been removed from the space which it should occupy into its own 3-dimensional manifold (a 3-Calabi-yau manifold takes the form of either a proton or a neutron). Matter is simply energy that, although being spatially extended, does not occupy space (how could a clump of positive energy occupy a small volume of negative energy?). The only two raw materials in the universe are thus energy (positive) and space (negative). DG

A have been reading your theory. First of all, congratulations, although the ideas might be different to what I think, you presented them very well-structured.

Secondly, I have seen that during the whole document, you never refer to time. can yo clarify me, if you only don't agree with Einistein about gravity, or also you don't agree with Einstein about space-time?

Is time for you a complete difffernet thing, not a dimension? or is time also like space, the negaive energy where neergy used to be?

Thridly, it is true that matter is made of energy, but energy can also be converted to matter. And that is what makes me doubt about which of them is more fundamental, or if both of them are fundamental, or none of them is fundamental.

Fourthly, isn't energy also 3-manifold? I mean, isn't energy in space or under spacetime affection?

Guillermo Garrido

[davidgow77]

To be honest Guille, I don't think that the concept of time needs to be modified, and that Einstein is probably right in saying that we exist in a 4-D spacetime metric. I have written down various models to see if they come up with a better descritption of what time is (for exaomple, trying to argue that energy is time, and that we are made up from time, or examining the concept of absolute time, which I don't think is correct). I think that we need to find a relationship between space, energy and time (as opposed to space energy and matter) and that this is where the answers will be found.

As far as my current ideas about time go, the most interesting thing I can come up with is this: Einstein used the train analogy to describe motion at the speed of light. I would say that only particles made up from one (or maybe two) dimensions can acheive light speed. If we consider that the quarks (which I interpret as single dimesnionsal energies ; 3 quarks = 3-dimensions) exist in protons/neutrons which have 3 dimensions which are travelling at the speed of light, then Einsteins train analogy would hold true, you just have to view a proton or a neutron as being a train. It could never travel anything even close to the speed of light becasue it is itself made up from energy travelling at the speed of light. If it is true that time runs slower nearer massive objects then I think it would be because time should (philosophically anyway) be a measurement of the interaction between energy and space. Less space around a massiver object = less interaction = slower procession of time.

These are just ideas, but I don't have any real idea of how to quantify this..........yet!!!

DG

[Guille]

Originally Posted by zeroca Hello GUILLE! We only entertain ourselves with discussions which sharpen our mind anyway, but practically I used the system based on nothing, so it isn’t so hard to imagine and even-to use. For some reason people accept without arguing the permanent existence of universe, in spite of its unsteadiness on every level, and doubt about possibility of splitting of nothing into two opposite parts… I only began this thread and the thread “Planet’s revolving” to show that space and body are opposite parts of the whole and even the mechanism of revolving comes from it. Somehow these two threads are identical. And I wanted to show that the whole universe has one main rule, one main basis, with which all phenomenons can be explained. All basic rules come from single fundamental one. I’m considering some method to explain it clearly, but couldn’t think over any so far... The chances to convince anybody are minimal. Let’s made an assumption! that this universe really was born from nothing by the process of its separation into two equal opposite parts. ----What would happen, if told above were true, i.e. how would the universe behave in this case? I’ll take for example the rotation of all planets – particularly of the Earth, because as a lot of scientists say, spin is the peculiarity of the whole universe (I believe it as well, if it makes any difference). 1. The fact that the Earth revolves around its axis, points out that it has angular momentum. 2. The fact that revolving happens permanently, points out that the Earth has permanent angular momentum. 3. For existing of permanent angular momentum there must be a permanent reason. ----I assert that the striving of the solid matter centripetally can serve for such reason, i.e. compression of solid matter from all sides to the center of planet is the reason for arising of repulsive centrifugal force. ----I.e. The center of planet replies to the permanent pressure of solid matter from all sides on it with repulsive permanent force, which’s directed opposite of its motive, i.e. radially from the center and ultimately makes planet to revolve. 4. And the reason for permanent striving of the solid matter centripetally is contained in opposite expansion. ----I. e. if consolidation and expansion are parallel opposite processes to opposite directions, then permanent expansion can be considered a locomotive force for planet’s revolving. And that takes place on all levels of universe… animation at http://autorestore.gol.ge/e7.html

It has been the first time I have understood correctly this theory. (last but not least...)

First, I must say that the deduction you have made, is a very logical and racional progresion, but I foyu look more presicely what you say, It has no credibility. (no offence)

The first points are correct and I agree. But don't you think that there must be a reason why that solid matter is atracted to the center of the Earth? Sorry, but if you don't give me a substitude for gravity, I can't agree.

I want to remember that the force that atracts object to the earth is the same that creates the Earth's movement.