[dleviwing]

A perpetual motion machine which begins on its own and continues forever is constantly accelerating [fact]. Machine, system, what have you. Any scientist or mathematician will tell you the same thing.

Though you may be able to find some scientist that would make such a statement, neither myself nor the scientist and mathematicians I've worked with would make such a claim.
Conservation laws do however, indicate that motion is a fixed constant and as the universe organizes this motion from chaotic wave motion into uniformity, matter condenses and the universal expansion accelerates and the speed of light get faster and faster and still produces the same velocity number when measured. (Hubble's law)

On this I must agree with you. Entropy is progressing toward order rather than disorder. The chaos motions (EM radiation) of spatial matter is gradually being converted to uniform motion and condensed into physical particle structures that will eventually return to the fundamental solid state form it started from; its motion will then be absolute uniform motion as it was before the BB event.
Temperature (Thermodynamics) is actually a poor measure of the state of the universe.

I cannot agree with any concept that promotes something from nothing or requires a supreme consciousness to perform the deed of creation.

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by dleviwing Temperature (Thermodynamics) is actually a poor measure of the state of the universe.

The second law of thermodynamics is not only about temperature, it's also about spreading.

Just a question, when you take a glass, and first fill it with a layer of salt, afterwards fill it with a layer of pepper. Then... shake it.
When you keep on shaking.. do you think you automatically will get the two layers apart again??

[David Maes]

Originally Posted by baudrunner The universe does not have an irreversible tendency toward increasing disorder. All the evidence that we can see thus far points to the exact opposite.

Well, expansion is allready spreading (but then again maybe this does not anything have to do with it).

Tell me, when you scrambble an egg, can you unscrambble it??

First put a layer of salt in a glass, then afterwards put a layer of pepper on it.
Then.. Shake it. Keep on shaking. You think you will get to apart layers again??

When you smoke a cigarette, think after smoking it, it will become whole again?

Oeps, now I have to go sleep, to less time (who knows... maybe entropy?)

You think rotting fruit can become clear again??

When you have made a painting.. think the paint can go back in the tubes again?

Does anything fall up??

Well... it seems we all getting younger...

(Don't take it personal... just wanna show you a point...)

[dwing29]

David,

We differ on our perception of things but I do see you have done your homework. With the physics aspect, I can agree with much of what you say.

Your perspective is that in the beginning of all there was nothing and something had to come from it in some way.

Now it does naturally seem logical to think that this is where we should start but really, why do we?
We can say the nothing had to come into existance if we want, some want to but where did all this empty come from to fill up?
I mean we can go that far but my point is, there should be a starting point. So for the same reasons we say that we should start with nothing, we can also say that matter and empty has always existed. Why not?
Lets start here. For all we know and can see, there has never been nothing.
For us, it does not matter. What matters is what and why from the point matter has existed, what appears to be the beginning of this expanding Universe. And I would also add that it has also, always moved.

You speak of gravity as being a displacement of space.
What is being displaced?
The perception is a difference in time, spacetime, etc, etc, bla, bla, bla.
We know something is bending because light did, etc., etc.
We speak so much of space bending but fail to realise that space is matter in some form. But how, it has no mass. All matter has mass. Does it? So how come 90% of the stuff is missing? Black holes my butt. Not all of it will be found in black holes.

How about matter in a more basic form before achieving mass. It does not get displaced by mass, it IS what is being displaced by mass.

Nothing is whats outside the expansion.
Within it, there is no place where nothing exist, only our lack of ability to perceive it. Yet everyone sees the effects of it everyday.

dwing29

OOOPpppppsssss....

Let me rephrase that....

"It is not mass that displaces volumn or space, it IS what is being displaced by mass. "

[subversion]

I keep forgetting which one's mass and which one's matter. Dude, can you please help me? I don't want to sound like a fool.

[dwing29]

Most people view matter and mass as interchangable, same thing, all matter has mass, all matter displaces space and volumn. You know this.
I do not have this view.
I view matter as anything that is not nothing, whether it has mass or not.
Matter is the basic stuff. It moves. The manner in which it moves will dictate its form and the structures that it will form. Everything we see and observe is made of matter. And more we have not learned to see yet.
This is my definition of matter. I do not view ALL matter as having mass or displaces volumn or space.
The base stuff of matter is not a single, smallest particle, the particle that will tie it all together, the glueon to the leptons, bosons, etc. The base stuff is the stuff that makes this so called base particle they still have yet to observe.
Now you could ignore this non-mass matter however it may not have mass but it still effects the behaviour of particles (mass) and visa versa.

[baudrunner]

What I find more improbable than something from nothing is something that has always existed and is without beginning and without end. That is simply an untenable concept, and very unscientific in my view.

Your interest in the TOE must reflect your interest in quantum physics. Remember that in physics the terms particle and object are interchangeable. In quantum reality everything exists in the same place at the same time. TIme then becomes an abstraction, the "temporal framework" for the evolution of the cosmos. The spawning of creation from the weight of a great idea, ie. premonition, is not so improbable in light of this.

I don't understand your point.

[David Maes]

Dave,

We even seem to need zero to be able to do mathematical calculations! When we look to zero, we think of nothing. But zero seems to have special qualities.
Without zero, mathematics would not be possible to exist!

It looks like nothing is a hidden part of our reality.
I think without nothing, everything cannot exist.
(If everything is green, then nothing is green).
Maybe everything is nothing?

[dwing29]

Actually I would say I have a non-interest in much of quantum theory along those lines. "In quantum reality everything exists in the same place at the same time."
Statements like these I consider a QM mind screw that distorts our perception of what is really going on.
Mostly from our inability to see what is going on before the state changes.

Our math needs a place to reference, to start, a zero so we can judge a magnitude of change, a magnitude in our math to repeat. Does not mean the Universe said "Hey, thats cool, lets do that".

If you have no problem with excepting the notion that the nothing or true void has always existed, why not the idea that matter has always existed in some form. Only that it is constantly moving, constantly changing.
People can except the idea that a God has always existed, why not the idea of matter always existing. Something had to always exist otherwise where ever you choose to start you will end up say that it popped into existance for no reason at all, it just did.
If you really think about it, why not matter?
Math and Philisophical ideas are not enough for me to say otherwise.
Better question might be, what caused it to move, move fast enough, to become uniform from chaos, move together rather than apart, flow in unison rather than separate direction, become dense enough (fast enough) to achieve what we perceive as mass, or having mass.
It is the structures of matter that go thru various stages of existance but the basic stuff has always been there. Something has to have always been so I choose matter. I have never seen a zero but I see plenty of matter everyday.

This makes more sense to me than trying to play mind games with myself to percieve a new meanings for things like time, nothing, consciousness, premonition, etc.

We collide particles and then say some pieces of them get anialated, disappear. The purpose to build these colliders was to find the smallest piece of sub atomic matter, matter in its basic form.
It is matter that can not be distroyed, anialated, disappear. Only the form of mass.

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by baudrunner There is nothing permanent, except change.

Nothing in itself was, is and will be permanent…

Originally Posted by baudrunner the term vacuum suggests that there was a space before the premonition initiated the creation process. The concept of nothing is a difficult one to grasp. After all, how can something come out of nothing?

By auto creation, by separation into two equal opposite phenomenon - happened within it, and this arisen process of separation doesn’t require changing of nothing itself, as nothing itself presents (provides ) only the “field”, “ground” for separation.

Originally Posted by baudrunner Remember, space is as much a creation as the matter which occupies it. This is very important, especially when we discuss gravity, or space-time. It might be said that matter and space were separated out of nothing and that the two are mutually exclusive.

Do you assert that the gravity and space are opposite processes? I myself do.

Originally Posted by baudrunner Gravity occurs as the result of spatial displacement. If there were no objects in this universe space would be evenly distributed. Space also wants to restore itself to an even, stable state where its mutable density has a tendency to balance out between and around two masses in the same way that it needs to restore its non-displaced state in the location where a single object is placed, effectively curving the space around it.

Do you believe that if there were no objects in this universe space would be evenly distributed? I.e. you believe in generally homogenous empty space with some distortions, made by objects, thrown about within it?
Would it (space) exist at all in this case? I.e. in case if there were no objects in this universe?
I myself believe that the universe has a foam-like structure (this term belongs to Mr. Tony Stanton) and strongly believe, that the space has direction, as it spreads from the center of planet radially up to some distance, where touches another planet’s space with different direction, so it (space) is a force.

Originally Posted by baudrunner God made the universe, because there was nothing at that time but the potential for it to exist.

I.e. God=nothing;
Can you answer, please, what was before nothing (I believe that another universe like ours, which had annihilated); did existence of this nothing last within time, i.e. how long nothing existed “in itself”?

Originally Posted by baudrunner Our reality is indeed real, and not a holographic projection or a synthesis of the imagination.

Even if our reality hadn’t been real, and had been a holographic projection or a synthesis of the imagination, it would have meant real existence anyway…

Originally Posted by David Maes You think rotting fruit can become clear again??

Of course it can, but not at once:
There’s a method, called figuratively “here, at this very moment”:
If we were able to take a photo of whole universe, i.e. one phase of it, this phase of it generally remains permanent, it only changes conditions of its consisting parts, so when apple is “destroyed”, it visibly is “destroyed” at once, but really that’s only one stage of its (apple's) existence, the following stages (of “building” of an apple) can be described by any botanist: how from the elements the great amount of fruit is “built” by tree step by step.