An Idea

[N0B0DY]

I think I'll be going with that one, Austin, cause defining something can be quite a bugger. Thanks.

[Profpat]

Hi Everyone;

Austin, from my one paradox of something from nothing ( which can be explained if you believe in God ) you come up with 3 or more paradoxes, to explain what I can explain with 1. You have it here but not here ( paradox #1 ). Everywhere but nowhere ( paradox #2 ). Existence and nonexistence ( paradox #3 ). I believe Occram when faced with the possibility of 1 paradox versus 3 paradoxes, the obvious choice would be to explore the ONE. Sorry but it appears to be a lot of gpbbledygook on your part my friend.

Nobody I do agree parallel universes colliding could explain our universe, but again more complications in that now we have 2 universes to explain. I also don't buy into that theory.

Dipayankar, I'm not that familiar with astrophysics to answer your question. My hobby if you will is quantum or nuclear physics.

Just my thoughts gentlemen, keep your thoughts coming.

Best to all,

Pat

P.S. BTW It could be something from something it's just that everything would be in a very little ( but real ) tiny point, at the beginning.

[Drifter]

If we observe the paradox with the mind of an autistic child, we will see that what is not there.

http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant_syndrome/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8YXZTlwTAU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq3Zj...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ9...eature=related

paradoxical?, for sure . . .

Hi Everyone;

Austin, from my one paradox of something from nothing ( which can be explained if you believe in God ) you come up with 3 or more paradoxes, to explain what I can explain with 1. You have it here but not here ( paradox #1 ). Everywhere but nowhere ( paradox #2 ). Existence and nonexistence ( paradox #3 ). I believe Occram when faced with the possibility of 1 paradox versus 3 paradoxes, the obvious choice would be to explore the ONE. Sorry but it appears to be a lot of gpbbledygook on your part my friend.

Nobody I do agree parallel universes colliding could explain our universe, but again more complications in that now we have 2 universes to explain. I also don't buy into that theory.

Dipayankar, I'm not that familiar with astrophysics to answer your question. My hobby if you will is quantum or nuclear physics.

Just my thoughts gentlemen, keep your thoughts coming.

Best to all,

Pat

[Profpat]

Hi Drifter;

Thanks for the links. I would call them interesting curiousities, not paradoxes.

Best to you,

Pat

[Drifter]

Semantics Professor.
Awareness sees all. The thinking-labelling mechanism steps in and starts labelling things based on ones unique and individual culture, conditioning, and memory and therein lies the problem.
10 people witnessing the same event will give 10 different accounts of what was seen, as each saw from a seperate and distinctively different perspective, albeit possibly only 6 degrees of seperation, the functioning awareness within all saw the same occurance each individual describes what was seen relative to themselves and not on the whole of it, hypnosis and regression have proven this.
Naturally we consider this odd, or uncommon, yet we fail to be bewildered[awed] by such examples of the Omnipotent Power of The Mind.

Best to you Sir

Hi Drifter;

Thanks for the links. I would call them interesting curiousities, not paradoxes.

Best to you,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

[Drifter]

They are merely a relection of what they see.
Namaste` Brother

[Profpat]

You are a poet and an artist Austin.
Drifter whether paradoxes or curiousities, they are interesting links.

Best to both of you,

Pat

[austintorn@aol.com]

[dipayankar]

Yeah, and how many Universes from one impact??? 1, 2, 3..... infinite??? How much of energy would be required for infinite creation?? Would our laws of physics hold there?? and why??

I think Greg pretty much nailed it when he said the lack of dimensionless particles result in dimensions...by default I would add.

The two membrane collision you mentioned, Pat, would first require the formation of membranes which I think any one-demsional collision would accomplish. So two opposing one-dimesional time directions would result in the membranes and they would contain fluctuations that would accumulate from the membranes to result in the 3-d universe you're after.

Depending upon the force of the random fluctuations of the universes, the motion would follow the greatest amplitude because it would overcome lesser amplitudes, and this would result in universal collisions which would create a continuous formation of new universes originating from the point of impact.

I'm not sure if I would buy it either.