It's right in front of our noses....

[1plus1]

Nobody, I don't know if you'll read this or not but i think this has alot to do with what you've been trying to explain about how in the middle of everything there is nothing:

My proof of something from nothing is that fact that everything starts from nothing. Motion, movement, velocity, speed is included in everything. How does one plot movement or speed or acceleration or velocity on a grid? What point does that grid start at. X and Y axes for a graph of any nature is this, x is time and y is amount in a certain time(space) or the other way around, i forget. But where does this grid start? What is the point called when X meets Y or Y meets X? They both meet eachother in (0.0) meaning zero time, zero amount/volume. This means that when plotted on a graph to make sense, everything starts in no time and no amount/volume, yet how can something exist if it starts to exist in no time and with no amount? This is how I prove something starts from nothing. Motion clearly starts from (0.0), or (no time.no amount/volume). Motion is something, so this is how something starts from nothing, nothing being defined as no time, no amount/volume

[mkirkpatrick]

Nobody, I don't know if you'll read this or not but i think this has alot to do with what you've been trying to explain about how in the middle of everything there is nothing:

My proof of something from nothing is that fact that everything starts from nothing. Motion, movement, velocity, speed is included in everything. How does one plot movement or speed or acceleration or velocity on a grid? What point does that grid start at. X and Y axes for a graph of any nature is this, x is time and y is amount in a certain time(space) or the other way around, i forget. But where does this grid start? What is the point called when X meets Y or Y meets X? They both meet eachother in (0.0) meaning zero time, zero amount/volume. This means that when plotted on a graph to make sense, everything starts in no time and no amount/volume, yet how can something exist if it starts to exist in no time and with no amount? This is how I prove something starts from nothing. Motion clearly starts from (0.0), or (no time.no amount/volume). Motion is something, so this is how something starts from nothing, nothing being defined as no time, no amount/volume

Welcome 1plus1 to this here wonderful forum,you are of to an excellent start I see,one we have often discussed on this forum.You get something from something,but nothing
from nothing!

warm regards michael.

[1plus1]

But this is the problem i have. How does any sort of quantification of anything start in 0.0? for motion to exist, it starts in no time/noplace, so how does something start to be existant if its root begins in nowhere and at no time? for anything to exist and to prove it exists, you have to show when it started and how it affects other things in time, but all graphs start at 0.0 of anything.

[Max™]

I can get around that for an individual universe, by postulating a prior universe, and so on so forth in a long chain.

Unfortunately I can't very well find a way to get around the initial cause problem, so I just mark that "God" at the moment.

[1plus1]

In a change of topic but not really, I'd like to propose this:

They say the sum of parts has to equal the whole. But think of this....
An atom can be thought as the combination of electrons, neutrons and protons.Yet looking at an atom, you can see the seperate parts, electron, neutron and proton. These three parts make up an atom. Yet after these three parts, there is a 4th part or conclusion based on the three parts, an atom, which is a combination of the three parts. So you get 4 things out of the three things, an electron, a neutron and a proton, and an atom; a combination of the three smaller parts. Electron+neutron+proton= atom, 4 things you percieve out of the only 3 things you have, 4 from 3 , over unity. This can be applied to anything. any object you see is an illusion becuse any object you see is what you say it is based on its smaller combined parts.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Things could come from the possibility of things, or, in Nobody's terms, from a not quite 'nothing' that had a potential to differentiate itself into virtual pluses and minuses, like light and gravity.

We suspect that Nobody is among the dearly departed since he has not posted since April and did so often.

[1plus1]

Max, by individual universes and a long chain of universes, are you implying something along the lines that a universe below our detectionis the cause of any initial movement we make,meaning that we use the total energy released by universes so infinitesimally small to us that we see it as our zero point energy to start movements that have their origin in 0.0, otherwise known as zeropoint feild? Otherwise meaning that a universe smaller than absolute zero to us has a highest energy level (speed oflight energy) that we see as the absolute smallest energy?

[1plus1]

I'd like to point out though that i know many people have said that they've found the theory of everything, but as far as theories go, a theory of everything means that it has the potential to be disproven. what people should find out is the LAW to everything, a set circumstance that applies to everything and cannot be disproven, unlike a theory. I beleive I've found thislaw but I cannot be sure, I don't think anyone can be sure. But i also beleive that tofind the law of everything, you must find the thing that never changes, the exception to every rule, the one, the thing that doesn't disprove anyother theory but reinforces all theories, a law that states that no theory is wrong.

[Max™]

Things could come from the possibility of things, or, in Nobody's terms, from a not quite 'nothing' that had a potential to differentiate itself into virtual pluses and minuses, like light and gravity.

Why would light and gravity be plus and minus? Why not plus and a smaller plus?

Re: 1plus1, I don't think it is a chain of universes within ours, I mean a chain of universes back through a rather unimaginable direction outside of each universe.

Also: that law you're suggesting sounds rather like a faith, religion can be thought of as a bad theory, since it postulates unprovable concepts, and thus is unfalsifiable.

If you cannot possibly prove something could be wrong, how could you prove it could be right?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Nobody thought that gravity somehow erased light, or vice-versa. See his TOE 'The Theory of Nothing'.

Others, like Fluid Energy Theory (FET) think protons take in energy [gravity], then give off photons [light], kind of 'round and 'round.