[subversion]

but time MUST effect nothingness to cause it to separate, period.
therefore what you ARE saying, whether you realize it or not, is that time suddenly jumps out of nowhere and changes something which SHOULD be timeless and therefore should NOT change.

please don't feel frustrated with me negating your theory. Actually your theory is very correct and true but it's missing ever such a small aspect, which is absolutely essential. So close, and yet, like how infinity is contained within the smallest instant, so far away.

good luck, subversion

ps. to beg the argument further, why do you believe zero has the intrinsic ability to change? I say zero has the intrinsic INABILITY to change. Maybe your theory is based on the ASSUMPTION that zero has the intrinsic need to change, in which case it is a very self-consistent theory, but still based on an assumption which I personally do not believe.

good luck, subversion

[zeroca]

Originally Posted by subversion

please don't feel frustrated with me negating your theory.

Let's discuss this matter until you become bored of it...

Originally Posted by subversion

time suddenly jumps out of nowhere

If within zero change jumped out of nowhere, it was accompanied by 3D space and time just in the moment of jumping, just since the moment of jump starting, but not before it, because before jumping there hadn't been any need in 3Dspace+time, as there hadn't existed any kind of difference (as unseparated nothingness in itself is homogenous), and 3Dspace+time are features, or rather measurements of difference (spacial and temporal), i.e change and 3Dspace+time jumped out of nowhere "at the same time", "simultaneously".

Originally Posted by subversion

Maybe your theory is based on the ASSUMPTION

To say briefly, I prefer my theory to be based on an assumption in order it to be checked afterwards practically.

Originally Posted by subversion

why do you believe zero has the intrinsic ability to change? I say zero has the intrinsic INABILITY to change.

Do you believe that zero can't be the sum of opposite real numbers? Only that's enough to prove theoretically that zero has the intrinsic ability to be sum of finite or infinite pairs of opposite numbers. Do you believe that bucket doesn't have the ability to be filled with water? don't say that it's evident because everybody can check it...
I say that not everybody but only a few can also check the ability of nothingness to be container for universe...

[subversion]

Originally Posted by zeroca

If within zero change jumped out of nowhere, it was accompanied by 3D space and time just in the moment of jumping, just since the moment of jump starting, but not before it, because before jumping there hadn't been any need in 3Dspace+time, as there hadn't existed any kind of difference (as unseparated nothingness in itself is homogenous),

I agree with you to an extent. When zero separated, time for us began at that exact same moment. However, what I'm saying is that in order for zero TO separate, which is a difference, time had to have already existed in some sense of the word. In this manner, we must admit that there was SOME SORT of time before the big bang which is separate from our time, otherwise it creates a paradox. To avoid this paradox you say "time can have a start, yes, but only within another time frame." Time did have a start, we know this, so now we ought to find out what mechanism triggered this start within the context of another time frame.

I see your logic that zero has the capacity to separate into equal and opposite phenomena, I just say that zero is balanced and stable and that it must be perturbed to cause it to separate. SO in other words, of course the bucket has the ability to be filled with water, but it can't fill itself, we have to fill it, just as something has to cause zero to separate.

peace

[zeroca]

I see that I couldn't answer and explain properly the question you asked. I'll cite as an example part from my cite. Look it through, if you don't mind, maybe it will somehow satisfy the interest:

The main rule, regularity that caused arising of the world from nothing was the "weakness" of nothing (i.e. of zero, i.e. of absolute), the probability of which to remain unchangeable (undivided) equaled to 0.5

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 phenomenons to the different places of the space (gravitation-to one place, and the space empty of it-to another) and to the different moments of the time, i.e. arranged several opposite phenomenons one after another within 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: 1.that "everything" would have remained as it had been-unchangeable (but the mentioned condition of it didn't last during the time), or 2."anything" would have changed (let's call it a possibility of change), and the change definitely meant its splitting into two opposite parts (because the change of the other kind within it is impossible) 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").

[hiren]

> I believe whole universe is made up of only one form and that is
energy.
> This energy is completely in linear motion making the most straight
line
> in universe even than light. Now when this energy starts momentum
towards
> rotational direction, first its moves like wave form like in photons,
than
> in revolutionary motion like electron and atlast rotational motion
which
> in deep if we think it stands for nothing. By nothing I means nothing
at
> all. This period of energy from linear motion towards rotational
motion is
> known as time. And matter is the form of energy that comes in
existence
> when energy loosing linear motion starts its journey towards
rotational
> motion.
>
>
>
> I am trying to find the unified theory or a singular theory which
> explain the whole universe. And my base of this theory is motion. I
> believe motion of energy make this universe active and all the four
> forces gravitational, weak, strong and electromagnetic force are all
due
> to the variation in rotational motion of energy. Einstein said if any
> thing that can explain unified theory that is mathematics and I agree
to
> it because I also believe that calculations in motion of energy, ie.
> Linear towards rotational in between where energy behave likes wave
form
> and revolutionary like electrons and proton, neutrons explains us all
> this four forces. This motion also explain us theory of singularity
where
> every matter in universe will come at one point. it also explain all
the
> universal bodies are alive whether they are planets, stars,
asteroids,
> comets or living organism on this earth, only the revolutionary
motion of
> matters in living organisms are more complex than other living b!
> odies of universe and that I can prove to you.
>
>
>
> Sir there are lots of things I want to explain but the problem with
me
> is first I donot know whether I am going on right path and second I
do
> not have research facility to prove my theories true.
>
>
>
> So please do reply me on hirman555@yahoo.com
>
> Thanking u
>
> Hiren patel.
>

[dleviwing]

And my base of this theory is motion.

Hiren;
I believe you have chosen the right base, but you have yet to comprehend how motion functions. Also though it is possible to envision energy a an entity, it is desirable to use the term fundamental substance as the physical "entity". Energy is a dimension denoting a quantitative measurement of the motion state of this fundamental matter.

Both linear and rotational (spin) motions are "Uniform Motion". What you are missing is "Random Motion" or chaotic wave function motion to complete your base.

Since I have already accomplished this theory, you may wish to review what I have presented in other posts.

I am curious as to what lead you to this approach of motion as being the key?
Best regards;
Dave

[zeroca]

Motion's main characteristic feature - speed is relative, distance is relative, and time as well is relative, so how it happens that motion generally is absolute?

[dleviwing]

Originally Posted by zeroca

Motion's main characteristic feature - speed is relative, distance is relative, and time as well is relative, so how it happens that motion generally is absolute?

zeroca;
You are quoting the perceptions based on Relativity; not the facts of reality.
The fact that all observers are in a state of motion is why we require Relativity to determine the relationship between observers. Relativity is used for scientific measure of dimensions and not as an interpretation of physical reality.
Your statement indicates you are functioning on an academic induced belief and not facts.
It is important to understand the difference between the science of measurement and the scientific paradigm philosophy needed to interpret the meaning of the numbers obtained from these measurements.
Unfortunately this is one of the main obstacles preventing the advancement of science. You may have heard it referred to as "Academic Brainwashing".
Best regards;
Dave

[zeroca]

Dear sir!
If you can answer the question set before you directly, do it please, if you can not or don't wish, please do not try to offend or annoy me, just leave the question unanswered!
Best regards,
Merab.

[dleviwing]

zeroca;
Motion is an absolute quantity of any physical system. The sum total of uniform and random motion of a system is equivalent to "Absolute Motion"; The quantity of motion possessed by the object that expanded into our universe.

Just like riding in a car, everything in the car has the same quantity of motion as the car even though the quantities of matter are different. Movement inside the car only changes how the motion is distributed by the matter of those objects. Our vehicle is the universe; everything in the universe has the same quantity of motion; thus "Absolute".

Preceding your question with statements referring to terminology indicating "Relativity", leads me to assume you were attempting to say that Relativity defines motion. I strongly object to anyone applying the mathematics of Relativity incorrectly.

I also have a problem with something from nothing concepts. (Standard Big Bang model)
Is your theory attempting to solve this anomaly of the standard BB model?