0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
... is if I could ''squeeze'' all the nothing together.
First you have to define what you mean by nothing.There is a definition of nothing that refers to the total absence of Matter and energy. That nothing can still be described by it's physical qualities. It can still be manipulated by matter that is not a part of it. GR says so.Physical coordinates can still be ascribed to it. Yes such a nothing can be manipulated so you can make something out of it.Or do you mean a nothing that does not even have spacetime? A nothing that is the absence of absolutely everything?Such a nothing can only be a weird philosophical concept and can not exist in the Universe.It certainly can't in any way be addressed scientifically, and as such your question would not apply to this concept, because to make something out of anything implies manipulation.
I can not make any sense out of that.Sorry..
I can't make much sense of my own thoughts at times, try imagining sucking in the whole of space into your lungs .
If you can suck it into your lungs it must be a something, not nothing.Negativity would imply something.
You still don't get it. You are contradicting yourself within every description you offer of nothing.A presence of any sort (positive, negative or otherwise) signifies something of existence. You can't have it both ways.
I am saying that space itself behind all the light and cbmr and mass is a negative nothing. Empty negativeness , there is nothing positive about it, zero anything, but negative compared to a ''polarity test''.
By nothing I am referring to an infinite void, the only possible way I can personally think of to make something out of nothing is if I could ''squeeze'' all the nothing together. Any other ways anybody can think of?
That nothing can still be described by it's physical qualities.
It can still be manipulated by matter that is not a part of it. GR says so.Physical coordinates can still be ascribed to it. Yes such a nothing can be manipulated so you can make something out of it.Or do you mean a nothing that does not even have spacetime?
And yet you can talk about it and describe it. Your description is wrong but even with that aside, you are describing it so your claim that it is nothing is obviously false.Anyway we are going in circles.Leaving thread.
Something from nothing is possible, if the experimental equipment, used for verification, lacks the sensitivity to verify. If you cannot measure it, it is not there, except in the imagination. If we can't measure it, but assume it is there, it becomes a unicorn. For example, before the invention of the microscope, life was assumed to materialize through spontaneous generation from nothing. What appeared to be clean pure water, to the naked eye, could team with life, overnight. There was no way to prove that something came first, without a microscope. It began as nothing, was the only science conclusion based on hard experimental data. Beyond that was only speculation and imagination. This was not considered solid science. In chemistry, various materials and substances have phase boundaries. They phases exist, as something, only within limits. Liquid water appears between 0C and 100C. Outside those limits liquid water is nothing. If we could not achieve those limits in the lab we would never see liquid water. Therefore it is nothing but imaginary. In the case of phase called mass, mass cannot move at the speed of light according to special relativity. Therefore no mass can be found at the speed of light. Mass would be nothing, but imaginary, at the speed of light, since the mass phase does not exist there. If you were sitting on a speed of light reference, and some mass from inertial reference, converted to energy, you would see the energy, however, it would appear to come from nothing. You would never know mass was possible if all you ever knew was C. The affect would appear from nothing you ever saw in C. If you were on a rocket ship, that become neutrinos, so it could reach the speed of light, the inertial universe would appear to contract to a point. Because of the point universe, you would not be able to see all the diversity of wavelengths of energy, since all this diversity is also contracted to a point. The diversity of energy wavelengths, would appear as nothing at C. You would never know it existed. There may be affects going on in C, due this inertial energy diversity, that may suggest this diversity, but since we can't see the source diversity, the affect appears to come from nothing. We cannot measure a phase that does not exist at the experimental conditions. We cannot measure liquid water if all we know is 10,000K. We cannot measure inertial affects if all we know is C. If we reverse this, all these unique phases we can see in C, may not exist in inertial reference. If the phase boundary is breeched they disappear. If we built a portal from C, into inertial reference, mass and energy diversity may suddenly appear in inertial, but it will appear to come from nothing. The mass/energy of the BB would appear as coming from nothing that is known in the inertial universe. These nothing phases are only possible at C. We can speculate, but since we and our tools are based, how do you measure C phases, that can't exist in the inertial reference of the tools?
team -> teem; affect -> effect; breeched -> breached. The Chèrèncov effect says mass can move at celerity, when celerity varies, and it doesn't collapse into a point; the body emits broadband radiation.Quote from: Thebox on 23/01/2016 13:39:060∞³-0∞³=01³-1³=00∞³=1³0∞³=xyz1³=xyz...sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please
REGISTER or LOGIN.The correct relation for indeterminates, infinities, and infinitesimals is a nonbijection like ⊃, ∋, ⊂, ∈.
The correct relation for indeterminates, infinities, and infinitesimals is a nonbijection like ⊃, ∋, ⊂, ∈.
He does this all the time. He goes through lists of maths symbols, picks one, misuses it and claims it is New Maths.
I'm not saying your maths is wrong. I'm saying it is impossible to judge because you are misusing standard maths terms and not defining your terms or showing how your use is different.Real mathematicians when inventing a new maths idea will invent a new symbol, but they always explain its use and give examples.They also explain as simply as possible without using convoluted wording.
0∞ includes anything, not only 1; when you subtract that from itself you still get anything.
Quote from: alysdexia on 24/01/2016 17:25:340∞ includes anything, not only 1; when you subtract that from itself you still get anything.0+0=00=1=x=something
If I expand nothing that would be logically less nothing, but if I compress nothing, then logically surely I get something. Making something out of nothing, however we can also define nothing as infinite empty space. So even nothing is something, just lots of nothing.
You can't expand or compress nothing.
Quote from: alysdexia on 30/01/2016 08:26:02You can't expand or compress nothing.Tell that to the big bang or the big crunch then?
''Where in the hell do you get 00=1?''0+0=x=1