[guest39538]

I know you have not edited fully yet but I ''grabbed''  this part because you have just described my pre-big bang notion in a void.  Now consider what you have just said, but also please consider that the manifestation of zero point energy is continuous over time, time beginning from the first manifestation that starts filling the void.
I will comment again later when you have done your edit , just needed to write that down in case I forget it.

Are you saying that there was a void before the continuous manifestation of zero point energy over time? Are you saying that zero point energy equates to the continual creation of energy, as opposed to the old saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed?

Yes, energy is created then dispersed though rather than destroyed.

[Bogie_smiles]

I know you have not edited fully yet but I ''grabbed''  this part because you have just described my pre-big bang notion in a void.  Now consider what you have just said, but also please consider that the manifestation of zero point energy is continuous over time, time beginning from the first manifestation that starts filling the void.
I will comment again later when you have done your edit , just needed to write that down in case I forget it.

Are you saying that there was a void before the continuous manifestation of zero point energy over time? Are you saying that zero point energy equates to the continual creation of energy, as opposed to the old saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed?

Yes, energy is created then dispersed though rather than destroyed.

Here is a Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

The difference is that I am going to be able to explain how a lot of things work in the ISU, that you can’t explain using QFT, GR, QM, and any form of zero point energy, in my opinion.

Read this about how Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy; in particular the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.[4] Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.[5]

Do you have answers or are you dealing with “as yet” unknowns, and if you are, do you address those unknowns with theories, hypotheses, or speculations?

[guest39538]

I know you have not edited fully yet but I ''grabbed''  this part because you have just described my pre-big bang notion in a void.  Now consider what you have just said, but also please consider that the manifestation of zero point energy is continuous over time, time beginning from the first manifestation that starts filling the void.
I will comment again later when you have done your edit , just needed to write that down in case I forget it.

Are you saying that there was a void before the continuous manifestation of zero point energy over time? Are you saying that zero point energy equates to the continual creation of energy, as opposed to the old saying that energy cannot be created or destroyed?

Yes, energy is created then dispersed though rather than destroyed.

Here is a Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

The difference is that I am going to be able to explain how a lot of things work in the ISU, that you can’t explain using QFT, GR, QM, and any form of zero point energy, in my opinion.

Read this about how Physics currently lacks a full theoretical model for understanding zero-point energy; in particular the discrepancy between theorized and observed vacuum energy is a source of major contention.[4] Physicists Richard Feynman and John Wheeler calculated the zero-point radiation of the vacuum to be an order of magnitude greater than nuclear energy, with a single light bulb containing enough energy to boil all the world's oceans.[5]

Do you have answers or are you dealing with “as yet” unknowns, and if you are, do you address those unknowns with theories, hypotheses, or speculations?

To be honest I try to ignore Wiki and think  of things in my own way first before I look on Wiki properly.  I do not like to be given the information freely, I have to think hard about it first to work up from scratch. Then when I finally fine tune my thinking in with the new research (more reading of wiki)  , I sort of get a better understanding and interpretation.
Do I have answers to ZpE my version, yes.   Can I explain it using the Wiki type version , not at this time. Because

Zero-point energy (ZPE) or ground state energy is the lowest possible energy that a quantum mechanical system may have.

I would be arguing about the semantics again because that is just gibberish and not even what  ZpE is.

[Bogie_smiles]

To be honest I try to ignore Wiki and think  of things in my own way first before I look on Wiki properly.  I do not like to be given the information freely, I have to think hard about it first to work up from scratch. Then when I finally fine tune my thinking in with the new research (more reading of wiki)  , I sort of get a better understanding and interpretation.
Do I have answers to ZpE my version, yes.   Can I explain it using the Wiki type version , not at this time. Because … I would be arguing about the semantics again because that is just gibberish and not even what  ZpE is.

Thebox, I wonder how much cosmological reality a person would be able to gain through initial hard thinking, if they didn’t first adequately educate themselves on known science as a basis to build on. I know you must have a lot of knowledge, and you realize you cannot “think out” the right answers if you are not familiar with the history of science, the current models, and already falsified ideas before you come out and post your views on the Internet.

It is a long path to come up with ideas that are new, that logically address the as yet unknowns, are hard to falsify, and that are themselves internally consistent; and I don’t mean that we can speculate about green meanies on the far side of the moon, and then say, prove us wrong. We have to be able to defend our models with known science, and our ideas can't be inconsistent with generally accepted observations and data. If they are, members are doing us a favor by pointing that out.


If you do a personal model, it isn’t to guide others or to give hints to the professionals, it is to put your ideas out there for review. If you use zero point energy as a basis of your ideas, remember that it has been around a long time, it is far from being the consensus, and some of the predictions it makes are orders of magnitude off from known observations and data, as indicated it the Wiki that it looks like you waved off. Sometimes you just have to go back to the drawing board, as I have done frequently in the past twenty years, and each time you do, you should come back with better ideas, based on all of your years of learning and testing ideas.

[guest39538]

To be honest I try to ignore Wiki and think  of things in my own way first before I look on Wiki properly.  I do not like to be given the information freely, I have to think hard about it first to work up from scratch. Then when I finally fine tune my thinking in with the new research (more reading of wiki)  , I sort of get a better understanding and interpretation.
Do I have answers to ZpE my version, yes.   Can I explain it using the Wiki type version , not at this time. Because … I would be arguing about the semantics again because that is just gibberish and not even what  ZpE is.

Thebox, I wonder how much cosmological reality a person would be able to gain through initial hard thinking, if they didn’t first adequately educate themselves on known science as a basis to build on. I know you must have a lot of knowledge, and you realize you cannot “think out” the right answers if you are not familiar with the history of science, the current models, and already falsified ideas before you come out and post your views on the Internet.

It is a long path to come up with ideas that are new, that logically address the as yet unknowns, are hard to falsify, and that are themselves internally consistent; and I don’t mean that we can speculate about green meanies on the far side of the moon, and then say, prove us wrong. We have to be able to defend our models with known science, and our ideas can't be inconsistent with generally accepted observations and data. If they are, members are doing us a favor by pointing that out.


If you do a personal model, it isn’t to guide others or to give hints to the professionals, it is to put your ideas out there for review. If you use zero point energy as a basis of your ideas, remember that it has been around a long time, it is far from being the consensus, and some of the predictions it makes are orders of magnitude off from known observations and data, as indicated it the Wiki that it looks like you waved off. Sometimes you just have to go back to the drawing board, as I have done frequently in the past twenty years, and each time you do, you should come back with better ideas, based on all of your years of learning and testing ideas.

Of course I understand that, my ideas are based on science facts, if they were't, they would not work in principle thoughts. The facts I learnt being interpreted better than the present interpretations giving me the Universe in a sense. 
Things can only work to the physics, like I said I generally read the top few sentences on Wiki, then I consider what they are really saying behind the ''mask'' of limited information.
ZpE is not difficult to comprehend if looked at from a single point. The problem with zero point energy, if we get it wrong we could create a BH that will grow and swallow the Universe, then BH's will form within the BH and swallow that Universe, etc forever and repeat.
Read Heaven post dude, it is a difficult read though , I have copy and pasted it to notepad to read in sections. 

Added- Lol my thoughts on little grey men are purely fiction, just a thought that I would love to meet a little grey man from out there somewhere maybe.  Don't you think it would be the coolest thing for ''Aliens'' to visit the Earth?

P.s read some of opportunities work, he is being overlooked, he is clever and writes some good work in his papers.

[Bogie_smiles]

ZpE is not difficult to comprehend if looked at from a single point. The problem with zero point energy, if we get it wrong we could create a BH that will grow and swallow the Universe, then BH's will form within the BH and swallow that Universe, etc forever and repeat.

Thanks for the warning, and you be careful messing with the ZpE.

Read Heaven post dude, it is a difficult read though , I have copy and pasted it to notepad to read in sections. 

I’m not familiar with Heaven post, so post a link and I will see if it is something my mommy will let me read (I suspect someone will believe that, lol).

Added- Lol my thoughts on little grey men are purely fiction, just a thought that I would love to meet a little grey man from out there somewhere maybe.  Don't you think it would be the coolest thing for ''Aliens'' to visit the Earth?

I’ve said it often, that my model supports the idea that the universe abounds with life, and there are a potentially infinite number of places where intelligent little grey men are thinking the same thing, and probably driving those little red cars.

How would you know if they were friendly or not, and if they know our human nature, that could explain why they aren’t showing themselves.

P.s read some of opportunities work, he is being overlooked, he is clever and writes some good work in his papers.

Is that a paid political advertisement?

[guest39538]

Thanks for the warning, and you be careful messing with the ZpE.

That is why the best way to run countless experiments is in your mind. Then when going to physical test, start small if the thought experiments find a ''pass''

I’m not familiar with Heaven post, so post a link and I will see if it is something my mommy will let me read (I suspect someone will believe that, lol).

It is in this section page 1 lol.

I’ve said it often, that my model supports the idea that the universe abounds with life, and there are a potentially infinite number of places where intelligent little grey men are thinking the same thing, and probably driving those little red cars.

How would you know if they were friendly or not, and if they know our human nature, that could explain why they aren’t showing themselves.

If they are intelligent , they are friendly. Logic says they are friendly.

Is that a paid political advertisement?

Not at all, I think he writes some ok stuff, I have not give it 100% attention or took it to bits yet (question it) , but there is some good stuff to think about. Also in discussion with the Opp, he has shown me he has intelligence. It is a bit like talking to you .

[Bogie_smiles]

If they are intelligent , they are friendly. Logic says they are friendly.

Is that the Will Robinson perspective. Try Captain Kirk's approach and put up the shields first, then talk.

[guest39538]

If they are intelligent , they are friendly. Logic says they are friendly.

Is that the Will Robinson perspective. Try Captain Kirk's approach and put up the shields first, then talk.

Robots perspective, but robots perspective could change based on new information .   For example if Robot had communication with them, he would calculate the risk.  If he had no communication or new information to go off, the result would remain inconclusive. Robot would have to try to establish communication.  Language could be a barrier  so robot would try use calming music to communicate.  Hoping the ''aliens'' feel. 

Anyway off topic lol, got carried away sorry. I love imaginative.

[Bogie_smiles]

Anyway off topic ...

True.

Back to the topic. I suspect that the reason you think there is gray area in the three choices for the explanation of the existence of the universe is that you don't agree with my logic, and want to contrive some way for "something from nothing" to be the right choice.

Many people have trouble with getting their arms around the idea of infinity, eternity and always existed. You almost have to try every possible scenario that could explain a beginning from nothing. So give me a good scenario of something from nothing. Remember what nothingness is: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for space, time or energy.

[guest39538]

Anyway off topic ...

True.

Back to the topic. I suspect that the reason you think there is gray area in the three choices for the explanation of the existence of the universe is that you don't agree with my logic, and want to contrive some way for "something from nothing" to be the right choice.

Many people have trouble with getting their arms around the idea of infinity, eternity and always existed. You almost have to try every possible scenario that could explain a beginning from nothing. So give me a good scenario of something from nothing. Remember what nothingness is: No space, no time, no energy, and no potential for space, time or energy.

I do see your idea of always existed, but the problem with that idea we can logically take away everything except the space.  The problem is if you assume nothingness means no space.  Consider space is this nothingness, an infinite amount of points.

added- Now nothingness cannot be lessened , there is nothing before nothingness, so the only possible absolute answer and change that can occur of nothingness is ''somethingness''  i,e Δ∞₀space = E

So how do we get energy from nothing ?

The Dirac sea , popping into and out of existence static charges by ZpP (zero point pressure).   Which the mechanics are a miracle of physics which I am still trying to work out .

The Dirac sea is formed ,   I prefer submerged in an endless formed ocean of energy .

Edit end...

[Bogie_smiles]

I do see your idea of always existed, but the problem with that idea we can logically take away everything except the space.  The problem is if you assume nothingness means no space.  Consider space is this nothingness, an infinite amount of points.

No! Nothingness means no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for space, time or energy, and that means that there can be no logic, let alone some logic about space being nothing.

If you want nothingness to include space, you would have to change the definition of nothingness. You are approving a faulty logic to say space equates to nothingness. Is your definition of nothingness then the following:

Nothingness is space, and space has points of space, so space is nothing, points of space are nothing, but guess what, let us call “logic” nothing too.

Is that your definition of nothingness?

If that is your definition of nothingness, you can say space, points in space, and human logic can exist and they are nothing. You can then explain a whole universe into existence out of your faulty definition of nothingness by saying the proof is, just look around at the many fine things as far as the eye can see.

[guest39538]

No! Nothingness means no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for space, time or energy, and that means that there can be no logic, let alone some logic about space being nothing.

No!  no space means 0 dimensions, a point, a point of nothingness.  Think about that and in the mean time here is a fun time invention just to lighten the thread,  Wireless bumping cars using Tesla coil .


bumper cars.jpg (40.89 kB . 876x459 - viewed 3380 times)

[Bogie_smiles]

No!  no space means 0 dimensions, a point, a point of nothingness.

Note subtle changes to incorporate your last argument.

No! Nothingness means no space, no time, no energy, and no potential for space, time or energy, and that means that there cannot be even a point of space.

If you want nothingness to include a point of space, you would have to change the definition of nothingness. You are approving a faulty logic to say a point of space equates to nothingness. Is your definition of nothingness then the following:

Nothingness is a point of space, and so a point of space is nothing, points of space are nothing, but guess what, let us call “logic” nothing too.

Is that your definition of nothingness?

If that is your definition of nothingness, you can say a point of space is nothing, multiple points of space are nothing, and human logic can exist and that is nothing too. You can then explain a whole universe into existence out of you faulty definition of nothingness by saying the proof is, just look around at the many fine things as far as the eye can see.

[guest39538]

faulty definition

If it is faulty , why can I have a box ''full'' of nothingness?

What is in the box ?

There is nothing in the box?

Is there not space?

Yes but what is space?

Space is nothing?

If the box is empty of substance and there is nothing in the box , then nothingness is the space in the box.

[Bogie_smiles]

If it is faulty , why can I have a box ''full'' of nothingness?

What is in the box ?

There is nothing in the box?

Is there not space?

Yes but what is space?

Space is nothing?

If the box is empty of substance and there is nothing in the box , then nothingness is the space in the box.

You can't have a box. There are no boxes in nothingness. Want to try for a cup? Sorry, no cups in nothingness either. And no space in nothingness, so give up your space contrivances because there are no contrivances in nothingness either.

[guest39538]

If it is faulty , why can I have a box ''full'' of nothingness?

What is in the box ?

There is nothing in the box?

Is there not space?

Yes but what is space?

Space is nothing?

If the box is empty of substance and there is nothing in the box , then nothingness is the space in the box.

You can't have a box. There are no boxes in nothingness. Want to try for a cup? Sorry, no cups in nothingness either. And no space in nothingness, so give up your space contrivances because there are no contrivances in nothingness either.

Stop for a moment and consider the mechanics of space! 

What mechanics right?

Nothing for causality?

Cannot be created or destroyed ?

Where is our evidence it can be displaced?

[Bogie_smiles]

Stop for a moment and consider the mechanics of space! 

What mechanics right?

Nothing for causality?

Cannot be created or destroyed ?

Where is our evidence it can be displaced?

Do you mean displaced by nothingness?

[guest39538]

Stop for a moment and consider the mechanics of space! 

What mechanics right?

Nothing for causality?

Cannot be created or destroyed ?

Where is our evidence it can be displaced?

Do you mean displaced by nothingness?

No, I meant displace the nothingness, move space in alternative wording. We can't displace space , we can displace space-time though I think.

[Bogie_smiles]

No, I meant displace the nothingness, move space in alternative wording. We can't displace space , we can displace space-time though I think.

Let me see if I have this straight.

You want me to consider the mechanics of space, and are assuming I would wonder, “what mechanics”.

OK, let’s suppose I wonder that.

Then you are saying there is nothing about space that has causality, i.e., space cannot cause anything.

I wouldn’t argue with you about that, and would simply say there is no empty space, no void in space. Space is a place where things are and where things happen.

Then you acknowledge the old but reliable saying, “Space cannot be created or destroyed”.

To that I would say that space is already infinite, and has always been filled with the gravitational wave energy density profile of space. The gravitational wave energy density of space has causality to the extent that it sustains the presence of wave-particles and objects, and governs the motion of objects through space.

And you finish by asking, “Where is our evidence that nothingness can be displaced, meaning where is our evidence that space can be moved resulting in the replacement of nothingness?”

To that I would say there never was or could be nothingness, so the concept of replacing nothingness is a non-sequitur.



I have a saying which I posted earlier:


If at first there was nothing, not even God, then nothing could ever be.
But just look around at the many fine things as far as the eye can see.
So say with certainty one of two things it seems to make sense to proclaim,
Either God, or the universe, has always been here,
And maybe they're one and the same.