Greatest theory ever. I explain thye universe

[watcher]

nothing is only an idea. instead of zero let's call it "whole".

this whole has no property except its divisions.

[Pyrotex]

someone claiming the universe isnt how our beloved einstein or hawking describe?!?!?! :coffee_n_pc: burn the heretic

Jetiku,

Down through the last five centuries, an amazing thing happened. It was called Science. It wasn't a religion and not exactly a philosophy, but more like a serious game. It was something like an evolution in Man's ability to see, understand and explain. It was enabled by a series of new languages, mathematics being the Queen of them all.

 

Ever since then, budding scientists (such as your own sweet self) have found themselves in the following position: it is NOT enough to come up with a new explanation for some observation or some physical process. No matter how good the new explanation is.

 

What's required is that first, the budding scientist must fully understand the "old" theory (or explanation--for that is what a theory is), and the mathematics behind it.

Second, the budding scientist must be able to express his new theory with similar or compatible mathematics.

Third, the b.s. must show that under commonly-accepted and well-understood circumstances, the new theory will produce results and predictions at least as good as the old theory already does.

Fourth, the b.s. must be able to show evidence that his new theory is in some way superior to the old theory.

or Fifth, the b.s. must describe an experiment that will yield never-before seen information that will "fit" the new theory, but will NOT "fit" the old, thereby confirming the new theory.

 

If you can get through those five wickets, then the Nobel Prize in Whatever is yours.

 

If you can't, well, at least you had some fun trying, didn't you? :cup: :cup: :D

[joekgamer]

Me "...See and the first lifeforms were therefor microorganisms"

 

Friend "But where did they come from?"

 

Me "Well life was started by some unknown chemical reaction. The exact reaction may not be known but its possible and the most likely scenario."

 

Friend "Well where did the chemicals come from?"

 

Me "Thats a pretty hard question to answer, but basically its theorized the universe came into existence creating the first core particles of reality and an underlying law that is responsible for all others."

 

Friend "How did the universe come into existence if there wasnt anything there?"

 

Me "........."

Well, to me it seems that what you are describing is the Big Bang Theory, or some variation of it. If so, then these points could help you (and others) understand what it actually is:

1. The Big Bang did not start in a large 'explosion' where there was nothing one moment and then *poof!* matter the next. In fact, there was nowhere and 'nowhen' for there to be nothing. Instead, it was rather like reformatting a hard drive. Or, you could think of it as 'aligning' the 'potential' that 'existed' (only in the loosest sense of the word - or the most strict, depending on who you ask) to 'create' space and time. Then, the inherent energy left behind by this 'transformation' 'coalesced' into matter.

2. This matter then 'settled' into various molecules through chemical bonds, which then bonded into larger molecules, etcetera, etcetera.

3. Over time, these molecules 'settled' into proteins and other materials which then can become single-celled organisms, a process which has (believe it or not) been reproduced in a lab. (I'd post a link, but it was some time ago and I have no idea where I saw it)

 

 

someone claiming the universe isnt how our beloved einstein or hawking describe?!?!?! burn the heretic

Why is everyone treating Jetiku's post as a serious reaction? To me it seems more like a joke on how widespread the theories by Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking have become.

 

Or I could be wrong and he could be serious. No offece if you are, Jetiku, but I do hope you were not serious.

[flexinglarge]

What explains our known universes existence? mmm...To know the answer you first must understand what is known in our known universe, and if we already knew everything to be known, we still would not know, because no one is there to tell us, everything you now know, is all there is to be known. Our existence in this reality is confined by our senses and the different variations of interpretation of created instruments, that interpret information for our limited senses. Making statements true or not true through science and experimentation may or may not give us the correct definition of truth. Caught up in an existence at this stage of our species evolution gives us knowledge only from our current understanding of what is and is not, or what we think it is or is not, whether it be true or not true. So why or how our universe exists?, can never be answered just like, Why do we exist?, or Is there a God? In our reality, truths and non truths can only be hypothosized and theorized for infinity for what is our current definition of time and space, which of course may or may not be accurate. So maybe our universes existence cannot be explained with our reality (observation) of itself. But of course this why philosophy exists. Just a Thought.

[Sci]

Jetiku, your proposal is known as the Bi-Verse theory, which may even have the other universe going backward in time or something.

 

Although philosophical in its beginnings, ex nihilo does seem to have to be so. I'll write up a summary and put it in my next post. There is some evidence of a balance of opposites in the universe.

[Sci]

The 'Silly Claim' may have something to it.

 

 

Literally, ‘nothing’ must be the first and only cause, the only candidate, and, yet, nothing cannot be or stay as such, as it must be perfectly unstable, being the simplest state of all—the lack of anything. This ‘nothing’ may be more like a lawless, causeless state.

 

We find ‘nothing’ nowhere. The so-called vacuum must ever fluctuate, making it then not a vacuum, yet, in a way, it is the true vacuum that is fluctuating. We run up against nonexistence here.

 

Atoms are said to be mostly empty space, but not completely empty, for there are fields there and everywhere.

 

It seems that ‘nothing’ never sleeps, but is always up to something. There seems to be no alternative, as there is truly nothing to make anything of.

 

Complete solidity seems to be as impossible as ‘nothing’ to fully form, and perhaps we might call this solidity state infinity. So, only the finite comes to exist at the mid-point of Infinity and zero, if it is that Infinity times Zero = Unity (One).

 

Existence forms from nonexistence because nonexistence cannot stay as such. We just happen to call nonexistence ‘nothing’.

 

As evidence, we do observe a balance of opposites, such as the pair production of electron and positrons, having opposite charge and matter/anti-matter states.

 

It is also said that the positive kinetic energy of stuff perfectly balances out the negative potential energy of gravity.

 

There are also two and only two stable matter particles, the electron and the proton (and their antiparticles) (neutrons decay). There is one stable energy particle, the photon, of no or neutral charge. How come?

 

All stuff can be made of electrons and up/down quarks.

 

Could it also be that the conservation laws are due to the balance of nothing, via opposites?

 

Matter and antimatter when meeting produces light (photons), not nothing, so it would have to be the the opposite polarities of charge that nullify existence, but only in the overview, since ‘nothing’ is unstable. If not, there would till be a lack of anything.

 

(It could also be argued, perhaps, that photons are somehow both a positive and negative charge at peace, somehow, they having no antiparticle but themselves, and therefore sum to zero, too. Clashing gamma rays can indeed produce an electron and a positron.)

 

 

Far out.

[watcher]

The 'Silly Claim' may have something to it.

 

 

Literally, ‘nothing’ must be the first and only cause, the only candidate, and, yet, nothing cannot be or stay as such, as it must be perfectly unstable, being the simplest state of all—the lack of anything. This ‘nothing’ may be more like a lawless, causeless state.

 

We find ‘nothing’ nowhere. The so-called vacuum must ever fluctuate, making it then not a vacuum, yet, in a way, it is the true vacuum that is fluctuating. We run up against nonexistence here.

 

Atoms are said to be mostly empty space, but not completely empty, for there are fields there and everywhere.

 

It seems that ‘nothing’ never sleeps, but is always up to something. There seems to be no alternative, as there is truly nothing to make anything of.

 

Complete solidity seems to be as impossible as ‘nothing’ to fully form, and perhaps we might call this solidity state infinity. So, only the finite comes to exist at the mid-point of Infinity and zero, if it is that Infinity times Zero = Unity (One).

 

Existence forms from nonexistence because nonexistence cannot stay as such. We just happen to call nonexistence ‘nothing’.

 

As evidence, we do observe a balance of opposites, such as the pair production of electron and positrons, having opposite charge and matter/anti-matter states.

 

It is also said that the positive kinetic energy of stuff perfectly balances out the negative potential energy of gravity.

 

There are also two and only two stable matter particles, the electron and the proton (and their antiparticles) (neutrons decay). There is one stable energy particle, the photon, of no or neutral charge. How come?

 

All stuff can be made of electrons and up/down quarks.

 

Could it also be that the conservation laws are due to the balance of nothing, via opposites?

 

Matter and antimatter when meeting produces light (photons), not nothing, so it would have to be the the opposite polarities of charge that nullify existence, but only in the overview, since ‘nothing’ is unstable. If not, there would till be a lack of anything.

 

(It could also be argued, perhaps, that photons are somehow both a positive and negative charge at peace, somehow, they having no antiparticle but themselves, and therefore sum to zero, too. Clashing gamma rays can indeed produce an electron and a positron.)

 

 

Far out.

 

0 + 0 = zero

0 - 0 = zero

0 x 0 = zero

0 divide by zero still zero

 

1 + (-1) is not zero, check out feynman diagram.

 

something invisible and undetectable doesn't necessarily meant "non-existing/nothing".

[Sci]

1 + (-1) is not zero, check out feynman diagram.

 

True, not for matter and antimatter annihilation, for that produces light, but for opposite polarity of charge nullifying all in the overview.