The Theory Of Nothing (Ton)

[Sci]

The Theory of Nothing (TON)

 

 

Intro

 

‘Nothing’ is nonexistence, the lack of anything, which is, of course, is still different from existence, but seeming to have no other quantity or quality; yet, would this lack of anything be a stable situation, or perhaps more of a lawless realm? Obviously, it is not the state now, but if it were stable, it would have been.

 

At any rate, we usually dismiss nothing as being able to be any kind of cause, for we feel that nothing begets nothing, yet it always comes back to haunt, for there is really and literally nothing to make the ‘elementals’ of.

 

It doesn’t help to say that the basic ‘elementals’ were around forever, what ever these are, such as perhaps electrons, positrons, quarks, antiquarks, and photons, because not only are their types very few and particular, but so would be their overall count of their amount, as well as their individual specific particulars such as their form, mass, charge, location, size, matter/antimatter state, and whatever other properties they have.

 

The above strongly mandates that the ‘elementals’ must be created, for things cannot be already defined and made in their particulars without ever having been made and defined as such in the first place that never was. So, we are again back to the helping of the notion that there is nothing to make the basic stuff out of. Naturally this also precludes stuff being made of smaller stuff all the way down, plus that idea leads to an infinite regress in which all effects would take forever to cascade upward.

 

(And, no a God was not just sitting around forever, fully formed, for this supposed elemental fellow could not have been more fundamental that the make-up of His system of mind that does thinking, planning, and creating of everything else. The theory of life or consciousness requiring Life or Consciousness behind it goes nowhere, for the proponents have all of the sudden than then all the more would there have to be a higher LIFE or CONSCIOUSNESS behind the proposed Life or Consciousness. There is not even anything to make an electron out of, right off the bat, much less some ultimate complexity of God.)

 

 

Support:

 

Even though this is in the “Strange claims” forum, I offer the support and evidence of a balance of opposites summing to nothing as being the conservation laws, the vacuum fluctuation of the QM emission of particles pairs of opposite polarity of charge and matter/antimatter state, the positive kinetic energy of stuff balancing the negative potential energy of gravity, photons being neutral in charge and therefore their own antiparticle, as well as there being only two stable matter particles, the electron and the proton (and their antiparticles, of course), and that there is nothing to make the basics out of. I could also add that Infinity times Zero must equal unity (One), meaning that our finite realm must lie between the impossibles of complete solidity and total vacuity.

 

I don’t see any other recourse than nothing as the prime mover, for not only can there be no other cause, but I also note that simpler and simpler states more readily react, combine, and/or go through phase changes, hinting that the simplest state, nothing, must be perfectly unstable, and, indeed, we see nothing nowhere, for all is filled with field. The vacuum fluctuates, and so then it is no longer a true vacuum. Nothing never sleeps, but is always up to something. It could also be said that nothing must be the causeless, eternal and infinite basis, for which it qualifies, it also being the only candidate for the prime mover.

 

 

Summary:

 

Boundless space, overall electric neutrality, and conservation of charge, momentum, and energy leads inexorably to nothingness, really. The zero-equation is the reason the universe is the way it is, the reason why the universe must be the way it is, and the reason why it is. It is the perfect zero-sum equation. All operates with infinite precision.

 

Zero and infinity, the smallest and the largest, both lead to nonexistence, and so our finite existence cannot be there, but must be at its midpoint. Zero and infinity lead to many problems in algebra and cosmology. They are the same thing: nonexistence.

 

(The deathly spiral of paradox ever follows the carving of wishes into the stone hollows of religious dogma forever blocked from the allowables. The believing dance grinds to the elemental of that Being who can never be fundamental. All such tales of original stuff made of love end where there’s nothing to make it of, not even quarks. This theory did not set out to disprove God, but it does, for nothing is not the everything of God, but is actually its opposite.)

 

Next:

 

Now we can look for more of the balances in the cosmos, as well as how and why the 4th dimension can and must nullify all of existence, but only in the overview, for nothing cannot be or stay as such.

[Maine farmer]

Still room for God for those who choose to believe. If there is a God, that God would have to be the everything and the nothing of which the universe is made. A God could be both the creator and the created. If the particles that exist out of nothing contain inormation, such as charge, spin, momentum, then combined, the whole of everything and nothing, could also contain all possible knowlege, and be self-aware. We could be considered to be a part of God ("Created in his image") and God could be considered to be a part of us all. Out of nothing we were created, and to nothing we will return. "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust."

This is a simple faith that makes the unknowable believable, and bearable.

[Sci]

Still room for God for those who choose to believe. If there is a God, that God would have to be the everything and the nothing of which the universe is made. A God could be both the creator and the created. If the particles that exist out of nothing contain inormation, such as charge, spin, momentum, then combined, the whole of everything and nothing, could also contain all possible knowlege, and be self-aware. We could be considered to be a part of God ("Created in his image") and God could be considered to be a part of us all. Out of nothing we were created, and to nothing we will return. "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust."

This is a simple faith that makes the unknowable believable, and bearable.

 

'Nothing' going to everything is not God, not a Being, and not a planner with a purpose to create what is as it is, but just nothing, plus it, as an eternal basis of all, would itself have had no creation, so, no Creator required or possible. Any beings created along the way, such as us, or alien lifeforms, are not God. My ex nihilo is not the same as there first being a God, He then creating everything ex nihilo. 'Nothing' is exactly the prime mover. Nothing is exactly the opposite of the everything of God as a basis.

[Maine farmer]

Nothing is not really the exact opposite of everything. I recall reading somewhere, can't remember where (I should call myself 'i4got')that there was a time when christians did not want to accept the existance of zero, probably for the reasons you state. But try to do math without using zero. Zero, it turns out is essential, and without zero, nothing is really possible. On the other hand, if everything is possible, then, of course, nothing must be also possible. Two sides of the same coin reqire each other. Everything does not exclude nothing, it includes it.

As for a belief in God, it is not a theory nor even a hypothesis, it is not testable, provable, nor disprovable. My personal belief system does not reqire others to believe, and I offer no real proof, as it is something more of a feeling.

[Sci]

Nothing is not really the exact opposite of everything. I recall reading somewhere, can't remember where (I should call myself 'i4got')that there was a time when christians did not want to accept the existance of zero, probably for the reasons you state. But try to do math without using zero. Zero, it turns out is essential, and without zero, nothing is really possible. On the other hand, if everything is possible, then, of course, nothing must be also possible. Two sides of the same coin reqire each other. Everything does not exclude nothing, it includes it.

As for a belief in God, it is not a theory nor even a hypothesis, it is not testable, provable, nor disprovable. My personal belief system does not reqire others to believe, and I offer no real proof, as it is something more of a feeling.

 

What Nothing and Everything do have in common is that both of their information content is zero. Look up "The Library of Babel" by Borges.

 

 

As for zero:

 

THAT BLANKETY BLANK

 

Euclid and Pythagorus never even thought of it,

Perhaps not needing it for geometry;

So it was and wasn’t ‘Greek’ to them.

 

Aristotle was deathly afraid of it;

Even the word ‘naughty’ came from it.

 

‘0’ had a chilly reception everywhere,

It’s rounded symbol enclosing nothing,

As if it could be captured,

But ‘nothing’ never changed,

Being the same even if you took it away.

 

Humans stumbled on zero & nothing by accident,

And recoiled in horror, fearing it, reviling it,

And sometimes even banning it outright

As some kind of evil influence.

 

After many centuries, it seemed to be tamed,

Put in its place as a simple little placeholder.

 

Then the beast reared its ugly head for real,

Misbehaving like a monster right and left:

 

It brought instant death by multiplication,

And wrought total absurdity through division,

Yet halting our expensive computers.

 

It exploded into the ambiguous fog of infinity;

It ran away from us in calculus…

 

Sliding us down the slippery slope

Of closing in on it but never reaching it.

 

It spawned ghosts such as negative numbers,

Imaginaries, and those ephemeral infinitesimals.

 

Both the genie and the genius

Had been let out of the bottle,

And the goose egg still

Confounds and confuses,

No one knowing zilch about it,

Creating paradoxes left and right.

[joekgamer]

‘Nothing’ is nonexistence, the lack of anything, which is, of course, is still different from existence, but seeming to have no other quantity or quality; yet, would this lack of anything be a stable situation, or perhaps more of a lawless realm? Obviously, it is not the state now, but if it were stable, it would have been.

 

A vaccuum is stable. The only way it can change is for some outside force to act on it.

 

It doesn’t help to say that the basic ‘elementals’ were around forever, what ever these are, such as perhaps electrons, positrons, quarks, antiquarks, and photons, because not only are their types very few and particular, but so would be their overall count of their amount, as well as their individual specific particulars such as their form, mass, charge, location, size, matter/antimatter state, and whatever other properties they have.

 

Why? The Big Bang Theory (when combinded with String Theory) states that the huge amounts of energy that existed at first eventually 'condensed' into matter. How is this problematic?

 

Even though this is in the “Strange claims” forum, I offer the support and evidence of a balance of opposites summing to nothing as being the conservation laws, the vacuum fluctuation of the QM emission of particles pairs of opposite polarity of charge and matter/antimatter state, the positive kinetic energy of stuff balancing the negative potential energy of gravity, photons being neutral in charge and therefore their own antiparticle, as well as there being only two stable matter particles, the electron and the proton (and their antiparticles, of course), and that there is nothing to make the basics out of. I could also add that Infinity times Zero must equal unity (One), meaning that our finite realm must lie between the impossibles of complete solidity and total vacuity.

 

How does this support your theory?

 

I also note that simpler and simpler states more readily react,combine, and/or go through phase changes

 

Source?

 

hinting that the simplest state, nothing, must be perfectly unstable

 

Even if it were true that "simpler states more readily react", how does this follow?

[Gordon Freeman]

Euclid and Pythagorus never even thought of it,

Perhaps not needing it for geometry;

So it was and wasn’t ‘Greek’ to them.

 

Aristotle was deathly afraid of it;

Even the word ‘naughty’ came from it.

 

‘0’ had a chilly reception everywhere,

It’s rounded symbol enclosing nothing,

As if it could be captured,

But ‘nothing’ never changed,

Being the same even if you took it away.

 

Humans stumbled on zero & nothing by accident,

And recoiled in horror, fearing it, reviling it,

And sometimes even banning it outright

As some kind of evil influence.

 

After many centuries, it seemed to be tamed,

Put in its place as a simple little placeholder.

 

Then the beast reared its ugly head for real,

Misbehaving like a monster right and left:

 

It brought instant death by multiplication,

And wrought total absurdity through division,

Yet halting our expensive computers.

 

It exploded into the ambiguous fog of infinity;

It ran away from us in calculus…

 

Sliding us down the slippery slope

Of closing in on it but never reaching it.

 

It spawned ghosts such as negative numbers,

Imaginaries, and those ephemeral infinitesimals.

 

Both the genie and the genius

Had been let out of the bottle,

And the goose egg still

Confounds and confuses,

No one knowing zilch about it,

Creating paradoxes left and right.

 

 

0/10 .__.

 

No pun intended by the score, but that verse was horrible. Explaining it normally would have been perfectly sufficient.

 

 

Also- Why do overly religious individuals have to rationalize god through practice? Farming Guy, God had absolutely nothing to do with the original post, comparing it to god is the same as comparing my dick to a yard stick, sure it may be a good dream, but everyone knows it's nowhere near that long, so it's totally irrelevant. Not to mention arguing it doesn't follow any standard of Pure Logic, for example:

 

If I were to say my dick is three feet long, and held it next to a yard stick (which in case you didn't know, is three feet long), and it turned out to be a trivial six inches, yet I continued to say, well my dick is six inches in comparison, but is actually three feet when you take the yardstick away, gives a false outcome.

 

That system fails. It is not recursive and does not stand up to a self-actuating logic. It pains me when people can easily and fluently follow the idea that two plus two equals four, but they simply cannot understand that a system of knowledge is greater than a system of belief.

 

GOD WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE OP, STOP CHOCKING OUR MINDS WITH THE BULLSHIT YOU'RE TRYING TO FORCE-FEED US. If we cared enough to talk about god, we would have done so on the boards that are appropriately designed for philosophical education. Please do not bother with such information here Farming Guy. It wastes life, specifically mine, the three minutes of which I will never get back from reading your bullshit posts, the three minutes of which will leave an unnamed aire to my empire and effectively crush half of wall street because I couldn't get the words out on my death bed, the three minutes of which it took to write this, bringing the total to six, a lifetime in comparison, considering it's twice the length. I have not the breath nor breadth of knowledge to adequately nor appropriately insult your intellect, which may be considered fair argument that yours is greater than mine (the only humbling statement you'll get out of this), but the point still stands and I will discuss it no more (nor shall you for the sake of this board).

 

Good day sir, now go die in a fire.

[Sci]

A vaccuum is stable. The only way it can change is for some outside force to act on it.

 

A true vacuum with nothing in it is unstable, which form the 'vacuum' with the something of the fluctuations in it.

 

 

Why? The Big Bang Theory (when combinded with String Theory) states that the huge amounts of energy that existed at first eventually 'condensed' into matter. How is this problematic?

 

The particluar results.

 

 

How does this support your theory?

 

Show a zero-sum balance.

 

 

Source?

 

Physics. Victor Stenger in here: http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is...r_than_nothing

 

 

Even if it were true that "simpler states more readily react", how does this follow?

 

Just as being logical.

[Sci]

Continuing the Silly Claim, Plus Math

 

Recall that there is literally nothing to make the basic stuff out of and so this informs us about the nature of the cosmos. It is also that cause and effect could not go on forever and so this must be replaced by an equation of the zero balance.

 

Space and time are indeed opposite because time is a very different kind of dimension than distance, at least internally to the All, for it is a difference dimension and the only dimension left for the nullification of the All in the overview, although, practically, this cannot happen in actuality since ‘nothing’ is perfectly unstable and thus cannot remain as such. The vacuum fluctuates, but in doing so it is, of course, no longer a vacuum. The real way of existence forming, though, is more like that Infinity times Zero equals unity, or One, the finite realm between the two impossible ends of nonexistence, as neither total solidity nor complete vacuity can be so. Existence is all that lies between.

 

In the overview, externally, there is only distance^4, 4D space of quadric distance, while here, internally there is 3D space and time, which are not so separate, but unified into space-time. ‘c’ (distance/time) is the conversion factor from the hypervolume to spacetime:

 

Distance^4 = distance/time * (time)(distance^3)

 

The hypercube has a constant, finite, four-dimensional size, and this is the boundary condition for energy quantization, called unit hypervolume, as shown in this reduction of dimensional units for the photon energy over energy density…

 

hc / EnergyDensity [ED] = (in dimensional units) =

 

( Energy*time [h] * distance/time [c] ) / ( Energy/distance^3 [ED] ) =

 

Energy*distance^4 / Energy = distance^4 = unit hypervolume!

 

 

Energy is distinct from 3D space, and these are the only two phenomenologically distinct substances. 4D hypervolume contains two and only two dimensionally unique, three-dimensional quantities: space (distance^3) and energy ( (time)(distance^2) ).

 

There are only two fundamental units of measurement: distance and time, and so those are all that get used.

 

Energy moves through space and is distributed into space at a certain finite average energy density (1, in existentially correct units), which is what requires energy and space to possess a comparable number of dimensions.

 

Space’s three dimensions are equivalent, so the cosmos has only two uniquely different three-dimensional combinations of its four possible dimensions: distance^3, for 3D space, and time*distance^2, for energy. These are the only two possible cross-sections of 4D hypervolume.

 

3D space is associated with neutral extent while energy is associated with 4D fourth-dimensional displacement and polarity of charge. While unit 4D hypervolume contains the product of time and 3D space, it is also the product of energy and 4D distance:

 

4D unit hypervolume = tdd - tdd = tdd(d) - tdd(d)

 

Symmetry requires 3D space and energy to exist in equal universal quantities. Space is never empty of energy.

 

Time, internally, is a 3D spatial difference, like an index to spaces. and it has two remarkably divergent manifestations: 1) As the positive and negative fields of photons and particles, and 2) The motions of these fields through space.

 

Both (1) and (2) are spacial differences that reflect energy’s dimensional structure: energy moves and has polar fields because time is an essential component of its geometry.

 

 

The magnitude of infinite space is 4D unit hypervolume, a net value of existence that must somehow sum to zero in order to be a component of nothingness (nonexistence), and this is what energy accomplishes, and why the universal energy density is unity (1).

 

The presence of fourth-dimensional deflection adds the polarity that space needs for its quantified nullification. There is, again, so such things as completely empty space, for all is filled with the fields of particles and photons. In essence, space is charged with fields, converting one of its dimensions to time. The resultant polarity allows it to cancel its net hypervolumetric magnitude into nonexistence.

 

Energy conservation follows directly since the cosmos’ size is invariant and represents the volume of space and energy within it.

 

Energy density is the three-dimensional relationship between energy and space, existentially and by definition, but this is not their only relationship. Since their sub-structural difference is limited to a single dimension, distance replaced by time, they also have a linear relationship of the form:

 

ddd (space) / tdd (energy) = d/t = c (the speed of light)

 

This is what the speed of light represents, and absolute lightspeed is its purest expression. Motion is the one-dimensional relationship between energy and space!

 

Light’s motion through space Is an utterly explicit demonstration of the dimension has and space lacks!

 

The product of energy (time*distance^2) and motion (distance/time) is volume, or space (distance^3).

 

Energy density (ED) is the ratio of energy to volume (V) as well as the ratio of time to distance, and it may vary:

 

ED = E/V =tdd/ddd = t/d

 

The amount of space in energy is existential, whereas the amount of energy in space is circumstantial.

 

Energy density is the difference between electrically charged space and what would be empty space, their relationship governed by two governing factors: energy, like everything else, is composed of space, and energy has a dimensional structure of time*distance^2.

 

It follows that energy density is the fourth-dimensional slope of 4D space.

 

Fourth dimensional spacial, slope, in turn, requires fourth-dimensional spacial deflection, this distortion being only of two possible ways, internal and external.

 

Electromagnetic fields are external spacial deflections into the fourth dimension, there being only two possible directions along this axis, positive and negative. That is why electrostatic fields are either positive or negative, for that is what their polarity represents.

 

External deflection is the displacement of space normal to the third dimension; it is evident in electromagnetic fields and is measured in units of time.

 

Gravitation is the displacement of space along space, an internal deflection that stretches space with the confines of the third dimension, which is why gravitational fields lack a discrete polar character and are a vector quantity. It is also measured in units of time.

 

Any deflection, whether internal or external, is a fourth-dimensional entity because it is non-compositional and extraspacial, for it always represent a spacial difference and therefore always has units of time.

 

Deflection has slope, and the product of slope and spacial volume is energy.

 

Spacial deflection is the final resolution to energy at a distance, as the reason why fields exert influence over distance is because they are spacial distortions.

 

Whereas matter particles are symmetric in space, the photon is symmetric in time. They are both volumetric energy distributions.

 

 

Note: Pure nothingness would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle since all of it's properties would be known.

 

The above should be added in here for support of the Nothing theory. Zero, as it would be a definite, doesn't seem to go with QM, thus the QM fuzziness.

[joekgamer]

The particluar results.

 

Such as...? Could you explain?

 

Show a zero-sum balance.

 

Could you clarify? I don't know what you mean at all by this.

 

Physics. Victor Stenger in here: http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is...r_than_nothing

 

The link is broken. Also, what part of physics?

 

Just as being logical.

 

This is like if I said, "Sand is opaque. It contains very little silica. Glass is clear. It contains a lot of silica. Therefore, pure silica is perfectly clear!"

 

You see that this is illogical, don't you?

 

Note: Pure nothingness would violate the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle since all of it's properties would be known.

 

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal only applies to electrons.

[Sci]

Such as...? Could you explain?

 

Energy, too, becomes of the vacuum, making matter in its opposite and certain forms, with the opposite energy, as well and I'm proposing the reason for these forms is the positive/negative distribution of nothing. A Big Bang would be a low probability event from QM fluctuations that happened, and could again. I'm just saying that stuff itself could not have been that way eternally. since it has definite characteristics.

 

 

 

Could you clarify? I don't know what you mean at all by this.

 

The universe must sum to nonexistence overall, and we do see a balance of opposites in physics.

 

 

The link is broken.

 

This link should work better:

http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/why_is_there_something_rather_than_nothing

[Maine farmer]

0/10 .__.

 

No pun intended by the score, but that verse was horrible. Explaining it normally would have been perfectly sufficient.

 

 

Also- Why do overly religious individuals have to rationalize god through practice? Farming Guy, God had absolutely nothing to do with the original post, comparing it to god is the same as comparing my dick to a yard stick, sure it may be a good dream, but everyone knows it's nowhere near that long, so it's totally irrelevant. Not to mention arguing it doesn't follow any standard of Pure Logic, for example:

 

If I were to say my dick is three feet long, and held it next to a yard stick (which in case you didn't know, is three feet long), and it turned out to be a trivial six inches, yet I continued to say, well my dick is six inches in comparison, but is actually three feet when you take the yardstick away, gives a false outcome.

 

That system fails. It is not recursive and does not stand up to a self-actuating logic. It pains me when people can easily and fluently follow the idea that two plus two equals four, but they simply cannot understand that a system of knowledge is greater than a system of belief.

 

GOD WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE OP, STOP CHOCKING OUR MINDS WITH THE BULLSHIT YOU'RE TRYING TO FORCE-FEED US. If we cared enough to talk about god, we would have done so on the boards that are appropriately designed for philosophical education. Please do not bother with such information here Farming Guy. It wastes life, specifically mine, the three minutes of which I will never get back from reading your bullshit posts, the three minutes of which will leave an unnamed aire to my empire and effectively crush half of wall street because I couldn't get the words out on my death bed, the three minutes of which it took to write this, bringing the total to six, a lifetime in comparison, considering it's twice the length. I have not the breath nor breadth of knowledge to adequately nor appropriately insult your intellect, which may be considered fair argument that yours is greater than mine (the only humbling statement you'll get out of this), but the point still stands and I will discuss it no more (nor shall you for the sake of this board).

 

Good day sir, now go die in a fire.

For the record, orignal post claimed to disprove that which cannot be proven. It is anger on which your are choking.

[Gordon Freeman]

For the record, orignal post claimed to disprove that which cannot be proven. It is anger on which your are choking.

 

 

Naw, I'm pretty relaxed, all caps is cruise control for cool anyways (Billy Mays?).

 

Also, just because something cannot be proven, does not mean it cannot be dis-proven. This is actuated by the idea (idea, not belief, mind you) that there are no unknown unknowns, besides the idea of an unknown itself, which is technically a known. That being said, just because you know it's impossible to prove the existence of your god or any other god, does not mean it is impossible to prove it's non-existence, the system of logic which the OP implemented. To deny this would be silly, because it's a closed loop of logic, it's recursive and holds false none of the standards of logical fallacy. So like I just explained, God has nothing to do with the OP, nor does your argument.

 

Troll harder.

[Vox]

"Relative Nothing" or "Absolute Nothing" ?

[Sci]

Why? The Big Bang Theory (when combinded with String Theory) states that the huge amounts of energy that existed at first eventually 'condensed' into matter. How is this problematic?

 

A better answer:

 

If we grant that energy is not just a measurement and that there can be pure energy swirling about, then some might claim that it was energy that was around forever; however, then there would have been nothing to determine its total amount, as well as its location, and, so, this cannot be the case. Thus, we are back to that it comes from the unstable state of a lack of anything.

 

Saying that energy is infinite doesn’t support its having been around forever, either, for it isn’t, as we are not packed in like sardines, but also because there’s still the problem of where it came from, which can only always be the nothing of nonexistence, for there can be no other source.

 

As for infinity, meaning that which can never be reached, I have a feeling that it can only be applied to concepts, not to stuff, or to space, which has the quantity of volume, which must go on forever, as it couldn’t just end. Space is physical, but not material, although this vacuum does fluctuate, giving it material in balance, its total energy and material summing to zero.

 

‘Nothing’ is absolute nonexistence, and it evidently forms our zero-sum existence. Not intuitive, but there’s no other answer. The TOE is so simple that it seems too simple, but simple it has to be, for complexity comes later. Boring? Maybe, but answers are always exciting. It’s just not what was expected, in some ways, but, in others, it is.

[joekgamer]

I was not claiming that energy had been around forever. I was saying that in this order:

 

1) Nothing exists; no matter, no space, no time, no energy, then

2) The Big Bang ('explosion' of space), then

3) The energy released by the Big Bang condenses to matter

 

There's more to it, especially on the cause of the big bang and what it actually was, but those topics generally require math/etc concepts that I don't fully understand, so someone else will have to explain them.

[Sci]

I was not claiming that energy had been around forever. I was saying that in this order:

 

1) Nothing exists; no matter, no space, no time, no energy, then

2) The Big Bang ('explosion' of space), then

3) The energy released by the Big Bang condenses to matter

 

There's more to it, especially on the cause of the big bang and what it actually was, but those topics generally require math/etc concepts that I don't fully understand, so someone else will have to explain them.

 

Sounds good to me. Zero is ever the hero.