GENIUS FORUMS

chikoka wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:It has direction because it is expanding, and imploding is the opposite to expanding. But anyway, yes I do have another substance outside of the Universe, and it is the Universe membrane. Explaining where it came from is easy as it is just a basic thing with no abilities apart from to stretch.

Expanding is not the best word to use because it has too many false connotations (eg what is it expanding into).
All we know from an emperical and theoretical basis is that time_0 is associated with a certain amount of space and time_1 is associated with more space and so on.

The univerese does not have an outside.
The words in and out are words that deal with differentition of space in *space*-time .They make sense within (again this does not imply there is a without) space.

You are projecting these space qualities to situations which you say are *apart* from space.
That has to be an error.

I'm using the old theory of relativity which included the Aether. Everything expands into the Aether membrane. I think that the Aether will come back to science very soon, explained as bubbles, and bubbles have a membrane. The first membrane could have been infinite.

Pincho Paxton wrote:It has direction because it is expanding, and imploding is the opposite to expanding. But anyway, yes I do have another substance outside of the Universe, and it is the Universe membrane. Explaining where it came from is easy as it is just a basic thing with no abilities apart from to stretch.

container and creation, space and 'time'

The thing that has been bugging people about the Universe for ever has a solution.

Questions like...

1/ What happened before the Big Bang?
2/ How does something begin from nothing?
3/ Did God create the Universe, so who created God?

Well here is the solution....

The universe turns itself inside out! First you have the expansion, then it collapses, and then it pops out in the other direction. Now you have no beginning, and no end. A permanent loop!

Or in an Aether setting....

The Aether circles back to day 1, but day 1 has died by now, so a sort of bubble loop, that never ends.

So, you're saying that before the universe there was nothing?

if you say there was nothing before the universe, then you must say that the universe is nothing. you can only argue that nothing is nothing or that everything is nothing.

that's my point. i've always felt that something that is defined by everything in existence cannot be created, for creation doesn't exist; all things are essentially changes in pre-existing things. my point is in support of his ideas, saying, based on the above logic, that if the universe were to come from nothing, then the universe too is nothing.

Created from zero, is to replace zero with a new way of thinking of zero. (The word nothing is not accurate in this case)

This is zero... -1 +1

Zero is two things when combined = zero, but actually therefore cannot be zero, because they are already two things.

Like energy in the brain for example. +1 means remember something, -1 means forget something. zero means that the something is undecided.

So +1 could be the right side of an electron, and -1 could be the left side, or the left spin, right spin.

So what existed first in the universe was two things that = 0 when combined, but at the same time create a new whole thing.

from that, the universe was not 'created', but a combination of two pre-existing things. this was my point-to an extent- that, like all other things in the universe, the universe was simply a change of 'state'. something sorts that is negative infinity and mesh it together with something that is positively infinity. it can be thought that this would yield a product of zero, but since we're dealing with the infinite, then the product too is infinite. i don't believe there ever was truly a 'time 0', but based on this, our existence can be viewed as cyclical. all new things are simply formed by two (or more) pre-existing things.

my point above is that the universe cannot come from nothing, because, as you stated, the universe is not nothing.

This is a thread i started during my first days here.:


http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/viewto ... 877#p55877


First i would like to outline the current theory of the early universe then proceed to show its short comings and then try to overcome them with my own theories.

First things first:

There is nothing , absolutely nothing . No space and no time .
Nothing.

"Then"

Shreeeew , off goes positive space in one direction.
And off goes negative space in the other.
Coupled with positive space is positive time in the same direction.
Coupled with negative space is negative time .

In these two dimensional sructures negative and positive mass-energy expand.
these dimensional sructures would now form separate "universes" that rely on each other for their objective existence.
Through all this can be seen in play the one most important principle that will ever be.

The law of the conservation of nothing.

Take all these "universes" and it can be seen that ,taken together, nothing exists.
A good example to illustrate this would be the law of conservation of momentum in a system.
A given system ,such as me in a room holding a tennis ball, could have no momentum to start of with but this "no momentum" could be made up of many couples of negative + positive momentum.
Eg. I could decide to throw the ball i am holding and immediately the ball will have positive momentum while i would be pushed backwards with negative momentum.the net sum of momentum in the system would still be zero.


One question that comes naturally would be why did these dimensional structures separate into their present form from the "nothing"

The answer that i was told to believe was that since "0" , "10 - 10" and "70 - 70" are all equaly zero there need not have been a cause for this but that it was more likely for the "0" to be manifested as a dual of two integers.
In fact it can be seen that the dimensional structure we live in is expanding .Both time and space are expanding.

My problem with this view is that ,say i have 100 cows and - 100 cows.
Could i give you some of them ?
Yes i could give you 5 - 5 cows, but would i be able to give you only three cows for instance ?
The quick reply is that i have 100 - 100 cows but that the are no separated .
In what way can these dimensional structures be separated if there is nothing to separate them with.
If they are separated then where did this "thing" that separates them come from.
The whole point of the theory was to explain where everything came from, now we are led to requesting another "substance" to separate them.
The word direction as we are using it only makes sense in a dimensional context, so if these structures are separated then it means that they are separated on the backdrop of another dimension.
Then the question is just begging to be asked ;where did this dimension come from?

If we do what we have been doing all along and say that there are two "separation dimensions" , a positive and a negative one and that they came into existence on the backdrop of the law of conservation of nothing, then we will need to explain what separated this dimension from its negative self. We would then invent another "separating dimension" to separate the first "separating dimension". this invention of other dimensions would carry on forever ad infinum.

There is also the need to reconcile this with the many worlds interpretation of quantum physics.
According to which universes branch off every Planck time to meet all possibilities. My problem with this was that these universes can not exist now since the word 'now' refers to 'our' time dimension and not theirs. Similarly these parallel universes never existed any time in the past and will not exist any time in the future . this real bothered me because i failed to see how these other universes could exist all the same.
I now believe that these universes are not that separate at all but that they share a dimension ,I'll call it the G dimension.
Any universe that branches of at the next Planck time will have the exact same space-time dimensions as ours but having a different g value on that dimension .
This would mean that they really do exist now since they share the same time dimension and they necessarily exist here because they share the same space dimension.
They occupy the exact same space as us and at the exact same time but occupy different g's .

Going back to the big bang model one way out of the mess would be to imagine two dimensional structures separating each other.
If we have an X dimension and a Z dimension then we could have the X dimension separating on the backdrop of the Z one and the Z dimension separating on the backdrop of the X dimension.All the other dimensional structures could then separate using these primary existential structs.

Nothing litteraly means

*no_thing*

so you cant have

any_*thing*

before the universe or time because time is a *thing*.

When you say that something has always existed what you are actually saying is that

"as long as there's been time there's been something".

All that does is establish a one to one mapping between all the moments of time and the occurrence of "something".

You have not said anything about how large the set of all moments of time is and not even if it is infinite.

Another way to look at it is to realise that when people say there was nothing before the univerese started , the correct way to phrase it is :

"There is no_such_thing_as before the univerese even though there still could be a time_0.

Time doesn't exist, it's man made, and it's an invention like the watch. Movement exists, so things move, growth exists, so things grow. When something moves, and grows it can look like it is ageing. It is just moving, and growing. Energy grows, and decreases too, but time is just a bunch of physics all happening at once.

The thing that has always existed is +1, and -1. You can apply them to whatever you like. Matter, and Anti-Matter, or black, and white. Opposites.

1 apple minus 1 apple is an ap-tical illusion. It doesn't equal zero apples. You either moved the apple, or ate the apple, or crushed the apple. Moving it doesn't even do anything, it's still an apple. Eating it converts it into energy, and crushing it converts it into Cider, and pulp. Zero therefore changed something about the apple. Therefore science needs to remove zero, and replace it with change.

are they really opposites? black is a 'shade', white is the combination of all colours. Let's think of them both categorically as colours. They have this in common, so they cannot be opposites. white is no more different to black than grey is to black. time is not manmade necessarily, but devices to keep track of time are. time in the sense that we believe is manmade, but the overall concept of time is not.

Pincho Paxton wrote:Movement exists, so things move, growth exists, so things grow

What is movement if not something that is defined in terms of what you call is man made (time) ?
Doesnt that mean movement is also man made?

Pincho Paxton wrote:The thing that has always existed is +1, and -1.

If you mean by always that "as long as there has been time" i can agree with you.

But time has not "always" (in the sense *you* want to use the word) been there.

In order for something to exist it needs a dimensional context on which to define that existance on.

In a situation of *no dimensions* there can be *no existance* so "before" time there was no thing that existed.

Why do you want to separate time from being a part of the univerese?
If time is a part of the univerese then "as long as theres been time theres been a universe" is true by definition.

That does not tell us anything ,however ,of whether time is infinite going backwards or not.

Do not think of the start of the universe as the "beginning" as such since this may imply a process and so require time even though we are not talking of something happening *in* time but *of* time
.
Look at it this way.

At time_0 there was space_0 and matter/energy_0.

Time_1 there was space_1 and matter/energy_1.

and so on.

We can not talk of before time because the word before presupposes time and so in fact the whole question of what happend "before" time_0 does not make sense .

There was nothing before time_0.
or less confusingly:
There is no_such_thing_as before time_0.

Gurrb wrote:are they really opposites? black is a 'shade', white is the combination of all colours. Let's think of them both categorically as colours. They have this in common, so they cannot be opposites. white is no more different to black than grey is to black. time is not manmade necessarily, but devices to keep track of time are. time in the sense that we believe is manmade, but the overall concept of time is not.

Not sure about black, and white, they are much more than just colours.. (hot, cold), (energy, dead energy), (black hole, sun), (Photon, Atom), (coal, diamond). Maybe -1 + 1 is a sudden change from black to white due to an explosion should two things meet. The whole thing is conceptual.

chikoka wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:Movement exists, so things move, growth exists, so things grow

What is movement if not something that is defined in terms of what you call is man made (time) ?
Doesnt that mean movement is also man made?

Pincho Paxton wrote:The thing that has always existed is +1, and -1.

If you mean by always that "as long as there has been time" i can agree with you.

But time has not "always" (in the sense *you* want to use the word) been there.

In order for something to exist it needs a dimensional context on which to define that existance on.

In a situation of *no dimensions* there can be *no existance* so "before" time there was no thing that existed.

Why do you want to separate time from being a part of the univerese?
If time is a part of the univerese then "as long as theres been time theres been a universe" is true by definition.

That does not tell us anything ,however ,of whether time is infinite going backwards or not.

Do not think of the start of the universe as the "beginning" as such since this may imply a process and so require time even though we are not talking of something happening *in* time but *of* time
.
Look at it this way.

At time_0 there was space_0 and matter/energy_0.

Time_1 there was space_1 and matter/energy_1.

and so on.

We can not talk of before time because the word before presupposes time and so in fact the whole question of what happend "before" time_0 does not make sense .

There was nothing before time_0.
or less confusingly:
There is no_such_thing_as before time_0.

Movement is real, you have movement without man, you don't have time without man. Dimension is growth, just growth in different directions, nothing really special about it.

Why do you want to separate time from being a part of the univerese?

Because it isn't part of the Universe. It is also misleading scientists from the reality of what is really there. They have two clocks with different times on them due to two planes flying around the Earth in different directions. They have found the Aether, but mistakenly think that they have found time.

Look at it this way.

At time_0 there was space_0 and matter/energy_0.

Time_1 there was space_1 and matter/energy_1.

and so on.

Time like this is Ok because you are using it as a reference, but not as a physical property.

A = 1
Time = 20:00

Both references. Does A really exist in the Universe?

i think for time to be an 'entity' it must be believed to be separate from the universe, or part of it. it is neither.

i imagine it like this: the universe is a sphere, expanding from a point across it surface area. once it expands enough, it crosses over itself, creating what we view as the beginning (but is simply just a 'new' beginning). time travels too, but only around the sphere's circumference in a linear manner. both begin at the same point but take separate paths along the same 'sphere'.

dejavu wrote:The universe is not nothing.

Wait a second,

To claim to know that the universe is not nothing you must know what nothing is.
So, what is nothing?

I understand what your claiming pincho. The universe is eternal in all directions. Therefore there was nothing before the universe and there will be nothing after the universe. Now, if something comes out of nothing, how meaningful is it?

Glostik91 wrote:I understand what your claiming pincho. The universe is eternal in all directions. Therefore there was nothing before the universe and there will be nothing after the universe. Now, if something comes out of nothing, how meaningful is it?

No, I am claiming that there is no such thing as nothing. There is no such thing as zero. Everything is two halves of something else.

First the membrane = 1
The membrane split creating two halves of the membrane as new entities, plus the membrane = 3
Those two halves split to create Photon / Electron, plus the other parts mentioned = 5

Splitting in half like this is the way that you can create everything, but to split zero in half you can only have +1 -1, which is two halves of zero. They would be matter of some sort, and therefore zero is two halves of matter, so not really zero at all.

Pincho Paxton wrote: No, I am claiming that there is no such thing as nothing. There is no such thing as zero. Everything is two halves of something else.

First the membrane = 1
The membrane split creating two halves of the membrane as new entities, plus the membrane = 3
Those two halves split to create Photon / Electron, plus the other parts mentioned = 5

Splitting in half like this is the way that you can create everything, but to split zero in half you can only have +1 -1, which is two halves of zero. They would be matter of some sort, and therefore zero is two halves of matter, so not really zero at all.

Correct, there is no such thing as nothing. Nothing is a contradiction. The word "nothing" exists as a word but what it stands for doesn't exist, therefore it is a meaningless word. To use it anywhere is futile.

If the universe is eternal then there was nothing before it and there will be nothing after it. It essentially comes out of nothing. Anything that is eternal comes from nothing. You cannot comprehend what there was before the universe. It leaves the realm of perception. If something cannot be conceived in the mind it is meaningless.The beginning of the universe cannot be conceived in the mind. Therefore the beginning of the universe is meaningless.

The world is a product of the beginning of the universe. Therefore the world is meaningless.

Pincho Paxton wrote:No, I am claiming that there is no such thing as nothing. There is no such thing as zero. Everything is two halves of something else.

First the membrane = 1
The membrane split creating two halves of the membrane as new entities, plus the membrane = 3
Those two halves split to create Photon / Electron, plus the other parts mentioned = 5

Splitting in half like this is the way that you can create everything, but to split zero in half you can only have +1 -1, which is two halves of zero. They would be matter of some sort, and therefore zero is two halves of matter, so not really zero at all.

If zero is change, it would have to be a direction. Negative to positive, whatever is 'positive' to the constitution. The constitution can split, so that positive one way is really negative another way. It wouldn't be zero splitting, but a neutral '1' non-thing.

There is really 'nothing'. Love/'truth'.

divine focus wrote:

Pincho Paxton wrote:No, I am claiming that there is no such thing as nothing. There is no such thing as zero. Everything is two halves of something else.

First the membrane = 1
The membrane split creating two halves of the membrane as new entities, plus the membrane = 3
Those two halves split to create Photon / Electron, plus the other parts mentioned = 5

Splitting in half like this is the way that you can create everything, but to split zero in half you can only have +1 -1, which is two halves of zero. They would be matter of some sort, and therefore zero is two halves of matter, so not really zero at all.

If zero is change, it would have to be a direction. Negative to positive, whatever is 'positive' to the constitution. The constitution can split, so that positive one way is really negative another way. It wouldn't be zero splitting, but a neutral '1' non-thing.

There is really 'nothing'. Love/'truth'.

Not a direction, a force like magnetism.. positive, negative forces. Push away, attract, neutral. Matter that does these 3 things can be very powerful. Our brain does these 3 things in a way, and look what we can create.

dejavu wrote:
The universe comes out of itself, not nothing. You said to me that to claim the universe is not nothing I'd have to know nothing! Language has you confused?

If I say I create myself I can also say I was created out of nothing.
There is no difference in meaning.

To claim something you must understand what it is. If I say an elephant exists, but I don't know what an elephant is, then I cannot truthfully say that an elephant exists.

dejavu wrote:
The universe has no beginning. Do you think the world can be given a human meaning?

You say the universe has no beginning because you can't see its beginning.

Humans give everything meaning. The meaning people give things cannot be meaningful unless the people are already meaningful. A meaningless people cannot give meaning to something.

dejavu wrote:
No, you were not created out of nothing, yet you may still create yourself.

If I create myself there must be nothing before me. If there was something before me then that thing must have caused me to be. If I precede myself into infinity past then I have no purpose or meaning in life.

dejavu wrote:

To claim something you must understand what it is. If I say an elephant exists, but I don't know what an elephant is, then I cannot truthfully say that an elephant exists.

Nothing isn't something.

This is why none of us may understand it.

dejavu wrote:

You say the universe has no beginning because you can't see its beginning.

No, I say it because the universe is infinite.

My words and your words carry the same meaning.

dejavu wrote:

Humans give everything meaning. The meaning people give things cannot be meaningful unless the people are already meaningful. A meaningless people cannot give meaning to something.

If meaning has been given, what is it to say it is not meaningful? Be true to words, or at least--do not mangle meaning!

Its causes are what determines its meaning.

i find a lot of these discussions end up at the same thing... the universe is inexplicably infinite and the origin of human.

Gurrb wrote:i find a lot of these discussions end up at the same thing... the universe is inexplicably infinite and the origin of human.

Maybe you want things to be that way, because I have been posting the opposite. For me it says that the Universe has an outer surface, so it has an end, and it's origin is change.