The idea of our origin or existance is a paradox.

Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing.

That energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only change forms.

That view creates its own paradox. I think we have a tendancy to over dramatize the unknown and immediately branch off to unsupported conclusions.


**********
The conventional view is that "coming into existence" from "nothing", or passing "out of existence" back into "nothing", clearly requires magic, a miracle, or a supernatural act of a God.

That is a logical impossibility by definition of "nothing", meaning non-existence or the total absence of forms at any scale.

Or that "Something" was never created from "Nothing" because it has always existed.
**********

My personal view and that imposed on UniKEF is purely mathematical:


0 = (+1)+(-1)

This is actually a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation.

When accepted at face value it says many things.

Not that we can understand it yet.

1 - "0" is infitesimal.

2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our "Existance" coming from "Nothing" which does not invoke magic, miracles or Gods.

3 - The recipocal of infitesimal is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Someting", "Nothing" will ever be physically "Infinite".

Taken as an unknown and perhaps unknowable it has a comfortable feel.

In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are one and the same and that White Holes are Black Holes. It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.

It is the Chiral Condensate, the "Vacuum or Void" of "Empty" space.

You want proof. Got none. But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, miracles, Gods or Physical Infinity.

And now there is scientific evidence that particle pairs pop into and out of existance

Silly you. The universe has always existed.

RMC,

Prove it. It cannot exist if it was never created. The only way it could have been created is to come into existance from nothing.

0 -------->+1,-1

Infinite existance is an attempt to circumvent the origin itself of coming into existance.

You can hold that view if you choose but infinity is purely a mathematical tool but cannot be sucessfully argued as a physical reality.

A better form would be 0 --------> +n, -n

Mac- In outline I agree with you. It is another way of saying, with Max Velmans, that existence is ontologically monist and epistemologically dual. In other words it emerges from one thing (your nothing) by virtue of becoming two things which are opposites (your +1 & -1). Thus we live in a world of dualities, but one which cannot ultimately be dual (for all the usual logical reasons).

However I feel that your concept of nothing is flawed. Even by your view nothing cannot really be nothing.

The argument that the universe is eternal can only be true if eternity is timeless. In other words the universe must have started in the first moment of time as we conceive of time.

Eternity, when it is conceived as being a long time (or any time at all) is an oxymoronic concept. There can be no passing of time in eternity.

*backs away slowly*

- Warren

Originally posted by chroot
*backs away slowly*

- Warren

Yeah.. U can't counter this ontologically and epistemologically. No one can, Newton to Einstein and unto later day phiscisists, and scientists. I am going to become a philosopher. Hell with Physics and Maths.. I found the way to unravel secrets of universe.

Good for you. Go for it and keep going for it.

When i went for philosophy i found this ultimate truth :

We are not accustomed to duality of matter and energy - ontologically we are more comfortable with one of the duality, matter. When it changes to energy we loose our cognitive ability to realise that and so we have an illusion that we all are dying by nuclear explosion. When all the energy again condensate to matter we all will come back to live, back from illusion. Physics and maths are nothing but illusion. Change this fourm name as Philosophic-Physics & Maths. All the physcisists and mathamaticians should go back try to learn the true knowledge of universe that is Philosophy. :cool:

Any view on this is really nothing more then a guess based on our experiences. Our existance may have actually come from 'something' but we don't know either way...


Originally posted by everneo
I am going to become a philosopher.. I found the way to unravel secrets of universe. Generally the raise more questions then they answer... but nothings wrong with that:)

0 = (+1)+(-1)
<HR>
0=0
This is not profound; it is a simple truth.

This Universe is spacially finite. All matter here will be converted to energy. All Energy will leave this Universe. The lifespan of this Universe is finite. What goes to zero comes from zero. The Energy in this Universe required a source from which to begin.
The big bang was big, but whatever brought it here was greater than it was.

The half life of the remaining matter in the Universe will determine the longevity of this Univere. No matter is completely stable. There will be a long period of time when the majority of all mass is in the form of Iron. This period will be far greater than the period of time when all matter is lighther than Iron. This will be the last stages of 'life' in our Universe, a flash in the pan by comparison of its total lifespan.

We already know the amount of Energy in the Universe is finite. It will escape the known Universe in all directions. If Energy has a finite lifespan, it must have a source of mass from which to begin. Any system that can be depleted of Energy must be refueled, or die. Transversely, any system of Energy that can be depleted must also have a source of Energy greater than its total energy from which to begin. What goes to zero comes from zero; it is impossible for something to come from nothing, therefore there must be a source greater than our Universe from whence it came.

MacM,

0 = (+1)+(-1)

I disagree with your assumption. You're assuming that "-1" is something that can physically exist. Just because something is mathematically possible doesn't mean that it's physically possible. Just take a look at relativity...........:)

Tom

MacM:

<i>Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing.</i>

Does it? I've never seen this in a science textbook.

<i>0 = (+1)+(-1)

This is actually a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation.</i>

It looks like a simple statement of arithmetic to me.

<i>1 - "0" is infitesimal.</i>

No it isn't. An infinitessimal quantity is always a little greater than zero.

<i>2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our "Existance" coming from "Nothing" which does not invoke magic, miracles or Gods.</i>

Saying "Zero" doesn't invoke anything. Where's the link between the maths and the physical world?

<i>3 - The recipocal of infitesimal is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Someting", "Nothing" will ever be physically "Infinite".</i>

This doesn't seem to make any sense.

<i>In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are one and the same and that White Holes are Black Holes.</i>

Sounds deep, but you haven't explained anything here.

<i>It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.</i>

What is a triple point, in this context?

<i>It is the Chiral Condensate, the "Vacuum or Void" of "Empty" space.</i>

You still haven't explained what a chiral condensate is.

<i>But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, miracles, Gods or Physical Infinity.</i>

You haven't linked the maths to the real world, as far as I can see.

<i>And now there is scientific evidence that particle pairs pop into and out of existance</i>

Yes. How is that related to what you said above?

Tom,

Your stirring the pot.


chroot,

You gave me a chuckle this time.


Canute,

I particularily like this statement. It fits well with my view but I don't dare tread there here. Thanks.

quote:----------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument that the universe is eternal can only be true if eternity is timeless. In other words the universe must have started in the first moment of time as we conceive of time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------quote




To the others,

I like all your answers, since it is just a guess by anyone. The more views to consider, the more likely we are to come to some level of consenses.


James R.,

As usual you are fine tuned.


MacM:
________________________________
Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing.
________________________________

JR:
_______________________________
Does it? I've never seen this in a science textbook.
_______________________________

*************
Reply: You are most likely right. I should have made a more qualified statement. That is I believe that most scientist believe....
Or pointed out that to say energy cannot be created not destroyed is another paraphrase with the same meaning.
*************


MacM:
__________________
0 = (+1)+(-1)

This is actually a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation.
___________________

JR:
____________________

It looks like a simple statement of arithmetic to me.
____________________


******************
Reply:IF it represents our origin of existance being simple would be profound.
******************


MacM:
___________________
1 - "0" is infitesimal.
___________________


JR:
___________________

No it isn't. An infinitessimal quantity is always a little greater than zero.
___________________


********************
Reply: Again you are correct. That was a bad example, but most have apparently taken it to mean what I meant to say. I'll have to work on that one.
********************


MacM:
___________________________
2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our "Existance" coming from "Nothing" which does not invoke magic, miracles or Gods.
___________________________


JR:
__________________________
Saying "Zero" doesn't invoke anything. Where's the link between the maths and the physical world?
___________________________

*******************
Reply: "0" is non-existance. +1,-1 are existance. I believe after further tought that it should be +n, -n however.
*******************


MacM:
________________________
3 - The recipocal of infitesimal is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Something", "Nothing" will ever be physically "Infinite".
________________________


JR:
______________________
This doesn't seem to make any sense.
______________________



*********************
Reply: If you excuse the "infitesmal" being "0" flub, it means nothing physical will ever be infinite. Infinity is relagated to a mathematical proposition.

Rewrite: 3 - The recipocal of "0" is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Something", "Existance" will never become physically "Infinite". (Still needs work))
________________________


*********************

Macm:
____________________
In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are
one and the same and that White Holes are Black Holes.
_____________________



JR:
______________________

Sounds deep, but you haven't explained anything here.
______________________


*******************
Reply: Not detailed yet but the view is for example that the Black Holes are squeezing matter in to a singularity. That in my view is pushing it back +n, -n ---------->0 into the Chiral Condensate.

The particle pairs coming into existance from the Chiral Condensate is creation 0 ---------->+n, -n or a White Hole.
********************


Macm:
____________________
It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.
___________________


JR:
_____________________
What is a triple point, in this context?
_____________________



******************
Reply: It is only a play on words relating the existance of ice, water and steam at the same temperature and time. "0", +n, -n, exist at the same point at the same time. An instantaneous transition of non-existance into existance.
*******************


MacM:
____________________
It is the Chiral Condensate, the "Vacuum or Void" of "Empty" space.
_____________________



JR:
_____________________
You still haven't explained what a chiral condensate is.
_____________________



********************
Reply: And as of todate, as far as I know, nobody can. But it is there and it has particles coming into existance from non-existance and vice versa.
********************




McM:
________________________
But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, miracles, Gods or Physical Infinity.
________________________



JR:
____________________
You haven't linked the maths to the real world, as far as I can see.
____________________


**********************
Reply: If you truely don't follow the logic then I am afraid I am not equipped to answer your question. That is not to say the math is correct in any detailed sense but is by example.
**********************


Macm:
______________________
And now there is scientific evidence that particle pairs pop into and out of existance
_______________________



JR:
_______________________

Yes. How is that related to what you said above?
_______________________


**********************
Reply: You don't see how coming into existance from non-existance is related to the discussion?
***********************

Ok, Im not a physicist but man what you said sounds like a load of shiiii, where are you getting this stuff from ....

Malisha,

It is unfortuante that you either have no view or don't wish to expose your view to review. I suspect your view would be much more concise and coherent.:p

yeh ok Mac whatever,

but unlike you i can admit when i dont have any idea on a particular topic.

I have done alot of math, throughout uni, i enjoy math actually, im a software engineer and use it quite a bit on much of the software i have written/wrote and i have seen many things more significant then 0 = (+1)+(-1) .

How you can justify this simple year 1 arithmetic as

a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation

is beyond me ?!?!

You post a formula, an equation i'll follow it, try to work around it so i can decide if

1: it makes sense and isnt a waste of time trying to understand

2: it's 2 hard for me to understand because it requires some sort of background in some other area, then i can ask someone who might be able to explain it to me

3: it has some sort of credibility

you post 0 = (+1)+(-1) & say this is the expression for creation ? please ? what am i supposed to do with that ? how can i prove to myself this is what you say it is, or do you want me to just take your word for it & just except the fact that this is the expression for creation, how can i prove this to myself from what you have given ?!?


and that White Holes are Black Holes

Have they even proven the existance of white holes ?
If they have id really like to read about it cause even though im not a scientist i enjoy reading about new discoveries and if they have found proof of white holes i would love to read about it.

Anyway i have no further comment on the topic, say whatever else you like, if anything it makes for some fun reading :p ,

cya

Malisha,


As you kindly pointed out you actually have no indepth training or experience in physics so your comments are really a bit misplaced. Now JR's comments I pay attention to.

Most of what you say doesn't merit reply.

quote:
***************
Have they even proven the existance of white holes ?
If they have id really like to read about it cause even though im not a scientist i enjoy reading about new discoveries and if they have found proof of white holes i would love to read about it.
***************

Reply: I don't think one could say "Proven" but it is in the mix of ideas that has been talked about, like Black Holes. But Black HOles has recieved a lot more attention. In any case it is not my fabrication.



****************
Anyway i have no further comment on the topic, say whatever else you like, if anything it makes for some fun reading ,
************


Reply: That was the general idea, not some enormous break thorugh annoucement. Get serious, I'm not.

As you kindly pointed out you actually have no indepth training or experience in physics so your comments are really a bit misplaced. Now JR's comments I pay attention to.


NO you dont :) you dont pay attention to JR's, chroots or any other REAL scientists comments, because no matter how many times they have told you your theories dont make sense you still come back and say things like 0 = (+1)+(-1) is an expression for creation , even after james R have said there is nothing more to this then simple arithmetic.

seriously man post some real math, some thing we can all work with so we can see ONCE and FOR all whether or not what your saying is true. You like to compare yourself with einstien right, so do it then, he described what he found out with math, and has let people "such as myself" not in the physics business judge whether what he says is correct by letting us work through he's forumulas, remeber even though i am not a physicist it doesnt mean i cant enjoy & dont enjoy workthing though these kinds of things.

I mean from what you said, you only like speculation from other physcists, doesn this mean your theory is only applicable to other physcists ? You do expect that your theory be taught in schools right maybe even replace relativity (because like you said before you have not used relativity to prove relativity, so your ideas should be original am i correct), so post something which might be taught at a first year university course so "people like me" may be able to understand it.

I mean Mac i didnt want to make any further comments but im intrested in what you have to say, Seriously & also if possible i want to 2 things from you :

1. your forgiveness for making comments on your theory when i myself am not qualified to do so as i am not a scientist :p

2. some sort of formal proff, ie formulas on your theories so i can marvel at its greatness. :)

thanks

mal,

I too see Macs simple truth of 0 = (+n) + (-n) It is great way to explain your point, which I followed although I had a few doubts on the way. Malishna, by calling it shiii is quite one eyed and although sure it has many inconsistencies relating to the physical world, I find that it clearly illustrates the way the universe can exist.

How can you explain universe mathematically?? The only way is surely through speculation and physics? Macs "mathematical" way is the only one that actually comes close and it makes so much sense that its scary to believe how profound it is.
Thats my two cence. Basically I've added nothing and just said I have agreed with what Mac says (not all of it). It seemed like he needed some support. LOL.

It seems to me that everyone here (well almost) has got a different bit of the underlying stick. What do you make of this?

1) Infinity being equivalent to nothing.

If the cosmos = 0

then

0 = all that there is

then

0 = everything

Thus at the deepest ontological level of existence nothing equals infinity. This doesn't seem an odd idea. It fact it seems a certainty. Thus the question of whether the universe comes from nothing or from an infinite something is not quite the right question. The two opposite answers are each partly right and partly wrong. If this is so then the cosmos would be, by the broadest view possible, a single thing with a dual aspect. Which seems the right kind of answer anyway. This seems to be the only way to get around the laws of thermodynamics and the equivalent 'something from nothing' problem.

2) Nothing being 'infinitessimal'

This is obviously not so. Nothing is nothing and 0 = 0. However there is an argument that ontological nothingness cannot exist, and thus that nothing cannot in the last resort ever be precisely nothing. In every other case 0 = 0, but at the most fundamental level it may be that 0 = < 0, in other words this fundamental nothing may be actually something a little less than nothing. Perhaps this is what Mac had in mind (?) when he said this. (I tend to make the same sort of mistake). To suggest that nothing is not nothing is odd, but it is to say that nothing really is nothing in one sense but is equivalent to something in another sense, in other words that it has two aspects. Thus this relates back to the first point.

3) 0 = (+n) + (-n)

I don't want to flog the phrase to death but this is a precise mathematical equivalent to philospher Max Velmans proposition that existence must be 'ontologically monist and epistemologically monist'. In other words one thing that becomes two. It also accords well with QM ideas, with (-n) presumably being borrowed energy. I agree with others who feel it is simple and important. It is only profound if you see its meaning. If dualism is false it almost certainly represents the logical structure of any true explanation of existence (whether by science or by anybody else).

4) What the effing bleep is this 'Chiral Condensate' thing? Is it necessary to introduce even more technical terms? Things are supposed to get simpler as one practices reductionism. This is the emergence of something from nothing, it can't be all that complicated.

...AND MACM DOES IT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.... :eek: :m: :m: :m: :rolleyes:

malisha,

NO you dont you dont pay attention to JR's, chroots or any other REAL scientists comments, because no matter how many times they have told you your theories dont make sense you still come back and say things like 0 = (+1)+(-1) is an expression for creation , even after james R have said there is nothing more to this then simple arithmetic.

************************
Reply: There is a difference in listening to and adapting other views. Where a clear error has been pointed out I immediately acknowledge that but when it is a matter of interpretation or the answer is not directly on point, then I reserve the right to await a concise reply.
************************


seriously man post some real math, some thing we can all work with so we can see ONCE and FOR all whether or not what your saying is true.


************************
Reply: Now if I could do that, I think I would take you up on your following comment, since I can't I don't.
************************


You like to compare yourself with einstien right.


********************
Reply: You have never heard me say that. Indeed if you had looked at my work the first two paragraphs are disclaimers as to any formal mathematicl proof or experimental support. This is something expoused by others as a means of trying to make me look egotistical, which I am not. Hard headed, well maybe.
*********************


You do expect that your theory be taught in schools right maybe even replace relativity (because like you said before you have not used relativity to prove relativity, so your ideas should be original am i correct), so post something which might be taught at a first year university course so "people like me" may be able to understand it.


*******************
Reply: Actually, I would expect it to be taught should it ever be found to be correct. That however, is not likely to happen at my hand. That is (as I have said before) beyond my skills.
********************


I mean Mac i didnt want to make any further comments but im intrested in what you have to say, Seriously & also if possible i want to 2 things from you :

1. your forgiveness for making comments on your theory when i myself am not qualified to do so as i am not a scientist

2. some sort of formal proff, ie formulas on your theories so i can marvel at its greatness.

thanks


************************
Reply: First no forgivness needed. You have been more polite than some others:D .

Second, the only "Proof" is the gravity tests which are over 50% completed and that will be released. But even that isn't proof of UniKEF. It is proof gravity isn't what conventional science has thought it was and UniKEF becomes one of what I am sure will become many new ideas on what it really is. So until then it is all tounge in cheek. But soon.
**************************


MacM

SciBoy,

Thanks. I don't get a whole lot of support around here.:D

But if it was easy it wouldn't be fun.

Canute,

I don't know if this is your personal thoughts or if you have paraphrased something I have said but I do make the speculation in UniKEF that Infinity and 0 are the same point.



1) Infinity being equivalent to nothing.

If the cosmos = 0

then

0 = all that there is

then

0 = everything


And yes saying the recipocal of infitesimal was infinity was a foopaa. Because infinitely small is not "0". I will do better in the future to say the recipocal of "Absolute nothing" is infinity (I think).

But overall you have captured the meaning and I appreciate the balance of your post.

Thanks.

Quote MAC - "And yes saying the recipocal of infitesimal was infinity was a foopaa. Because infinitely small is not "0". I will do better in the future to say the recipocal of "Absolute nothing" is infinity (I think)."
I was suggesting that you may not have made such a 'foopaa' as you think. Or rather that you made a very understandable one.

There is a difference in listening to and adapting other views. Where a clear error has been pointed out I immediately acknowledge that but when it is a matter of interpretation or the answer is not directly on point, then I reserve the right to await a concise reply.


OK, well if you dont see anything wrong with your profound expression not being just a simple arithmetic expression then fine :rolleyes:


Now if I could do that, I think I would take you up on your following comment, since I can't I don't


what comment, the part where i say you try to compare yourslf with einstien ?!?! how does posting real math mean your comparing yourself with einstien, i thought that was tandard procedure, new theory euals new or modified formulas which people can work with :confused:


You have never heard me say that. Indeed if you had looked at my work the first two paragraphs are disclaimers as to any formal mathematicl proof or experimental support. This is something expoused by others as a means of trying to make me look egotistical, which I am not. Hard headed, well maybe.


I have benn reading some of your posts, speiclally the one called trials of einstien, how you speak of many scientists not beliving his ideas at the start etc,etc, if there isnt some underlying message in what you posted in that thread(related to how people may be thinking of you now, as people saw einstien initially) i would say you would be lying.


Actually, I would expect it to be taught should it ever be found to be correct. That however, is not likely to happen at my hand. That is (as I have said before) beyond my skills.


And this is exactly the reason why people are getting annoyed ! you attempt to push a theory which you cant backup ! wich you cant even prove, its like an anthiest trying to push religion, its stupid & on the topic of religion without proof, your theories are nothing more then another religion added to the stockpile.


First no forgivness needed. You have been more polite than some


Good im glad :)


I am sure will become many new ideas on what it really is. So until then it is all tounge in cheek. But soon


So why push tounge and cheek so hard ? taking up forum space ? this isnt an i told you so contest. what do you expect will be your ultimate goal ?that you post all this stuff, someone else figures it out and by some freak of nature your correct ? then you comeback to this messageboard and say to everyone that knocked you ... see i told you so, man come on :bugeye:

malisha,

I have benn reading some of your posts, speiclally the one called trials of einstien, how you speak of many scientists not beliving his ideas at the start etc,etc, if there isnt some underlying message in what you posted in that thread(related to how people may be thinking of you now, as people saw einstien initially) i would say you would be lying.

******************
Reply: There was no correlation to myself in that post. It was made in direct costrast to others that had posted (paraphrasing)
"Einstein was well received and his theories understood from the day they were published".

It was not my intent to suggest that my reception being rejected in someway correlated. I have never compared myself to Einstein or anyother notable. I may not be an Einstein but I certainly am intelligent enough to know the difference.
*********************


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, I would expect it to be taught should it ever be found to be correct. That however, is not likely to happen at my hand. That is (as I have said before) beyond my skills.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is exactly the reason why people are getting annoyed ! you attempt to push a theory which you cant backup ! wich you cant even prove, its like an anthiest trying to push religion, its stupid & on the topic of religion without proof, your theories are nothing more then another religion added to the stockpile.


*********************************
Reply: In another post the point was made as to the theories of "String, TOE, M & P-Branes. They aren't proveable either but the concepts are being considered.

That is all I expected. That the general concept would be considered. When I posted here I did not think one had to have absolute proof of a concept.
*********************************


quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------
So why push tounge and cheek so hard ? taking up forum space ? this isnt an i told you so contest. what do you expect will be your ultimate goal ?that you post all this stuff, someone else figures it out and by some freak of nature your correct ? then you comeback to this messageboard and say to everyone that knocked you ... see i told you so, man come on
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


*****************************
Reply: On that point I think you could count on it.:D

There have already been numerous "I told you so" issues predicted in UniKEF that have been discovered; which is why frankly I expected more tolerance for the fact that the concept is in its beginning stages. I'm sure I see more signifigance to the predictions being found true than others but that was my basis for posting here.

But since that tolerance is not present, I will participate at a different level and when (IF) UniKEF gets attention, I think it would be very justified to say "Told you so".

Think of the opportunity you may have missed.

"Origin of Existence"?

Now there's a piece of dualistic buffoonery that begs to be mocked.

"Comes from", implying a beginning and a creator. A cause effect separation where cause is other than effect.

Beautiful.

Then we are baffled by the paradoxes and self-contradicting bullshit we put into our heads.

The idea of our origin or existance is a paradox.

Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing.

That energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only change forms.

That view creates its own paradox. I think we have a tendancy to over dramatize the unknown and immediately branch off to unsupported conclusions.


**********
The conventional view is that "coming into existence" from "nothing", or passing "out of existence" back into "nothing", clearly requires magic, a miracle, or a supernatural act of a God.

That is a logical impossibility by definition of "nothing", meaning non-existence or the total absence of forms at any scale.

Or that "Something" was never created from "Nothing" because it has always existed.
**********

My personal view and that imposed on UniKEF is purely mathematical:


0 = (+1)+(-1)

This is actually a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation.

When accepted at face value it says many things.

Not that we can understand it yet.

1 - "0" is infitesimal.

2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our "Existance" coming from "Nothing" which does not invoke magic, miracles or Gods.

3 - The recipocal of infitesimal is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Someting", "Nothing" will ever be physically "Infinite".

Taken as an unknown and perhaps unknowable it has a comfortable feel.

In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are one and the same and that White Holes are Black Holes. It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.

It is the Chiral Condensate, the "Vacuum or Void" of "Empty" space.

You want proof. Got none. But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, miracles, Gods or Physical Infinity.

And now there is scientific evidence that particle pairs pop into and out of existance

I belive that time is not a factor.
Time is precived backwards.
Time is the past.

You can not change the past and there for you can not change time.

Everything happens in the precent, RIGHT NOW.
You can not change what you did 1 sek. ago or yesterday.

Our minds can remember and learn from the past.
And that is what we call time.

We know from past expirence that it takes an average acorn , time , to grow into a tree.
What it depence on is : (a)potential and
(b)circumstances.

If a+b=1 Then
a+(b/1000)=0,001

Everything is binary, either something happens or it don´t.
1 it happens, 0 it don´t.

What it depence on is; what potentials does it have and are the circumstances fulfilled. If this is so then 1.
If not fulfilled then 0.

We can speed up "time" by changing the circumstances.
If an acorn have optimale circumstances it will grow quicker, because it is easier to achive the potential.

...Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing...
This is why the Aether Wave Theory (AWT (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=74593&page=5)) considers, the nothing is in fact the artifact of something. In dense particle system no energy can propagate at distance due the chaotic nature of such system, yet such system can condense into something in predictable way.

nothing is everything that exists, and the universe has always existed there, in invisibility. when the zero divides because of it's paradoxical (divided) nature, consciousness is born which divides everything further and that's why we experience this universe, this small frequency range of nothingness.

the reason that energy can't be created or destroyed is because there is zero (infinite) energy

The idea of our origin or existance is a paradox.

Science holds a view that something cannot come from nothing.

That energy cannot be created nor destroyed but can only change forms.

That view creates its own paradox. I think we have a tendancy to over dramatize the unknown and immediately branch off to unsupported conclusions.

**********
The conventional view is that "coming into existence" from "nothing", or passing "out of existence" back into "nothing", clearly requires magic, a miracle, or a supernatural act of a God.

That is a logical impossibility by definition of "nothing", meaning non-existence or the total absence of forms at any scale.

Or that "Something" was never created from "Nothing" because it has always existed.
**********

My personal view and that imposed on UniKEF is purely mathematical:


0 = (+1)+(-1)

This is actually a beautiful and profound mathematical expression for creation.

When accepted at face value it says many things.

Not that we can understand it yet.

1 - "0" is infitesimal.

2 - It is a mathematical foundation for our "Existance" coming from "Nothing" which does not invoke magic, miracles or Gods.

3 - The recipocal of infitesimal is infinity but until "All" of "Nothing" becomes "Someting", "Nothing" will ever be physically "Infinite".

Taken as an unknown and perhaps unknowable it has a comfortable feel.

In UniKEF I propose a form of mobius where "0" and "Infinity" are one and the same and that White Holes are Black Holes. It is a place where non-existance and creation and time achieve a triple point.

It is the Chiral Condensate, the "Vacuum or Void" of "Empty" space.

You want proof. Got none. But my view is mathematically supportable. That is one up on magic, miracles, Gods or Physical Infinity.

And now there is scientific evidence that particle pairs pop into and out of existance

You got a good head on your shoulders!

I will say that my equation explains this "all" and "nothing"
Again we have to look at the definition of "time".
Time is precived in retroperspectiv.
What happens RIGHT NOW is the result of what potentials are possiable and if the curcumstances for that are forfilled.


Our minds can remember and learn from the past.
And that is what we call time.

We know from past expirence that it takes an average acorn , time , to grow into a tree.
What it depence on is : (a)potential and
(b)circumstances.

If a+b=1 Then
a+(b/1000)=0,001

Everything is binary, either something happens or it don´t.
1 it happens, 0 it don´t.



We know that our body are made up by 1000000´s of cells, we know what the cells are made up by, we have discovered DNA, we know what it is made of, we can build nano items.
But what happens when we go deeper that nano?
We do not know yet!
I do not think that we ever will find some god behind it.
I do think that we will find more of what we have found so far.
Until we find that we and everything are made up by curcumstances and potentials, no matter how small or how big.

To branch off to unsupported conclusions, is a logical step for people who reached the end of theis logical thinking ability.

Leading cosmologists picture the Universe as a bubble floating in empty space, right? Now, is that empty space composed of parts? No. Does the concepts of motion and therefore time apply to it? No. Does it have a beginning or an ending? No, it does not move, therefore it is not subject to change, it is eternal. Is it everywhere? Yes. Is it the seat to all fields? Yes. Can there be matter without fields? No. Is it matter? No. Is it real?

It has been argued before that there is an interaction at a deeper level between matter and the environment in which it develops. That this deceptively simple and very old idea that energy, therefore, matter, comes from a common substrate, and that everything is interconnected through this substrate is the underlying reality. And this is the aim of this book, to examine the philosophical implications that these facts bring to light and to reassess this new state of affairs in detail.

Traditionally, western science's tendency has been to fragment and isolate everything we take as the object of our investigations, ignoring the background, the underlying substrate from where the Universe emerged.

From the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Physics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle we get that light is particle and wave at the same time, that the totality is more than the sum of its parts and that when you get down to the size of atoms there are no solid-like particles spinning in empty space but a net of interconnected particle-wave systems, a hologram ruled by the laws of wave harmonics. From the EPR (Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen) experiment and from the fact that when we rotate the plane of polarization on a beam of light the whole beam changes at once, instantaneously, we get non-locality. And, from John A. Wheeler's Delayed-Choice and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics we get undividedness of process, wholeness, self reflection and self-organization.

From these facts we can argue that matter originates at a deeper level, and that state instantaneously changes throughout a beam of light thanks to wholeness in space and time. That this wholeness is what makes EPR phenomena possible.

I argue, like many others, that the Aether is the physical, nonmaterial substance, from which the Universe popped into existence. To exist, things must be in spacetime, and the Aether is not in spacetime, it is before spacetime, so it is but does not exist as matter. Spacetime is the bubble floating in empty space that cosmologists talk about when describing the Universe.

The Aether is all permeating, it is everywhere by its own definition, it is inside and between particles. You can not conceive a fragmentable aether, or it would not be the Aether as it was defined thousands of years ago. By definition, everything is made from it, even the space that surrounds you.

The Aether, as described over four thousand years ago, is materially non-dimensional. Things move, but not in relation to the Aether, things move in relation to other things at the classical level. It is not matter, therefore, not directly observable. You can measure the properties of fields, but you can't take a direct measurement of the Aether. It is indivisible, fields can create the appearance of separated volumes, but you can not divide the Aether into separate entities. In that sense, it is apparently, infinitely divisible. This is why many say you could fit the whole Universe in a point.

Since motion isn't one of the Aether's properties, neither is time, nor change, making it immutable... eternal. Any material substance will occupy space. This physical but nonmaterial substance does not occupy any space. It becomes matter as fields spin or pulsate at very high speeds, creating material properties like volume, extension, motion, time, mass, gravity, solidity... eventually causing the formation of objects in spacetime. Since it lacks the property of motion and can not be described as containing parts that follow a time-line, we can conclude that it is not matter. At the sub-quantum level, the level at which energy is before it turns into multiple entities, motion loses meaning. Once we have the limits, the boundaries, we can talk about size, extension, motion, time and process.

In this sense, Aether is synonymous to energy, it is pure energy. Everything is connected to the Aether because everything is made from it. This is where particle complementarity comes from. In this view, the Aether has no capacity to hold any information, just qualities which are used by active information as energy is turned into quantities, or quantized, in spacetime.

The Aether gives the Universe properties like wholeness, interconnectedness, continuity and, since the property of extension does not apply to it, non-locality. There are no parts when you refer to the Aether, but you can look at electric fields, magnetic fields, gravitational fields, or any kind of force field as different things or parts of a greater whole made from the same continuous and non-fragmentable Aether.

According to contemporary Quantum Mechanics, particle complementarity is due to an indivisible process which originates in a common background, but, it appears as if the only necessary information being transferred, through EMR (Electromagnetic Radiation) in hyperspace, from the Aether to the particles, is that concerning momentum and location in relation to that inertial frame and the rest of the Universe. All the information needed for the evolution of the system in spacetime is contained by the system itself, in spacetime. Therefore, eliminating the need for some a priori mega information storage system containing the history of the Universe.

[X, P] = 0 -- commutativity (leads to a dualism)
[X, P] = ih -- non-commutativity (leads to a monism)

Hence the non-separability of process claimed by so many.

"The non-commutativity of the underlying process produces an ontological complementarity. This must be contrasted to Bohr's epistemological complementarity." --- Basil Hiley

According to Louis de Broglie, et al., every object exists as a body coupled to a matter-wave, and its displacement through space can be described by a wave-function. Information about the object's relation to its surroundings and the rest of the Universe is picked and brought in by each object's particular pilot-wave.

Bodies in motion need to continuously reset their energy requirements. As we now know, particles are not these space independent billiard-ball like objects floating in space, they are particles-wave systems in constant motion and there needs to be a continuous energy flow from the substrate to the particle, this is why position and momentum can't be known at the same time. This is where the Heisenberg uncertainty principle comes from.

Matter is continuously changing, becoming, what was a second ago is no longer, and the only things real or meaningful to us are the information and processes through which things become and what they now are. But the immutable, the eternal, the real, is the empty space in which the Universe sits. Matter and fields are little more than apparitions, active information, as David Bohm called it. Basil Hiley, one of David Bohm's followers, is correct when he says that being is a relative invariant in the process of becoming, existing is not the same as being. The fundamental laws, that which remains unchanged, is what is real. These qualities of the Aether are the same fundamental laws that rule electromagnetic (EM) fields.

Can you be without materially existing? Logic tells us that creation ex nihilo is physically impossible. And from electromagnetic phenomena and gravitation we get that, physically speaking, to be, you don't need to be material, all you need is to be able to act as a force. You can be without existing, but you can not exist without being.

Is empty space real? Can we prove it? Can we measure it? Can you mathematically describe the rotation or acceleration of an object in empty space without assuming empty space to be real? I mean, if you were the only particle in space, how could you tell when spinning or accelerating? Is the only way to have space, rotation and acceleration when we have more than one object to consider? According to Relativity, objects in spacetime are relative to each other, not to empty space, and I trust Relativity. Empty space may be empirically untenable, but it is already considered as real by present theory, this is why we have a Cartesian plane.

Empty space and spacetime are not the same thing. Einstein's spacetime is material, empty space is not. There can be no space without time or motion, that is why Albert Einstein called it spacetime. Like Einstein said, if we had no time (process), everything would have to happen at once. That is why Einstein described reality as a spacetime continuum where he saw process as the weaver of the fabric of space, a fabric made from space and time. Reality is process... spacetime is process.

Time, space and matter, start with the quantum. Quanta can exist only if in motion. Field motion, or energy, turns into matter. If we could stop the motion, matter would go back to being just empty space. Outside of time, quantum events are not possible. There is time and space because there is motion, and there is motion because there is energy. The Aether itself does not move, matter does, the quantum does.

The Aether is not in spacetime, spacetime is in the Aether. In this view, it is the substrate to all matter, including cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). Everything depends on this substrate, this is where the laws of electromagnetism are administered from. Electromagnetic fields should not appear as ultimate, irreducible realities. Existence starts with the field, and before that there is Aether. It is before geometry, spacetime and geometrization happen after the Aether. The Aether, unlike spacetime, is primary. Matter and time are not.

Therefore, the Universe is background free and there is no fixed or absolute frame of reference, nor absolute time. From Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, we get that objects are not relative to empty space, that they are relative to other objects with mass. In respect to Relativity, what is absolute is not empty space, nor time, what is absolute is the objective Universe, the world. There is absolute reality.

This is what makes GTR (General Theory of Relativity) true, everything is related through and by the Aether. Or how could it be that when a body is accelerated to near the speed of light, time and length must change in relation to a stationary observer? Wasn't space supposed to be absolute, primary, independent and non-derivable from anything else (Isaac Newton)? According to General Relativity the Universe is one single entity, one process. Space... objects... Mankind... come from one thing, which by definition we call Aether. It is nothing in particular but has the potential to become anything.

0+0=0


peace.