The Theory of Nothing (TON)

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by SciWriter, Mar 30, 2011.

  1. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    The Theory of Nothing (TON)

    ‘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 “free thoughts” 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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Er, which mathematical system are you using?

    Huh?

    Make your mind up. Can it not exist at all, or can it but not remain that way?
    Either way you've already been given a link that shows you're wrong on both counts.

    As for the rest: BE;CF.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Stoniphi obscurely fossiliferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,256
    Can I have some of what you're smoking?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    My own equation.

    Nothing cannot remain as such.

    Can I have that link again?

    Of what are the basics made? One must say.
     
  8. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    I'm only smoking green menthol Marlboro 100's with wine and pot flavoring and waterfall effect.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Then you'll have to explain your entire system of mathematics to the rest of us. So far it appears that you've arbitrarily decided this value.

    Not according to Stenger. 60/40 I believe were his figures - turning into something/ staying as nothing.

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=92761
     
  10. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    OK, on the equation, will do, if I can, but what about the rest of the post? The equation is only supplemental.

    Stenger still has nothing producing something in that link. So does Lawrence Krauss, but I am using a better theory, as you will see that there is more of.
     
  11. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Anything wrong with the theory?
     
  12. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    i think that god is the law that makes something out of nothing.
     
  13. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Only 60% of the time.

    You mean "one you like more".

    Over-verbose unsupported speculation. With too many suppositions.
     
  14. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    We don't know that Stenger's probabilities are so, plus the something as of nothing idea is still quite intact.

    One must still refute the TON, rather than just generalize without any specifics. Of what could the 'elementals' possibly be made of? And why their particular and limited forms if around forever and not made? Etc.
     
  15. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Nothing to make God of, plus complexity comes later. Or else you are having physics laws. Law equals law, that all.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,252
    Um, Stenger gave those figures didn't he?

    Refute it?
    Let's start with your system of mathematics: lay it out for us.
     
  17. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Doesn't matter what figure; nothing is still the basis of existence for Stenger.

    More math, OK, but the countering of the non math proposal and support sections still remains.
     
  18. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Continuing, 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.
     
  19. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    well what do you think the father is? it's the law. the creator. christ is the human fulfillment of the law. don't forget biology, and behavioral science.
     
  20. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    All is a distribution of nothing, and this 'nothing' is not a being, but nothing, plus, this eternal basis itself never had creation, so, again, no Creator. We have found the ground-state, and it surely does have implications upon no God.

    Biology came about by mindless evolution over billions of years.
     
  21. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    who said god is a being? jesus is a being. you're a being. god is not a being.

    yes, mindless yet mind-blowing at the same time because we mindlessly were given minds to appreciate it all with. right!
     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    If God is not a being then what is he?
    And he is definitely being portrayed as a being in the bible..
     
  23. SciWriter Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,028
    Yet She is said to have planned and created everything in all of its specific particulars for a purpose. No go.
     

Share This Page