My theory on why the universe was created

Hehehe...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I'm just joking about the fact that they are discussing things without really taking into account wheter there is any correlation about them or not...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Ie... this whole discussion of everything and nothing and on the dependance of everything and blah blah blah...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you are right there, but i wouldn't call it "irrelevant space" !!
this space is very important to your existance, though you wont understand that. there might not be atoms or molecules but rather spiritual energy of the universe.

you see- you've found the difference between what i call "realitease" and the higher spiritual world that lies all around us and in the voids of dark space. this is where the creators of the galaxies reside and contemplate the status of the universe. our universe is a tightly knit fabric and they are always patching up holes and fixing it...

- there are two very seperate "dimensions" if u will that dominate our reality, existance, and purpose. they are seemingly opposite dimensions, as you would probably say- they are the two that you named:
-matter
-anti-matter

you spoke of them as being opposites- when u stated that in order for something to have an opposite it must be negative. true to an extent.
you see, the VOIDs of space , which u claim as being the opposite of our reality- are indeed on opposite ends of the existance spectrum.
in one you have our reality in which we seem to be souls trapped in physical bodies on a big rock-- and on the other side you have the darkest ends of space, the 'universe' which you may not know but it is full of energy, even though its invisible to computer's eyes and mathematical analysis--
its waves, energy, the opposite of your atoms- they arent physical therefore they dont need any real positive 'space' - like u said, its nothing.

you are touching the sands of time and uncovering the true origins of the universe, but you lack spirituality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The strange thing about all this is that if we agree that the opposite of something is nothing then it follows that the opposite of negative is nothing as well. Because negative is something therefore it's opposite is nothing.
This logic means that everything has only one true opposite and that is nothing.

Opposite of positive ( something) is nothing. Or so the argument suggests.

The only thing outside of everything "isn't".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Zonabi, I don't believe in spirituality. I called that space irrevelent as an expression, but if you read my posts you would see that i hold that space with high importance since it is the reason why the universe exists today. As for being spiritual, you are right, i do not believe in spirituality and never will.

Quantum Quack. What makes negative something? Isn't negative just a thought, a word we use to express what we mean? Nothing isn't "something" just an action really.

This logic means that everything has only one true opposite and that is nothing.
Why couldn't we say that all opposites dwell in nothing? Just like our reality dwells in the universe. I do not want to call it this, because I do not believe it is this, but you can relate this idea as an alternate universe.

The only thing outside of everything "isn't". What do u mean?

 

The problem with trying to understand "Nothing" is that as soon as you apply a concept or idea to it it ceases being "nothing". So "Nothing" can only exist ny default and not as "Something"

The only way to fully close the argument about "nothing" is to relate to everything as absolute. Only when everything i(Something) is absolute does "nothing" become truely nothing. The notion of nothing becomes just a concept that only exists as a series of words in our imagination.
There fore
The only thing outside of everything isn't .....holds true.

 

I was using the word negative to express a pole of energy say a negatively charged electron. Soem may say that it's opposite is a positively charged electron but I am suggesting that the opposite is in fact "Nothing" as an electron is something afterall and as stated the opposite to something is " " precisely

 

i think in the world opposite to our world; electrons are positively charged, causing incredible differences in the way our world and their world function. perhaps this explain the VOIDs of space and black holes and some of the mysteries of outer space and the universe? ?

its like the :alternate universe: u mentioned.
theres many of them. im sorry but u have to believe in spirituality kind of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

tell me votorx. do u believe in aliens ( or other life forms in other galaxies ) ?

is there any stuff on positive electrons?

 

Zonabi, I do believe there are aliens, I do not believe we have been visited and I do not believe we ever will be.

Why couldn't an Atom (A = Protons, B = Neutrons, C = Electrons)

E E

ABAB
E AB E
ABAB

E E

Have an opposite such as this? (A = Protons, B = Neutrons, C = Electrons)

-A -A

E-BE-B
-A E-B -A
E-BE-B

-A -A

Sry for the crude drawing. I am no scientist and I made this diagram logically, not scientifically. What I am wondering is, are there any, laws which deny such a thing of being true? And if so, why?

Html code prevents me from showing the actual diagram, Press reply to see the drawing of the atom.

 

Votorx,

If I understood what you draw... protons never go around an atom... As for anti-protons... I don't think so... but I never studied with anti-protons anyways...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But as far as I know, anti-protons would behave like regular protons...

 

votorx, let me try and get this straight:

you believe the reason the universe was created was to oppose the nothingness that you claim came before it ? you have good arguments with your atomic knowledge, and i for one am interested in your ideas, but i have to throw this one at you:

if so, what do u think our reason is for us being here ?

please dont tell me you think we are just some by-products of a coincidental accident of the perfect alignments of strange celestial bodies producing the extraordinarily perfect conditions for intelligent, soulfull & creative life forms?

and for the record, what makes you so sure that we havent, and wont ever, be visited by aliens? PM me if u dont want to talk about that on this thread.

i would like to see the drawing of the atom, if you would please email it to me, or something. i bet its interesting.

 

you believe the reason the universe was created was to oppose the nothingness that you claim came before it Basically, yes. To put it simple I’ve been trying to explain why and how everything has an opposite, and that nothing can exist in the universe without having an opposite. This nothing that came before the universe had to have some kinda of opposing element for it to “be”. Kinda of like a paradox...if there is nothing there would have to be a something, but what is there if there is no something and no nothing, then there would be nothing again... or would there, but there would be no nothing...so what would there be?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Anyways....

what do u think our reason is for us being here ? I don’t know...Maybe we are the final product of the elements needed to oppose death, or inanimitation (word I made up to express the nature of inanimate objects). Every animal has a certain characteristic which separates them from each other. Some have the ability to fly, others breath under water. Some a born with 4 legs, other born with 2, some 3, and others 8. Maybe we came into existence as a sentient life form to oppose stupidity present in all other things, or the unintelligence found in nonexistence. Its possible that, in this alternate universe that my theory has picked up on, humans are as smart as beetles, who knows?

and for the record, what makes you so sure that we havent, and wont ever, be visited by aliens? This is going just a little off topic but im going to take the risk of a topic change and answer it anyways. Even though humans have been on the earth for such a short amount of time within history, it is still illogical to think that all aliens are advanced enough to do something that’s physically impossible. Correct me if im wrong but light speed has been dubbed impossible to accomplish. If this is true then the hundreds of light-years that seperate our solar system from other systems and galaxies will make traveling to these other planets virtually impossible. Maybe sometimes, billions of years later, when we’ve populated enough planets and slowly make out way across the universe, WE might be able to find aliens on other planets. But to tell you the truth I think we will die out before we make it out of our own galaxy..

PS If you noticed, We are a very rare case. 1 out of the billions and billions of species found on planet has any kind of considerable amount of intelligence. Not only that but these other animals have been present on earth much longer than we have. Why haven’t they devoloped into an intelligent life form? Maybe alien life forms on other planets are just as smart as a wild dog.

What was originally a fairly simple, easy to understand theory is now turning into a complicated pile of scattered thoughts. I think I need to take a little while to recollect on what I’m trying to prove because im starting to lose myself, Im going to post my third revised theory in maybe the next day or 2.

 

Revised Theory #3:

Now before I tell you about my theory again I wish to give you a few terms to help understand my theory:

1. Nothing/Nothingness/Space/Void – A realm of non-existence. A region where an “alternate universe” contains the opposites of our reality. This region can be found where are universe doesn’t dwell, Ex. Space.

2. Opposites/Opposity/Negatives – An object of complete negativity from our reality. Everything about these objects are completely opposite from our reality, this include existence and non-existence. For something to be an opposite it must be the non-existent to its opposing element. Therefore these opposites dwell in the nothing which surrounds our universe.

3. Universe/Our Reality/ Nothing’s Opposite – Our universe is our reality. We as humans dwell in this universe which was contrived out of nothing. Everything that is the opposites of the objects which dwell in nothing can be found in this universe, whether it be on our planet or in some distant star.

4. My Theory of Opposites – For something to exist in our universe, its opposite must exist in the nothing/space that surrounds us. If there is no opposite, then it cannot exist.

Ok, hopefully I’ve been able to explain these terms thoroughly enough for everyone to understand. With this out of the way I will go onto my theory:

Science and logic both reveal that before the birth of the universe there was an endless vastness of nothing. The length of this space/void goes on for all inifinty and has always been there before there was any trace of the universe. This is impossible since this endless void of space cannot “be” without its counter-active opposite. Yet if this nothing wasn’t there, then there would have to be something (paradox), but as we all know there was no something at the some time. According to my theory of opposites for there to be nothing there would have to be an opposing element, which, using simple logic, would have to be something. So, to uphold this law, the opposite of nothing must be created even if it was as small as an atom. How it was created is beyond me, but this is WHY the universe was created, to uphold my theory of opposites or rather the theory of Ying and Yang.

I tried making this theory as short and simple as possible I hope u can understand it. I am open again to any questions if my theory was unclear or simply wrong by your standards.

 

To be conceived of as a state, "literally nothing" is self-contradictory, because it's basically a state in which nothing exists, as determined by the rules relating to the use of the word "nothing". In other words, it's a rule-bound state - the state consists of literally nothing, therefore there can be nothing there, by decree of the definition of "nothing" - therefore there must, in fact, be rules forever present in the state - thus there can't really be "nothing there."

To begin from "nothing" but avoid such contradictions, you really have to have a state representing even less than "literally nothing" - a state devoid of all apparent content, including rules. This shift towards a state that is only "apparently nothing" is conceptually helpful, because in the absence of any rules, the nature of the state is unpredictable - it is inherently unstable & thus may well change into "something" (such as a "universe"), without requiring any mysterious reason for doing so....

 

Well then, if that is true then what do u believe there was before the birth of the universe?

Rules aren't a thing, they aren't objects, atoms, they are literally a certain perimeter which all things, whether existing in our reality or not, must follow. Just because there is nothing there does not mean that all rules are devoided. To state that there must be something for there to be laws, while not having support about such a thing, is irrelevant. To put it simply, many if not all rules are always present no matter what state, even in our subconcious and in our dreams there are certain rules limiting us to what we can and cannot do.

 

Votorx can I ask you what you majored in? and are you a "god" believing person? I take it you've never studied computatibility, neuroscience
or Q physics or Relativity.

There is no evidence to suggest there was ever a time of a beginning t=0.
The so called big bang theory, is a local phenomenon (local of course being in astronomical distances). THere also is no evidence to show that the universe as we all know it was always there.
This is an open ended question. Probably with no answer in our lifetime

That said there exists 4 options
1) nothing-> something
2) nothing->nothing
3) something->nothin
4) something->something

option 2 of course will never have occured. And I doubt the universe will ever end (again my own opinion). So it comes down to 1 and 4. Personally
for the big bang to occur and create what we have now there would have to be something that was lost. Thus I believe in 4 that substances has persisted throughout all "time". That there was never a state of nothing.

And your definition #1 is very vague...how do you incorporate antimatter it exists only in ms.

and as for your definition of dreams I am confused...you say that all rules and opposites can exist but there are limitations? We can defy anylaw as long as we can think of it. Thats why there are so many scifi writers out there.

 

The so called big bang theory, is a local phenomenon (local of course being in astronomical distances). THere also is no evidence to show that the universe as we all know it was always there.

I never said that there was a big bang, i am just saying my theory on why the universe was created MAY have led to the big bang theory.

and are you a "god" believing person?

No, which is why i came up with this theory so i can prove that god did not create the universe.

There is no evidence to suggest there was ever a time of a beginning t=0.
What evidence suggest that there was never a time of a beginning?

for the big bang to occur and create what we have now there would have to be something that was lost. Thus I believe in 4 that substances has persisted throughout all "time". That there was never a state of nothing.

I believe there was a beginning. I believe something had to create this substance at some time, rather it being there for all eternity. It is redicilous to think that, a substance that had been in existance for all eternity would suddenly have a bigbang only a few billion years from today. Relatively, that few billions year could be compared to a trillionth of a millisecond in our reality. I believe your defintion of #4 is very vague as well, more vague than my definiton of #1.

and as for your definition of dreams I am confused...you say that all rules and opposites can exist but there are limitations? We can defy anylaw as long as we can think of it.
Maybe in our mind we think we defy such laws but in reality it's not so. Just thinking we can fly without no mechanical help isn't going to make us float in midair now is it? Anyways, with that interpretation of dreams was only a responce to bubblecar's post and should not be interpreted into my theory.

 

1) you didn't answer about your educational background? philosophy? science? etc.
2) i never said there was evidence to show that there never existed a t=0
I said there was no evidence to show that t=0

3) it is not ridiculous to think that substance persists forever. Put it this way in a local region of the universe there could exist a grid structure of H atom
and then some outside force perturbs it to what we have now. AND

QUOTE "It is redicilous to think that, a substance that had been in existance for all eternity would suddenly have a bigbang only a few billion years from today. "
If you have not studied chaos theory, dynamical systems or cellular automata you would not understand how a simple system could cause a big explosion. Also there is a theory out there that there may have been multitude of big bangs out there at different times...therefore you second part is valid.

Also there is always grey matter areas, therefore not necessarily existing opposites.

 

I agree with neurocomp as far as creation of the universe goes as it could not have created itself from "nothing", and my understanding of the big bang theory was that it was gas particles that caused the explosion in the 1st place but perhaps im wrong?? Also i think sayin its ridiculous for substances to always have existed even before our current universe(there possably was previous ones that expanded and collapsed??? could that be the cause of the big bang???) is a frankly stupid statement, the size of the universe is a concept humans struggle to grasp as is the concept that "something" may have existed for trillions of years before our universe. The fact is "something" had to have existed for all time to lead onto "something" else, unless im much mistaken no object can appear from nothingness.(though i'd be very interested if someone wants to prove me wrong)

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Rules aren't a thing, they aren't objects, atoms"

Rules don't need to be "objects" in order to make a mockery of the claim that "there's nothing there". If you are claiming that "rules are present in the state", you are referring to characteristics that must be manifested in some tangible way, or you're just making unsupportable assertions. And if such characteristics can be shown to really exist in the state, it's certainly not true that there's "nothing there".

 

Alas, our minds are too feeble to grasp the concept of nothingness, existence, this, that, etc. To say that there has to be something before something else can be created, however, is silly and frought with biased, perception-based assumptions. Truly, such things are irrelevant to "truth".