The Theory of Nothing (TON)

The theory sounds like it assumes the Big Bang had no preconditions and could have had a point (one dimension) origin. A point has no dimension but has location and amazingly that point/location would have had to be the location of the origin of the universe? It sounds like convenient double talk to get around the need for preconditions

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I think I'll assume preconditions before I assume a point origin resulting in the known universe. Just one man's opinion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How can there be "location" with just one dimension?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/A_geometric_object_that_has_no_dimensions_only_a_location

A point has location but no dimension. Did I say one dimension, geez :shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But there's no "space" to have location in.
All there is, is a line. No vacuum, nothing... Just a line.

 

The only location that would make sense in such a state is where points are situated along this line. The line is everything.

 

I know what you mean. If a point has no dimension, and a line has one dimension, a point only can be on a line. However, if you are talking about a point origin of the universe, the point coincides with the origin and so space could emerge from the point simultaneously with the introduction of that point. But we might be trying too hard to find a way for there to be a point origin of the universe. I just go with the options of preconditions because to me they are more logical than no preconditions and a point origin. Please don't say that the universe doesn't care what I think, lol.

 

I dunno...

I will keep myself updated on this theory of vanishing dimensions. I can post updates in this thread if you like. Apparently it looks pretty promising.

 

That's cool, but LISA is about ten years in the future according to the article. I'm sort of old anyway so another ten years of not knowing I am wrong may be all I need to fade away into oblivion oblivious.

 

Photons are their own antiparticle because they have neutral charge, which, to, nets out.

Netting to zero is the whole circumstance.

There are two and only two stable matter particles in free space, the electron(-) and the proton(+). (Note that a neutron is fine in a nucleus but in free space it decays in 10 minutes or so.)

It very curious that this number is limited to two. It’s as there are only two ways to make them or only two ways that are stable. Either way, it makes sense because the 4th-dimensional axis that nullifies all of existence via opposite charge polarity has only two degrees of freedom.

So, there can be no stable neutral matter particle and there can be no other stable charged matter particles beyond the electron and the proton (we always include antimatter) since the Cosmos can be no other way than this in this regard. Presumably, a neutral matter particle could not sum to nonexistence, as it could not be part of unit polar volume (which is half of unit hypervolume).

There is only one stable neutral energy particle, the photon, and, again, this could be no other way. Nor can it have an antiparticle at all. There can be no charged energy particles. A photon represents unit hypervolume and so it cannot be a part of unit polar volume like matter particles are.

No other kinds of particles can be stable. This reflects the basis beneath.

Unit hypervolume is hc / 2pi; unit polarvolume is hc / 4pi. (The 2pi part comes from the trigonometry of the sinusoidal wave of the photon, having to do with the photon scaling factor)

It’s really particles versus their 4D antimatter mirror twins of opposite charge that nullifies all of existence in the overview, which in reality can’t happen in actuality because a lack of anything—nothing—is a perfectly unstable state. This simplest state is what is expected as the TOE, as all the ever simpler and simpler entities beneath higher reality points the way to it.

Boring answer? Nope, for an ultimate answer can never be boring.

 

Lol, so are you saying that the reason anything exists is because nothingness is the most unstable condition?

 

Yes, and this is fully expected since there is nothing to make anything of.

 

It almost makes sense. But if there was energy then there would be something to make things of so that would screw up the nothingness wouldn't it. Damn that energy!

 

It makes more sense the longer one ponders it, purposely not 'neglecting' by brushing it off too soon, for while not exactly intuitive, there is no other answer, and so that leads us to the inevitable.

 

The netting out to zero theory may even lead to there only being space, and its positive and negative curvatures making for energy that naturally sums to zero, and, besides, what is space but an emptiness anyway, the only absolute required. And it is that the matter particle emissions are always in pairs of opposite charges and matter states, and, for the energy particle, the photon, opposite charges and states combined.

 

You should make your own religion.
One that actively believes in nothing. That'd be awesome.

 

I don't agree and have a conclusion I'm coming to

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

There are philosophical issues which each person has resolved for themselves. Clearly there is no one who can help either one of us with our conclusion about "nothingness" vs. "energy forever". Science won't really resolve it and within science there are professionals that would side with one or the other if they had to choose. We are on our own as to how we decide so we have to look at what we base our decision on. That becomes pretty subjective based on our personal and individual experiences and learning. Unless we could unwind piece by piece those factors we would never know exactly why we don't agree. And if we could unwind them to the essence of our own decision and thus know individually what the crucial data was that sways us in the direction that we sway, there is no reason that either of us would be persuaded to change.

We each could endlessly contemplate these scenarios and not change our philosophies or come to agreement. That is the conclusion I'm coming to and I'm comfortable thinking that our individual views are of equal merit if you hold yours as highly as I hold mine.

 

The term nothingness has no reality, for there is something now, so there is not nothingness now, there never was nothingness, and there never will be nothingness.

Mass evolves to space. Space is what is being created.

Take the earth for example. After it departed the sun and cooled on the exterior it had a vegetation free surface. If one were to have took measurements at that time, disregarding the atmosphere if any yet, the terrestrial part of the planet would have had a specific mass and a specific volume at a specific time. Since the mass was slowly turning less dense due to mass evolving to space, the atmosphere was created, the surface became less dense (dirt as we know it), water was forming, and vegetation was growing.

Look at that process and you will find that the volume of the earth was increasing due to the mass evolving to space. The earth's volume was increased because the mass got less dense by means of the volume increasing. The boundary of the earth increased as the atmosphere was formed by mass evolving to space. Even if just considering the terrestrial part of the earth, the vegetation increased the diameter of the earth. Vegetation is less dense than dirt. Vegetation is a direct observation of mass evolving to space! Mass gets less dense over time!

 

I don't know, Motor Daddy. That almost seems harder than nothingness

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I think I can tap into the logic you use but we are at odds about the history of space. If I get your intention, matter was first, and as it decays space is created. There are some hurdles in that thinking but you seem up to the task of getting over the hurdles. There is one hurdle you probably will continue to have trouble getting over and it one that I am familiar with. That is getting others to see things in the same sequence.

For example, I just speculate that space has always existed and is potentially infinite. That scenario alone means you and I are at opposite ends of the explanation for space. We probably wouldn't fine much to agree on given that bad start, lol.

 

That truly is a hurdle, but eventually, they will realize the earth came from the sun because mass evolves to space, and it will seem as obvious to them as does the earth not being flat. Some things are so obvious, and yet nobody sees it that way until after they understand it. I know the truth, I'd like everyone to know the truth. In the future when a child asks their parents where the earth came from, the standard answer will be, it came from the sun. Every child can understand that.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I've often argued the case on this forum that the universe is infinite and has always existed. There was no beginning and there will be no end. My definition of the universe is not as a single object, but as an infinite volume that contains objects of mass. But, objects of mass expand over time, so objects do not stay the same, and the universe is constantly evolving.

 

Maybe we have some philosophy in common which we can explore, but SciWriter originated this thread and it is up to him how it unfolds,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.