WHY does anything exist?

[NietzscheHimself]

If you think this is a joke I'll happily make more assumptions. If you think it's all nonsense you haven't been paying much attention to me or your surroundings.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If you think this is a joke I'll happily make more assumptions.

Nope. I don't think it's a joke. Although you tend to be.

If you think it's all nonsense you haven't been paying much attention to me or your surroundings.

Yup, more generalised arm-waving and no back up. Just what I expected.

 

[Wisdom_Seeker]

An intro to metaphysics I guess ... so shoot.

Duh, God was bored, so He created 'Maya' as his own cosmic T.V.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Nope. I don't think it's a joke. Although you tend to be.

So what I have a Jolly spark when the opposition is as in-specific as you.

Yup, more generalised arm-waving and no back up. Just what I expected.

I would hardly call a proposed experiment, confirmed by yourself to not have taken place for a long time, "arm-waving." If anything I'm amused by your stubbornness.

Can't point out one tiny speckle or flaw in the design I try to imprint into your head. Call the lot of everything nonsense. Your words are just full of stories aren't they. Surely someone as genuinely ingenious as yourself could actually tear apart some holes upon the object in question.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So what I have a Jolly spark when the opposition is as in-specific as you.

Do you mean non-specific? Unspecific?
What is there to be specific about?

I would hardly call a proposed experiment, confirmed by yourself to not have taken place for a long time, "arm-waving."

A proposed experiment? Really? Where did you propose this? And what do you mean "confirmed by me to not have taken place for a long time"?

If anything I'm amused by your stubbornness.

As amused as I am by your inability to post anything of substance? Or stick to the point?

Can't point out one tiny speckle or flaw in the design I try to imprint into your head.

I have done so. Repeatedly. And all you do is amble along adding yet more inanity.

Surely someone as genuinely ingenious as yourself could actually tear apart some holes upon the object in question.

And there you go again. All you've posted so far is arm-waving generalisations and drivel. Oh, and contradictory statements.

 

[NietzscheHimself]

what do you mean "confirmed by me to not have taken place for a long time"?

You said nobody has seen them all assimilated, which means nothing the like is around for lightyears and lightyears. Possibly not even anywhere.

As amused as I am by your inability to post anything of substance?

Every substance known is not substantial information to anything?

I have done so. Repeatedly. And all you do is amble along adding yet more inanity.

You have only said one thing that was actually about the completely unproven object.

And there you go again. All you've posted so far is arm-waving generalisations and drivel. Oh, and contradictory statements.

I can dance too

 

[Dywyddyr]

You said nobody has seen them all assimilated, which means nothing the like is around for lightyears and lightyears. Possibly not even anywhere.

Or ever.
And what does this have to do with "experiment"?

Every substance known is not substantial information to anything?

Where have you posted every substance known?

You have only said one thing that was actually about the completely unproven object.

And you haven't actually specified this "object".

I can dance too

Badly. Much the same way as you "think".

 

[NietzscheHimself]

When I said one atom of each from the periodic table of elements combine by nanotechnology would create high energy levels similar to that of the big bang. I proposed a specified experiment containing every substance known to man.

 

[Dywyddyr]

When I said one atom of each from the periodic table of elements combine by nanotechnology would create high energy levels similar to that of the big bang. I proposed a specified experiment containing every substance known to man.

Why do you think this would produce a Big Bang?
When (and why) do you think it has been performed before?

Do you not think (sorry, stupid question, but...) that performing such an "experiment" would be slightly dangerous if it were to "create high energy levels similar to that of the big bang"?
Where (and how) should it be performed?

 

[wynn]

What a love affair the two of you have here!

 

[Rav]

NietzscheHimself shouldn't feel too special though. Dywyddyr loves many people in this way (although NietzscheHimself is getting most of the love presently, which counts for something I guess).

 

[wynn]

Well, I am jealous!!

 

[NietzscheHimself]

Why do you think this would produce a Big Bang?

I didn't. I said the energy levels are similar. They "identify" with each other. You supposedly need its antimatter pair to produce a big bang. Which we have no access to. Unless of corse there is an antimatter me doing the same exact thing in another dimension, which I doubt. Or we make two of them and smash them together.

When (and why) do you think it has been performed before?

Of all the endless statistics in the universe it probably exists somewhere or had existed or will exist.

Do you not think (sorry, stupid question, but...) that performing such an "experiment" would be slightly dangerous if it were to "create high energy levels similar to that of the big bang"?

Actually I was expecting you to ask questions like this. How far down into Murphy's law are we to be content with our expectations of the proposed experiment? At what point should we expect failure if at all.

Where (and how) should it be performed?

In a vacuum, under adult supervision, and from "light" to heavy.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I didn't. I said the energy levels are similar.

If they're similar (but one doesn't produce a Big Bang) then how exactly are they similar? Given that these "energy levels" are going to localised...

You supposedly need its antimatter pair to produce a big bang.

Supposedly? According to whom? Links please.

Which we have no access to.

Oh shit! I wonder if anyone told the guys at CERN that think they have some.

Unless of corse there is an antimatter me doing the same exact thing in another dimension

Ah, the old woo-woo stand by. Other dimensions.

Actually I was expecting you to ask questions like this. How far down into Murphy's law are we to be content with our expectations of the proposed experiment? At what point should we expect failure if at all.

Apart from expecting me to ask questions "like this" were you at any point expecting yourself to answer them? And you still haven't answered the basic one:
Why do you think this would produce [energy levels similar to] a Big Bang?

In a vacuum, under adult supervision, and from "light" to heavy.

In a vacuum? Why? And where is this vacuum? Will (if it does produce equivalent energy levels) "adult supervision" prevent it doing damage?

 

[Randwolf]

When I said one atom of each from the periodic table of elements combine by nanotechnology would create high energy levels similar to that of the big bang. I proposed a specified experiment containing every substance known to man.

Proposing and executing are two entirely different acts.

Do you have the facilities to carry this out? I surely don't.

OTH, perhaps you can provide the maths that would describe "one atom of each from the periodic table of elements combine[d] by nanotechnology would create high energy levels similar to that of the big bang." Yes? No?

I can't do this either since I can't determine what it is you mean by "combining" these atoms. It would have to be damn quick, because some of these elements degrade in seconds...

 

[Randwolf]

I didn't. I said the energy levels are similar. They "identify" with each other.

ORLY? They have a secret handshake or such?

 

[NietzscheHimself]

If they're similar (but one doesn't produce a Big Bang) then how exactly are they similar? Given that these "energy levels" are going to localised...

It takes two to tango... big bangs come from closely related objects having a little power play. Think about it. If it is too large or too small it is just going to absorb or be absorbed.

Supposedly? According to whom? Links please.

At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Oh shit! I wonder if anyone told the guys at CERN that think they have some.

Where ever did you get this "no access business". Like something at CERN bears any resemblance to this.

Apart from expecting me to ask questions "like this" were you at any point expecting yourself to answer them? And you still haven't answered the basic one:
Why do you think this would produce [energy levels similar to] a Big Bang?

Yes. It contains every object made by the big bang in extremely close proximity. Think of the object as the dense state in the expanding universe theory.

In a vacuum? Why? And where is this vacuum? Will (if it does produce equivalent energy levels) "adult supervision" prevent it doing damage?

A tiny little vacuum sealed jar. I doubt any damage will be done with someone as responsible as you on my back.

 

[Dywyddyr]

big bangs come from closely related objects having a little power play.

Pardon? Evidence please.

Think about it. If it is too large or too small it is just going to absorb or be absorbed.

WTF are you talking about?

At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang

Uh, yes. This was after the Big Bang. Not the cause of it. I'll repeat my question since you seem to be answering a different one:
You: You supposedly need its antimatter pair to produce a big bang.
Me: Supposedly? According to whom? Links please.

Where ever did you get this "no access business". Like something at CERN bears any resemblance to this.

You: Which we have no access to [antimatter]. Post #393 sentence 5.
Me: (Rephrased) CERN manufactures the stuff.

Yes. It contains every object made by the big bang in extremely close proximity.

So what?

A tiny little vacuum sealed jar. I doubt any damage will be done with someone as responsible as you on my back.

You are among the more seriously deluded (and incomprehensible) cranks on this site. You're quite a fascinating study in random inanity. At least your "thoughts" make sense to you. (Well I assume they do).

 

[Randwolf]

Think about it. If it is too large or too small it is just going to absorb or be absorbed.

So Nietzche is about to be absorbed - quite the concept...

At some point an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present Universe.

Yeah, violating Lorentz invariance tends to have unpredictable results...

Where ever did you get this "no access business". Like something at CERN bears any resemblance to this.

I think I'll just pretend I never saw this..

Yes. It contains every object made by the big bang in extremely close proximity. Think of the object as the dense state in the expanding universe theory.

Said objects evolving and changing while ever expanding, yes? As in Cosmology's premise that a gigantic singularity eruption brought on the creation of elementary particles, subsequently followed by the formation of helium and hydrogen, and then the development of galaxies from these basic elements, right? So? Have you considered the possibility of an oscillating universe? What, if any impact, does this have on your existing premise?

A tiny little vacuum sealed jar. I doubt any damage will be done with someone as responsible as you on my back.

Great attempt at humor. Notice the emphasize on "attempt"...

 

[NietzscheHimself]

So Nietzche is about to be absorbed - quite the concept...

Thanks

I think I'll just pretend I never saw this..

lol good keep it unspoken. We wouldn't want to overheat any tiny brains.

Said objects evolving and changing while ever expanding, yes? As in Cosmology's premise that a gigantic singularity eruption brought on the creation of elementary particles, subsequently followed by the formation of helium and hydrogen, and then the development of galaxies from these basic elements, right? So? Have you considered the possibility of an oscillating universe? What, if any impact, does this have on your existing premise?

Yes to changing and evolving at the highest elevation, Yet to ours like anything else it takes heat to expand. Yes to the concept know as "osculating universe". It doesn't really change anything it's just confirmation that principals and tools exist to start moving in the proposed direction. If we find this object does oscillate, then it might be useful in the energy department. On a large scale, yes planets and suns vibrate as they emit energy and heat.

Great attempt at humor. Notice the emphasize on "attempt"...

I try to carry conversations with humor. If I fail I hope nobody notices :shh:

Uh, yes. This was after the Big Bang. Not the cause of it. I'll repeat my question since you seem to be answering a different one:
You: You supposedly need its antimatter pair to produce a big bang.
Me: Supposedly? According to whom? Links please.

light caused the big bang. If you were to go out far beyond the universe you would see nothing but a beam of light glowing and expanding in the distance.
I don't need anything from CERN because anti-carbon is impossible and a matching pair is therefore invalid.

You are among the more seriously deluded (and incomprehensible) cranks on this site. You're quite a fascinating study in random inanity. At least your "thoughts" make sense to you. (Well I assume they do).

You like to study nothing? I would consider that a hobby of mine as well. We aren't so different you and I.