Could Nothing start a chain reaction ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

doc_harra

Guest
Could Nothing start a chain reaction ?<br />Could this be the most fundamental contradiction ? As even Nothing hold's a (time) as nothing IS something in it's self thus creating (matter) and of course (space)<br />By nothing in it's self creating substance, like infinity or being some what define able, And infinity although being very elusive still remains partially measurable (more substance),<br />Or perhaps having an infinite amount of nothing eventually it creates mass, And if it was finite that that would most definitely be mass,<br />You may say why dose something not just pop out of nowhere anytime ?,<br />Perhaps a infinite amount of nothing would first be required to kick start the chain reaction, Creating Mass at the rate that the larger body of Nothing spread's through infinity, Making new ruptures in the fabric of Nothing unlikely,<br />I know every thing said above is not really answerable and dose not tell you anything and do not say it is true, But anyway it's there.<br /><br />Go ahead, Nothing ! the great creator.<br />
 
D

doc_harra

Guest
Or this matter in our universe may be moving along to form a total sum of mass (The main contradiction to Nothing) Spu-ing through a rupture to form the balance of the two (our universe) chicken and the egg question in motion, parra_doc
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Poetic; we talked about this event, as if, it were related to an time explosion, or paradox, like you said. This is why time is likely to prevent closure of the system, in which the system that I am referring to is the universe as we know it plus the unknown universe. The ultimate open system.
 
D

doc_harra

Guest
Also if true may need to avoid big crunch at point where total mass is forming, As opposed to a big bang pulling in to form a big crunch, And may need to employ more of a running on a log in a river effect, Hoping from planet to planet toward the rupture trying to remain in the medium, Or creating our own mobil home (spaceship) collecting matter the fridge chucks out, As i am sure hopping from planet to planet, Having not even found a habitable world yet may be very difficult.
 
J

jatslo

Guest
Take the Earth with you. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> That sounds like a reasonable 1000-year goal.<br />
 
N

nexium

Guest
I must be dense. Neither the question nor the answers calculate. Would someone attempt to explain without using words like chain reaction, nothing and paradox? Neil
 
N

newtonian

Guest
doc_harra - It depends on how you define "nothing."<br /><br />For example, earth is said to be hung upon "nothing":<br /><br />(Job 26:7) 7 He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing;<br /><br />Nothing in this context means no thing, or empty (compare the Hebrew word and defintion).<br /><br />Newton discovered what this 'nothing' is: gravity. It is not a material thing or matter - but earth is set in place firmly (see overall context of the above example).<br /><br />Nothing, not even infinity, violates the law of conservation of matter and energy nor the principle of cause and effect.<br /><br />Remember, however, that there are likely forms of energy and matter which we have not directly observed (albeit some forms have shown us effects).<br /><br />Everything has a cause except for the first cause.<br /><br />Would you like me to go into more depth on cause and effect and the first cause?
 
D

doc_harra

Guest
doc_harra - It depends on how you define "nothing."<br /><br />I have spent some time recently trying to enhance my understanding of nothing only to be left with more questions<br /><br />is nothing odd or even ?<br />is nothing a valid amount ?<br />is there a total amount of nothing ?<br />if there is a total amount of nothing, Is this determined by the full amount of all substance ?<br />can nothing expand in size with out the addition of extra mass<br />why is there so much more nothing than mass ?<br />dose nothing have any properties that could be defined as mass like energy ?<br />what is the cause of nothing ?<br />what came first mass of any type : energy,substance or the empty void of nothing, or do you believe they came together hand in hand, if so from where ? perhaps from nowhere or nothing ?<br /><br />apparently you cant take something away from nothing, but the addition of any matter dose take away from nothing, where dose this nothing/space go ? <br /><br />For example, earth is said to be hung upon "nothing": <br /><br />I think the earth resides within nothing and is not hung on<br /><br />(Job 26:7) 7 He is stretching out the north over the empty place, Hanging the earth upon nothing; <br /><br />Nothing in this context means no thing, or empty (compare the Hebrew word and definition). <br /><br />Newton discovered what this 'nothing' is: gravity. It is not a material thing or matter - but earth is set in place firmly (see overall context of the above example).<br /><br />all matter resides with in nothing, gravity i think is caused by matter in motion, so i would not define gravity as nothing,<br /><br />Nothing, not even infinity, violates the law of conservation of matter and energy nor the principle of cause and effect. <br /><br /><br />Remember, however, that there are likely forms of energy and matter which we have not directly observed (albeit some forms have shown us effects). <br /><br />Everything has a cause except for the first cause. <br /><br />* Would like you to g
 
D

doc_harra

Guest
The main reason I think that nothing can precede all mass types/everythig is that all mass/everything is just as much defined by nothing/space as the mass it's self, Even the most tightly compacted molecule's has space/nothing in and around it and relies on this fact to differentiate it from the next molecule where as nothing dose not rely on substance to define it although it's definition dose expand through every variance of matter, But once again dose not rely on it.<br /><br />like a circle is just as much defined by the space out side and inside it, As it is defined by the line/mass that forms it, Where as only the mass/line seems by some to be the main defining factor, so sometimes the space/nothing maybe be over looked in it's definition or taken for granted<br /><br />Where as the definition of nothing is only enhanced by the circle/mass , But dose not rely on the circle/mass to help define it, i.e. what is the definition of nothing ? (answer) = the opposite to anything tangible like a circle or a ......... so on and so on <br /><br />This could be because nothing dose not have a form as such by it's self, only a form that is dictated by mass (The space around mass) which directly connects to the larger formless body of nothing/space<br /><br />I wonder weather the understanding of everything (if possible) Will come before the understanding of nothing or perhaps to understand one reveals the other (again if possible)<br />
 
D

doc_harra

Guest
In mathematics, any integer is either even or odd. If it is a multiple of two, it is an even number; otherwise, it is an odd number. Examples of even numbers are -4, 8, 0, and 70. Examples of odd numbers are -5, 1, and 71. The number zero is even, because it is equal to two multiplied by zero.<br /><br />The set of even numbers can be written:<br /><br />Evens = 2Z = {..., -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, ...}.<br /><br /><br />The set of odd numbers can be shown like this:<br /><br />Odds = 2Z + 1 = {..., -5, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5, ...}.<br /><br /><br />I see but i am not entirely happy, as i feel it still seems uneven or odd although i can sort of see the balance but only through -numbers and to me -nothing is almost everything<br /><br /><br />also supposedly there is a -0 are they both even ?<br /><br /><br />"The number zero is even, because it is equal to two multiplied by zero."<br /><br />But wouldn't zero then also be considered an odd number since zero is also equal to one multiplied by zero?<br /><br />As the article says, an odd number is 2*n+1, where n is an integer. You can't write 0 that way, so it's not odd. "Odd" does NOT mean "2 times another odd number" —dcclark (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)<br /><br /><br />n * 0 = 0. Thus, regardless of what number n is, the result is always 0?<br />Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Even_and_odd_numbers"<br /><br />ok so its even, but it still hurts !
 
N

newtonian

Guest
doc_harra - You requested of me:<br /><br />"Everything has a cause except for the first cause. <br /><br />* Would like you to go into more depth on the first cause only please, or provide a link if poss, Thanks "<br /><br />OK, here goes: <br /><br />I believe in the law of conservation of matter and energy and the scientifically observed process of cause and effect.<br /><br />There are then two scientific choices starting with these observed properties and laws of our universe:<br /><br />1. There are an infinite number of past causes and effects going back an infinite amount of past time (not our universe specific space-time, but primordial time which pre-existed our universe).<br /><br />2. There is a first cause.<br /><br />There are, of course, further variations of these 2 choices. For example, the first cause could be God, or the First Cause (as I believe). Also, the first cause could have created time or time could always have existed within the first cause.<br /><br />Now, for more depth:<br /><br />The Bible describes the First Cause, and names Him Jehovah.<br /><br />The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew root verb which means "to cause or to become or to be". It is in the causative sense, hence one definition of the name Jehovah is "He causes to be."<br /><br />Simply, Jehovah is the First Cause.<br /><br />Now, as to how our universe was caused by the First Cause - note the fine tuned properties and laws of our universe.<br /><br />How were they fine tuned - how much energy was incorporated to form all of the matter and energy of our universe?<br /><br />How fast was it fine tuned?<br /><br />Physics extrapolations indicate all of this was caused in a tiny fraction of a second.<br /><br />Thus the First Cause had the ability and energy to fine tune or set these ratios and laws so as to allow stars and life to exist.<br /><br />Now, some of what we have since is like a chain reaction of causes and effects due to the laws and properties set at creation.<br /><br />However, while life
 
D

doc_harra

Guest
<font color="green"> I believe in the law of conservation of matter and energy and the scientifically observed process of cause and effect. </font><br /><br />I count energy to be similar to matter matter and don't differentiate between the two that much.<br /><br />Where did matter come from ?<br />What caused the beginning ? <br />What one thing was there right at the start ? (the first most simplest thing)<br />And what caused something to follow?<br /><br /><font color="green">1. There are an infinite number of past causes and effects going back an infinite amount of past time (not our universe specific space-time, but primordial time which pre-existed our universe).</font><br /><br />****************even infinity has to start somewhere*********************** <br /><br />can you tell me where was the start ?<br /> <br /><font color="green">2. There is a first cause. <br /><br />There are, of course, further variations of these 2 choices. For example, the first cause could be God, or the First Cause (as I believe). Also, the first cause could have created time or time could always have existed within the first cause.</font><br /><br />Where did god the first cause come from ?<br />Who created God ?<br />And why did God come ?<br /> <br /><br /><font color="green"> The Bible describes the First Cause, and names Him Jehovah. </font><br /><br />Why name him ?<br />Where did he live ?<br />Dose that not imply a female first cause as well ?<br /><br /><font color="green"> The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew root verb which means "to cause or to become or to be". It is in the causative sense, hence one definition of the name Jehovah is "He causes to be." </font><br /><br />The name Jehovah sounds unlikely to <font color="green"> "S/He causes to be" </font>all on his own<br /><br />Did she cause him to be ? Mmmmmm <br /><br /><br /><font color="green"> However, while life is favored by these laws and properties, it is extremely unlikely that</font>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts