# Nothing Is Outside The Universe (Therefore, Everything Is Outside The Universe)!: Ad (To) Info

Status
Not open for further replies.

#### Atlan0001

"Nothing is outside the Universe; therefore, everything is outside the Universe." It is something I said at least 30 years ago, went on to other things, argued for in other ways without exactly saying it, and only realized again this morning. That void of "nothing" [will] be filled... with "everything."
------------------
I was asked in another thread to give a short answer definition for "infinite" (as in infinite Universe (U)). I gave a short answer, "'1'." For all of an infinity of finite universes (u), '1:1:1:1.....' the infinite mirrored to infinity. It is impossible to observe infinite / infinitesimal / infinity of.... It collapses to and/or in horizon. A horizon not "infinite" / not "finite." Non-infinite / non-finite horizon. Short answer, '0'.

The collapsed horizon appears to be distant from us. It appears to be about 14 billion light years from us. Yet as horizon, we are in that horizon. The infinity of finites, including our local finite universe (u) is within that non-infinite, non-finite, thus infinite [and] finite, horizon ('0'). "Nothing is outside the Universe, therefore everything is outside the Universe.
------------------
('1' (U)) and/or ('1:1:1:1.... (u)'), and/or ('0') forces the Big Mirror (Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum / Big Mirror mirroring to infinity of...) to take the place ('-1' (U)) to realize collapsed horizon ('0'). The anti- or mirrored infinite of Universe (U) to the infinite of Universe (U), but still its own binary 'Naked Singularity' (S) (as opposed to singularity (s) / infinity of singularities (s)). Naked Singularity: "betwixt and between" black holes' event horizons (universe in large) and Planck level singularities / Planck level hot blue-white holes (quantum fluctuations) (universe in small).
---------------------
Nothing is outside the Universe (U), therefore: Everything is outside the Universe (U).

Last edited:

#### ThePatriotBeast

##### Stars can't shine without darkness
I have never thought of this. How did you even THINK of this?!

#### Atlan0001

I have never thought of this. How did you even THINK of this?!
I'm nowhere near the first to realize it. Just, I suppose, the first to advance it here.

Analogy: I spent a lot of years studying Ultra-Centralism / Communism. Not exactly the words used but exactly the meaning of them: "There is nothing outside of the (Monster) Monolith of Ultra-Centralism and Communism." I realized, being a free man serving my country, the freest in the world I was sure of during all that time, that "everything" was outside of that energyless Monolithic Monstrosity. Here I find it being pushed all over again in a different setting as "nothing is outside the Universe."

I've spent a lot of time and description since I've been here describing that [energyless] "monolithic monstrosity," the infinite Universe (U) (the immovable object) (the infinite of Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum / Big Mirror Mirroring and mirroring to infinity of.....). Gravity, of course, being the only infinite quality, non- or null-energetic, force, thus being the irresistible force of the immovable object. I've also spent a lot of time and description since I've been here describing the universes (u) outside of that Monolithic Monstrosity (U). Well not totally, more like outside / inside it: Binary 'open system' and/or 'closed system'.

There are, of course, [people] who think closed systemically only (there is nothing outside the Universe (nothing outside the Monolithic Monstrosity)). They are taught it, indoctrinated in it, else it's the only way their narrowly 1-dimensionally finite minds work. There are also those who think open systemically only, but they are just as bizarre as the other in their way. Then there are those who can and do think in both dimensions and more, mixing and matching, even merging, as they go. If there is nothing outside the Universe (U), then everything is outside the Universe (U) (if there is nothing outside the Monolithic Monstrosity (U), then everything is outside the Monolithic Monstrosity (U)). I would qualify that somewhat, to everything energetic (particularly regarding QM and a certain three forces (finite to the core)) is outside the energyless Monolithic Monstrosity (U) (the immovable object).
------------------------------
Vladimir Lenin once said that Socialism was but the entry level step to the inevitability of Communism (ultra-centralization (Utopia)). Outside of the utopian two, nothing but tyrannical anarchical chaos reigned. Thomas More saw it the same way about four hundred years before when he wrote the book 'Utopia'. As Will Durant wrote in his 'The Story of Civilization', More wrote the book as a nostalgia for what then was the old and dying -- in northwestern Europe at least -- system of 'Feudalism'.

So, again, and cutting away from analogy: "Nothing is outside the Universe (therefore, everything is outside the Universe)!"

Last edited:
ThePatriotBeast

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
The analogy of political notions compared to universal mechanics seems too narrow and not applicable. I don't see the relevancy.

#### Atlan0001

The analogy of political notions compared to universal mechanics seems too narrow and not applicable. I don't see the relevancy.
They have been comparable and compared since the most ancient times. The relevancy is a matter of perspective. I thought the parallel a "fractal self-similarity" and quite relevant. All human physics, including systems' physics, including the physics of history, parallel, follow, the physics of the "cosmos" (and vice-versa). Particularly the physics -- the natures -- closest to the 'top' and 'bottom' of the "cosmos."

All life parallels it. Is "self-similar" with it. All alien beings and systems we will run across out there, if we get out there, will be found to be sharing that "self-similarity." Without any exceptions! That is the way it works.

Last edited:

#### COLGeek

##### Cybernaut
Moderator
They have been comparable and compared since the most ancient times. The relevancy is a matter of perspective. I thought the parallel a "fractal self-similarity" and quite relevant. All human physics, including systems' physics, including the physics of history, parallel, follow, the physics of the "cosmos" (and vice-versa). Particularly the physics -- the natures -- closest to the 'top' and 'bottom' of the "cosmos."

All life parallels it. Is "self-similar" with it. All alien beings and systems we will run across out there, if we get out there, will be found to be sharing that "self-similarity." Without any exceptions! That is the way it works.
I actually do agree, from a VERY vague perspective and see the point you are making. I just think the analogy detracts from the point, because of the political emotional response that some readers will have.

#### Atlan0001

Now that I'm being allowed to continue for the time being, I will go on to the life and death state of a universe (u), represented so often in illustrations as a bulbous look narrowing in waist, ballooning out again, narrowing again in waist. In other words opening and closing, opening and closing... out into nothing (out into everything) from a ball and returning, to eternity. Looking like an infinitely long hose bladder filled but with infinitely many crimps in the hose at infinitely many points along the way. At the crimp, death (nothingness), at the filling, life (everythingness). Only thing is, I disagree with this illustration of pulsing life and death, death to life, life to death, situation completely. I don't disagree with either the life or the death, I disagree with the pulse beat. Both states are always present, a constancy of both states at once, a balance of natures.

The death state is the energyless state I mentioned, now described (for the time being) as the Monolithic Monstrosity (U) I've described so often elsewhere under different labeling (including "the immovable object" (the infinitely immovable object)). It has no energy (no finite energy state of QM), it is really a constant of death state dimension, and a forever state as such -- as well as infinite (as such death state, rather lifeless state, 'naked singularity'). A little less harsh term might be "end state." The 'naked singularity' state beyond the blackhole event horizon state, between it and the Planck level singularity state. "End state," is the term I used so much to stay away from corresponding life terms. But now that I've gone [temporarily] into life's, and particularly into life's systems, especially those most complex of systems so often described so simplistically in illustration (Orwell's simplistic illustration 'Animal Farm' for one. Old Testament Biblical simplicity for another. The 'Tree of Evolution' for a third) the life and death states merge into self-similarity with cosmic regions closest to the top and bottom of the Cosmos. In Chaos Theory -- I would remind -- "smooth" alternates with "grainy", "simplicity" alternates with "complexity." And herein, I see the top and bottom of the Cosmos to be the least grainy, least complex, plane / planes of the Cosmos. The life state being the infinity of finite universes (u), the infinity of [finite] energetic states (QM states) outside of the infinite and lifeless state of the Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum) (Big Mirror Mirroring to infinity of.....). Outside the [infinite] state of Universe (U). Of course, again, "Nothing is outside the Universe (therefore, everything is outside the Universe)."

Will Durant said that history always repeats itself, always in large [smooth] aspect, but never in fine [grainy] detail. The merging of Durant with elements of Chaos Theory is mine. Of course natural laws -- physics -- will always repeat, since they are never not present at any time; they are never missing from the picture. That picture is "cosmic," but herein the picture is that of the level of the smoothest constancy, not the grainiest inconstancy (the picture of smooth aspect, that is). That constancy (the infinity of inconstants, the infinity of inconstancy) is left to the "infinity of differentiation in the infinity of local relative universes (u)," like the timeless constant of a very multifaceted consciousness in the timeless infinities of inconstant finite life. As I told COLGeek, if we get out there into at least our local universe we will discover alien life, in particular alien systems, looking very, very, familiar to us, because we and they share self-similarity with the smoother natures, the smoother constants, the smoother aspects, of the top and bottom plane / planes of the Cosmos,

"Nothing is outside the Universe (therefore, everything is outside the Universe)!" simply turns the infinite Universe (U ('1')) inside out to the infinities (point infinitesimal universes / finite bubble-energetic (QM state) universes). It is alternative view to Mirror (U ('-1')). There is no "explosion" involved in the doing (the infinities of Planck level hot primordial singularities [inside] entangling, translating, to the infinities of Planck level hot blue-white holes [outside]. Again, infinities of quantum fluctuations at the Planck level, here one instant, gone the next; the momentary [nakedly hot single] of two unable to continue to live, to continue to co-exist -- inside / outside -- beyond the instantaneous, vanishing, leaving behind with its vanishing newly minted, new generation, primordial-base-embryonic substrata. Altogether from the infinities a hell of lot it, but in decelerating from the light speed jets of the blue-white holes, and cooling to particulates just as rapidly, already beginning to produce 'nemesis', Blackhole event horizon, the first thing in the bag of local relative finite universe (and eventually the last thing). Exit portals in and of the macroscopic universe almost, but not quite, face to face with the entry portals in and of the microscopic universe. The immediate, if not sooner, balancing of nature. The outpouring rushing stream, or better yet the up swelling, of new minted generation [finite] universe, a plane of finite universe, bound for the ultimate definition of "finite" in the horizon of blackhole event horizons, like the extended Abyss we are continuing -- from that deceleration begun above -- into toward the lifeless infinite of 'naked singularity'. One way to observe an accelerating expansion of universe [outside] is to be decelerating in falling into the Abyss [inside]. Inside? Outside? Nothing is outside the Universe (therefore everything is outside the Universe)!

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

If I remember it correctly, and I think I alluded to it before, Stephen Hawking once stated a possibility of particles of information drawn through the event horizons of blackholes then being both inside and outside those event horizons at the same time. Dare I repeat it again. Why not. "Nothing is outside the Universe (therefore, everything is outside the Universe)!"

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
"Nothing is outside the Universe (U), therefore: Everything is outside the Universe (U). "

Rhetoric. Great Rhetoric. But the thing is, my point is that, according to the BBM, before the Universe, there was "nothing", perfect "nothing." No matter, space - not even time. And the Universe evolved from this state of nothing-ness. And, according to the literal meaning of the Universe, if the Universe is all that exists, then there is still that "nothing" outside the Universe, because "nothing" does not exist in our Universe. And ironically, the Universe emerged from this "nothing." If this same "nothing" exists (don't care about the rhetoric ) outside the Universe - as, according to BBM theorists, we are expanding into nothing - then, it is indeed possible for a universe to evolve out of that, like we did. And another universe, and another universe, and another... The list goes on. This was exactly the conversation Cat and I were having.

#### David-J-Franks

"Nothing is outside the Universe (U), therefore: Everything is outside the Universe (U). "

Rhetoric. Great Rhetoric. But the thing is, my point is that, according to the BBM, before the Universe, there was "nothing", perfect "nothing." No matter, space - not even time. And the Universe evolved from this state of nothing-ness. And, according to the literal meaning of the Universe, if the Universe is all that exists, then there is still that "nothing" outside the Universe, because "nothing" does not exist in our Universe. And ironically, the Universe emerged from this "nothing." If this same "nothing" exists (don't care about the rhetoric ) outside the Universe - as, according to BBM theorists, we are expanding into nothing - then, it is indeed possible for a universe to evolve out of that, like we did. And another universe, and another universe, and another... The list goes on. This was exactly the conversation Cat and I were having.
Do you personally believe something can come from nothing?

#### Atlan0001

"Nothing is outside the Universe (U), therefore: Everything is outside the Universe (U). "

Rhetoric. Great Rhetoric. But the thing is, my point is that, according to the BBM, before the Universe, there was "nothing", perfect "nothing." No matter, space - not even time. And the Universe evolved from this state of nothing-ness. And, according to the literal meaning of the Universe, if the Universe is all that exists, then there is still that "nothing" outside the Universe, because "nothing" does not exist in our Universe. And ironically, the Universe emerged from this "nothing." If this same "nothing" exists (don't care about the rhetoric ) outside the Universe - as, according to BBM theorists, we are expanding into nothing - then, it is indeed possible for a universe to evolve out of that, like we did. And another universe, and another universe, and another... The list goes on. This was exactly the conversation Cat and I were having.
The very definition of "creationist" and "creationism," whether or not coming from religion. Something from and for nothing. Everything from and for nothing. Yes, you're entitled to such a belief as I am entitled to a realization of From... / To....

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

I'm identified a "visual mathematician" by testing. You couldn't prove it by me since I'm no more than your average mathematician. I have been called many times a "logician" (To wit, many more times than once: "why is it you keep jumping into crap and coming up smelling like a rose"). I like that. But what I really am through [two] great careers in and around it is an "information specialist," always rated one of the best wherever I went, in whatever portion I was dealing in. Now, until this very morning, concerning something I quoted from Stephen Hawking yesterday, as the saying goes, I realize I missed a boat -- a very large boat -- concerning my own career specialty. No more though. Here goes I into a deeper understanding for me.

The quote, though not exactly a quote, from Stephen Hawking had to do with particles of information possibly existing at the same time both inside and outside the event horizon of a blackhole. "Particles of information"? I, as specialist in it, have never given any real thought to information itself in the universe at large and small.

It's [all] information! All of it! Every particle [field] extant in the microscopic universe / every single-sided 2-dimensional [frame] of time in the macroscopic universe.

I read an article on space.com I didn't care for much entitled "Will we ever know exactly how the universe ballooned into existence," though I must admit for the first time I enjoyed an illustration of generations, of planes, divided into such, in universe. Streaming generations. Layers of up swelling. Although it couldn't and didn't illustrate the slowing down, the deceleration, from the speed of light massive Planck level micro-universe jet -- of and at entry -- eventually to exit in macro-universe 'naked singularity'. What I didn't care for was the idea of ballooning particle fields from the micro-universe up and out into the macro-universe. Micro-bubble to macro-bubble? Now I've got to back up in my dismissal. Particle [field] of information (micro) / information [frame] of time (macro).

I derive from Hawking's statement that no particle field (micro-universe), no single-sided 2-dimensional frame (macro-universe), of information is ever really lost. That is my Universe (U), and my universe(s) (u). My Multiverse, and my multiverse(s). Everything I pushed so long and hard for in description. No [information] is ever really lost!

And guess what we, all other life, and everything else in all varieties of matter and energy, space and time, inanimation and animation, are? Bingo! "Information." Nothing, at all, new to quite a few like Hawking. So how could I, of all people, a specialist in information itself, not have quite understood the "Cosmic All" quite that way? Far too close to home I guess (a cause to kind of push it away, I guess). Just another dimension of a multi-dimensionality (another face of the multifaceted).

Last edited:

#### David-J-Franks

I'm identified a "visual mathematician" by testing. You couldn't prove it by me since I'm no more than your average mathematician. I have been called many times a "logician" (To wit, many more times than once: "why is it you keep jumping into crap and coming up smelling like a rose"). I like that. But what I really am through [two] great careers in and around it is an "information specialist," always rated one of the best wherever I went, in whatever portion I was dealing in. Now, until this very morning, concerning something I quoted from Stephen Hawking yesterday, as the saying goes, I realize I missed a boat -- a very large boat -- concerning my own career specialty. No more though. Here goes I into a deeper understanding for me.

The quote, though not exactly a quote, from Stephen Hawking had to do with particles of information possibly existing at the same time both inside and outside the event horizon of a blackhole. "Particles of information"? I, as specialist in it, have never given any real thought to information itself in the universe at large and small.

It's [all] information! All of it! Every particle [field] extant in the microscopic universe / every single-sided 2-dimensional [frame] of time in the macroscopic universe.

I read an article on space.com I didn't care for much entitled "Will we ever know exactly how the universe ballooned into existence," though I must admit for the first time I enjoyed an illustration of generations, of planes, divided into such, in universe. Streaming generations. Layers of up swelling. Although it couldn't and didn't illustrate the slowing down, the deceleration, from the speed of light massive Planck level micro-universe jet -- of and at entry -- eventually to exit in macro-universe 'naked singularity'. What I didn't care for was the idea of ballooning particle fields from the micro-universe up and out into the macro-universe. Micro-bubble to macro-bubble? Now I've got to back up in my dismissal. Particle [field] of information (micro) / information [frame] of time (macro).

I derive from Hawking's statement that no particle field (micro-universe), no single-sided 2-dimensional frame (macro-universe), of information is ever really lost. That is my Universe (U), and my universe(s) (u). My Multiverse, and my multiverse(s). Everything I pushed so long and hard for in description. No [information] is ever really lost!

And guess what we, all other life, and everything else in all varieties of matter and energy, space and time, inanimation and animation, are? Bingo! "Information." Nothing, at all, new to quite a few like Hawking. So how could I, of all people, a specialist in information itself, not have quite understood the "Cosmic All" quite that way? Far too close to home I guess (a cause to kind of push it away, I guess). Just another dimension of a multi-dimensionality (another face of the multifaceted).
No [information] is ever really lost!
You're right

"Information can't be created or destroyed" this is taken as a rock solid and established principle in quantum. mechanics

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
The very definition of "creationist" and "creationism," whether or not coming from religion. Something from and for nothing. Everything from and for nothing. Yes, you entitled to such a belief as I am entitled to a realization of From... / To....
Well then, if I am a creationist, then so are the 90% of all Physicists and people on Earth. Give me a better theory than Big Bang. Even a cyclic universe must have a start.
No [information] is ever really lost!
That is only quantum mechanics, don't apply it to larger things.

#### Atlan0001

Well then, if I am a creationist, then so are the 90% of all Physicists and people on Earth. Give me a better theory than Big Bang. Even a cyclic universe must have a start.

That is only quantum mechanics, don't apply it to larger things.
Certainly I will "apply it to larger things." I already have many times applied the micro-verse to the macro-verse and vice-versa. The two do overlap and overlay and its makes for fantastically interesting (multi)dimensionality.

#### Artistscientist

I believe that because we are born into a finite system we cannot truly fathom infinity. And, because of this we continuously design systems to see the universe through finite glasses. What if it goes on forever and was always there - will always be here? This is also why I throw out the Big Bang theory, our devices are probably only measuring a local region of space, and there were many Small Bangs, perhaps an infinite number of them. The universe isn't expanding. Only a small part of it is. Forget the Red Shift too, as it may only be a artifact of Dark Matter/Dark Energy. Try not to be an egotist. The universe large and small is far more complicated then our small human mind can understand. But, I agree that we need to continue to try. even as we are here now

#### IG2007

##### "Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Certainly I will "apply it to larger things." I already have many times applied the micro-verse to the macro-verse and vice-versa.
You simply cannot apply quantum mechanics to the entirety of the Solar System. Now, excuse me Apophis, will you please go through Earth instead of colliding with it?

Catastrophe

#### voidpotentialenergy

"Nothing is outside the Universe; therefore, everything is outside the Universe." It is something I said at least 30 years ago, went on to other things, argued for in other ways without exactly saying it, and only realized again this morning. That void of "nothing" [will] be filled... with "everything."
------------------
I was asked in another thread to give a short answer definition for "infinite" (as in infinite Universe (U)). I gave a short answer, "'1'." For all of an infinity of finite universes (u), '1:1:1:1.....' the infinite mirrored to infinity. It is impossible to observe infinite / infinitesimal / infinity of.... It collapses to and/or in horizon. A horizon not "infinite" / not "finite." Non-infinite / non-finite horizon. Short answer, '0'.

The collapsed horizon appears to be distant from us. It appears to be about 14 billion light years from us. Yet as horizon, we are in that horizon. The infinity of finites, including our local finite universe (u) is within that non-infinite, non-finite, thus infinite [and] finite, horizon ('0'). "Nothing is outside the Universe, therefore everything is outside the Universe.
------------------
('1' (U)) and/or ('1:1:1:1.... (u)'), and/or ('0') forces the Big Mirror (Big Crunch Vortex / Big Hole Vacuum / Big Mirror mirroring to infinity of...) to take the place ('-1' (U)) to realize collapsed horizon ('0'). The anti- or mirrored infinite of Universe (U) to the infinite of Universe (U), but still its own binary 'Naked Singularity' (S) (as opposed to singularity (s) / infinity of singularities (s)). Naked Singularity: "betwixt and between" black holes' event horizons (universe in large) and Planck level singularities / Planck level hot blue-white holes (quantum fluctuations) (universe in small).
---------------------
Nothing is outside the Universe (U), therefore: Everything is outside the Universe (U).
Could be an even easier solution.
Void space = potential energy.
Outside the universe doesn't exist, just more BB's forever in 1 endless universe created by potential energy of (void space).
(quantum fluctuation) that potential energy of Void and the creator of matter/energy before it balanced.

Physics laws everywhere in the universe the same because potential energy the same everywhere.

Same for me, this idea about 30 years ago.

Last edited:
Catastrophe

#### Atlan0001

IG2007, it's my turn to tell you what you can't have, but you may have something there if you just think into your Abyss of supposed "Nothingness."

I've already taken the infinite of the Universe (U ('1")) (the infinite of the lifeless Big Crunch (gravitational) Vortex (the irresistible force of the immovable object)) to ('0' point) by way of it being its own Mirror (U '-1') Mirroring (thus canceling). It's already taken to ('0') and the infinite has been [infinitized] to an infinity of point infinitesimals (an infinity of "singularities"). My infinity of "Big Hole Vacuum" state is sitting there. I don't want you to think I'm belittling you by saying this, but I've got you going and coming as to your "Nothingness." But, damn it, you do have something I think. It woke me up in the middle of night here, and I'm sitting at my keyboard with everybody else asleep because of it.

I've got these "singularities", an infinity of them (infinity of point infinitesimals) having been mirrored out of blackholes' 'naked singularity'. I'm thinking infinities of Planck level hot blue-white holes (quantum field fluctuations) through their superposition. I'm missing something I think as I sit here. What the hell is that "singularity" (those singularities)?

I'm laying in bed on the edge of sleep and waking thinking the thing is "vibrating" (the things are vibrating!)! They, the singularities are 'strings' vibrating.

#### Atlan0001

Could be an even easier solution.
Void space = potential energy.
Outside the universe doesn't exist, just more BB's forever in 1 universe created by potential energy of (void space).
(quantum fluctuation) that potential energy of Void and the creator of matter/energy before it balanced.
I had to hit "Post" because I thought you might be beating me to where I was going anyway. Not "void" but "Vacuum" energy. Makes that vacuum energies. String vibration(s) to quantum field fluctuation(s) (singularity(ies) to Planck level hot blue-white hole(s)), or something like that.

I woke up with this, I couldn't wait to really think it through, and I'm now going back to bed. I owe IG2007 thanks for driving thought whether he agrees or not with what came of the driving. And you're certainly on track yourself, too. Keep to it, meaning keep thinking it through.

Last edited:

#### David-J-Franks

Could be an even easier solution.
Void space = potential energy.
Outside the universe doesn't exist, just more BB's forever in 1 endless universe created by potential energy of (void space).
(quantum fluctuation) that potential energy of Void and the creator of matter/energy before it balanced.

Physics laws everywhere in the universe the same because potential energy the same everywhere.

Same for me, this idea about 30 years ago.
Void space = potential energy.
You have good theories voidpotentialenergy. However I can't understand why you keep using the word void instead of just space. Why not 'space = potential energy' as space is already assumed to contain quantum fields, quantum foam, quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy. A void is absolutely nothing, so how can you get energy from nothing? It looks like your theory would work perfectly well if you just use the word space instead of void space. Then your name wouldn't sound so good - 'spacepotentialenergy'

#### Atlan0001

You have good theories voidpotentialenergy. However I can't understand why you keep using the word void instead of just space. Why not 'space = potential energy' as space is already assumed to contain quantum fields, quantum foam, quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy. A void is absolutely nothing, so how can you get energy from nothing? It looks like your theory would work perfectly well if you just use the word space instead of void space. Then your name wouldn't sound so good - 'spacepotentialenergy'
It is "vacuum," and "vacuum energy" that is tied to the field of electronics, I think, not either "void" or "space." It's easier and better to keep it that way. He could change his handle easily if he wanted to.

#### Atlan0001

"Infinity of point infinitesimal / finite bubble universes." Now that I am awake I'm realizing there is some modification in order to what I was thinking and said concerning "vibrating strings." Universe's other of Multiverse begins to realize, for me, even more significance than I've already dealt in. So does Hawking's visualization of a particle of information being in two places at once, quantum entangled both inside and outside the event horizon of a blackhole.

The part, "infinity of point infinitesimals /" most definitely implies sub-Planck level region while "/ infinity of finite bubble universes" is our side of the Planck level region (as we see it to be, that is). Planck is a vertical collapsed horizon of infinity (the collapsed horizon residing between "infinite" and "finite"... neither 'infinite' nor 'finite') we observe to be down and in into the micro-verse from us (as the BB is the horizontal horizon we observed to be up and out from us into the macro-verse (in actuality the two horizons being one and the same horizon) -- so to picture). We are in that horizon. And we are on both sides of that horizon, at once; in two places at once. This corresponds to Hawking's picturing of his "Grand Central Station" of Universe where everything, including all life, including us, would be both [inside] the "Station" and [outside] the "Station" at one and the same time. I now take the infinities of "singularities" (the infinity of point infinitesimals) to be sub Plank level "string vibrations." As to the "infinity of finite bubble universes" this side of the Planck plane (because we observe it to be that way, one sided (either side -- it makes no difference), regarding our own local universe) .... the same ("string vibrations").

Multi-dimensionality: Multiverse: Chaos Theory regarding "fractal self-similarity" and overlaying of smooth planes and grainy planes, infinities of overlay, ultimately realizable to be boringly the original two repeating in large (smooth) aspect though never exactly repeating in fine (grainy) detail. A big stack (so to speak) of dimensionality to retain inside the mind and I maintain no written manuscript for damn good reason. I would need volumes just to tell a short story (yeah, I hear one or two of you laughing and it is well deserved). Though it is natural to me as well, I deliberately try to practice thinking and, particularly, retaining, in more dimensions than one, two, three, or four, at the same time. It's great (again: To wit, many more times than one: "Why is it you keep jumping into crap and coming up smelling like a rose"). Careful though, particularly regarding communication, it can be as much a terrible curse at times as a great blessing in all others.

Last edited:

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"Nothing is outside the Universe (U), therefore: Everything is outside the Universe (U). "

Rhetoric. Great Rhetoric. But the thing is, my point is that, according to the BBM, before the Universe, there was "nothing", perfect "nothing." No matter, space - not even time. And the Universe evolved from this state of nothing-ness. And, according to the literal meaning of the Universe, if the Universe is all that exists, then there is still that "nothing" outside the Universe, because "nothing" does not exist in our Universe. And ironically, the Universe emerged from this "nothing." If this same "nothing" exists (don't care about the rhetoric ) outside the Universe - as, according to BBM theorists, we are expanding into nothing - then, it is indeed possible for a universe to evolve out of that, like we did. And another universe, and another universe, and another... The list goes on. This was exactly the conversation Cat and I were having.

"Universe: The Definitive Visual Guide Ed. Martin Rees DK 2012
"The Universe is all of existence - all of space and time and all the matter and energy within it. . . . . . . . . . The Universe encompasses everything from the smallest atom to the largest galaxy cluster, and yet it seems that all are governed by the same basic laws."

IG2007

#### voidpotentialenergy

You have good theories voidpotentialenergy. However I can't understand why you keep using the word void instead of just space. Why not 'space = potential energy' as space is already assumed to contain quantum fields, quantum foam, quantum fluctuations and vacuum energy. A void is absolutely nothing, so how can you get energy from nothing? It looks like your theory would work perfectly well if you just use the word space instead of void space. Then your name wouldn't sound so good - 'spacepotentialenergy'
Thanks David,
I use Void space as a start point o the creation of everything.
Using Space or Vacuum Space leads to thinking about something that already exists as a property of quantum fluctuation.

Void space gets the idea of (nothing) just occupying an area having an energy property.
Not such a crazy idea either when we think about quantum leaps as very set orbits with electrons that never loose energy in those orbits.
Only way to jump a quantum orbit is for the atom to break down one level.
Got to be (nothing) quanta orbit (nothing) etc, and the orbit is just a set energy Vs (Nothing space )or the electron orbit would loose energy and slowly decay towards neutron or proton.

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
95
Views
12K
Replies
13
Views
5K
Replies
0
Views
364
Replies
1
Views
2K