Can humans create something from nothing or nothingness from something?

[joelr]

You cannot create something from nothing, it would violate thermodynamics.
Some energy is transformed but not created in any process.

 

[interminable]

Even you? Wow.

That means that it is entirely possible that Christianity is based on logic, isn't?

Would you agree?

Ciao

- viole

Yeah why not
They think god created this universe and believe in causality but they made some mistakes about god's attributes .
This is about the Christian before Islam but after Islam a logical person should think about why god has sent new prophet

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Only G-d could do and can done so.
Right? Please
Regards

People can certainly create something from nothing.

If I write an original poem or philosophy, others might say that I have made it out of existing words,
and thus it is not 'out of nothing'. But that would be incorrect. After the poem is written there exists
something which was not there before. I may have used a medium (the words), but what results is
still something that did not exist before it came into being.

Before it was written it did not exist. Now it does!

Just because I used a medium, does not mean that a medium is necessary.
The old words are still in existence, but the new idea/philosophy is still something new.
So it still WAS nothing, and now it IS something.

That is therefore: something from nothing.

 

[Jose Fly]

For a thumbnail description of the scientific view on how universes are created....

The Origin of the Universe--Stephen Hawking

Since both space and time came into existence at the big bang, "where did it come from" and "what happened before" are nonsense questions, in the same way as "what's south of the south pole".

 

[Willamena]

Only G-d could do and can done so.
Right? Please
Regards

How has God created nothing from something?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

For a thumbnail description of the scientific view on how universes are created....

The Origin of the Universe--Stephen Hawking

Since both space and time came into existence at the big bang, "where did it come from" and "what happened before" are nonsense questions, in the same way as "what's south of the south pole".

The notion of time coming into existence presupposes a point before it came into existence.
Clearly.
There is nothing nonsensical about this if we conclude that all this requires is another dimension of time.
By the same token, a flat 2-d map has a point south of the south pole when we add an extra dimension of space.
So if by 'south' we mean drawing a line downwards from the equator, we end up somewhere near the constellation of the southern cross.

But of course it is easier to just be dogmatic in the typical pseudo-scientific manner of the relativists
and their alice-in-wonderland wishy-washy space-time non-geometry;
and just label any logical disagreement as 'nonsense'; thereby establishing hegemony from belligerent ad-hominem egotism
based on institutional ivory-tower sophistry.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

How has God created nothing from something?

When the souls of the faithless undergo a second death.
Thereby ending their bad karma for all time.

 

[Jose Fly]

The notion of time coming into existence presupposes a point before it came into existence.

Again, there cannot be "before time".

There is nothing nonsensical about this if we conclude that all this requires is another dimension of time.

For which there would have to be some evidence or mathematical justification.

By the same token, a flat 2-d map has a point south of the south pole when we add an extra dimension of space.
So if by 'south' we mean drawing a line downwards from the equator, we end up somewhere near the constellation of the southern cross.

I think you kinda missed the point of the analogy. On a globe, where one cannot just arbitrarily add extra dimensions, there is no "south of the south pole".

But of course it is easier to just be dogmatic in the typical pseudo-scientific manner of the relativists
and their alice-in-wonderland wishy-washy space-time non-geometry;
and just label any logical disagreement as 'nonsense'; thereby establishing hegemony from belligerent ad-hominem egotism
based on institutional ivory-tower sophistry.

If you believe Hawking's model to be "pseudo-science", I suggest you write up your arguments and submit them to a relevant scientific journal.

 

[joelr]

People can certainly create something from nothing.

Before it was written it did not exist. Now it does!

Just because I used a medium, does not mean that a medium is necessary.
The old words are still in existence, but the new idea/philosophy is still something new.
So it still WAS nothing, and now it IS something.

That is therefore: something from nothing.

Yes you may have created something but it didn't come from "nothing".
Thought requires energy as does movement and writing. Not only have you used and transformed a small amount of energy you have also slightly increased the entropy of the Universe.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

On a globe, where one cannot just arbitrarily add extra dimensions,

A map has 2 dimensions.
A globe has 3 dimensions
A geographic entity like the surface of the earth is entirely different to a geometrical dimension.
If we take 'South' to mean a geometrical dimension then it is entirely correct to say that the southern cross is south of the south pole.

Seeing as though math is all about geometry,
to decide that 'South' is only meaningful as a geographic feature on the globe
would mean your argument only has value in geographical terms,
not in mathematical terms.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

If you believe Hawking's model to be "pseudo-science", I suggest you write up your arguments and submit them to a relevant scientific journal.

Consider the theory that
nothing moving at the velocity of light can escape a black hole
due to gravity being curved space with an escape velocity greater than the velocity of light.

And yet this secular model also suggests that the gravitons of the 'black hole'
are themselves moving at the velocity of light.

So the 'curved space gravity' would prevent the gravitons escaping the black hole
- logically it would give off zero gravity

moreover if time stops at the event horizon, the gravitational wave / graviton could not escape for this reason too.

If you believe Christianity to not be true,
might I suggest that you submit this idea to a relevant Christianity journal?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Yes you may have created something but it didn't come from "nothing".
Thought requires energy as does movement and writing. Not only have you used and transformed a small amount of energy you have also slightly increased the entropy of the Universe.

Let X = universe before the writing of a poem / philosophy
Let X+Y = universe after the writing of the poem / philosophy
(Y = the poem / philosophy)

Therefore Y was nothing, but now Y is something.
Thus Y is something from nothing.

Just because X existed before Y does not mean X caused Y (Hume!)
The existence of X is correlated to Y coming into existence; not necessarily causing it.

 

[Jose Fly]

A map has 2 dimensions.
A globe has 3 dimensions
A geographic entity like the surface of the earth is entirely different to a geometrical dimension.
If we take 'South' to mean a geometrical dimension then it is entirely correct to say that the southern cross is south of the south pole.

Seeing as though math is all about geometry,
to decide that 'South' is only meaningful as a geographic feature on the globe
would mean your argument only has value in geographical terms,
not in mathematical terms.

Dude.....it's an analogy Prof. Hawking used to illustrate a point about it not being possible for there to be something that is "before time" (since "before" is a time-oriented concept).

Consider the theory that
nothing moving at the velocity of light can escape a black hole
due to gravity being curved space with an escape velocity greater than the velocity of light.

And yet this secular model also suggests that the gravitons of the 'black hole'
are themselves moving at the velocity of light.

So the 'curved space gravity' would prevent the gravitons escaping the black hole
- logically it would give off zero gravity

moreover if time stops at the event horizon, the gravitational wave / graviton could not escape for this reason too.

Since this is anything but my area of expertise, I looked up your question and found this from Cornell's astrophysics dept.

How do gravitons escape black holes to tell the universe about their gravity? (Advanced) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

If you believe Christianity to not be true,
might I suggest that you submit this idea to a relevant Christianity journal?

I didn't say a single thing about Christianity.

 

[Thinking]

One argument is that time itself has a beginning. And thus the universe can be eternal, in the sense of being existant at all times. One could also argue that time must have a beginning, for how can an infinite amount of time elapse for it to be now (this is one half of a pair of arguments by Kant - his antinomies - with which he argues that a certain concept is beyond human reason to establish).

This still leaves begging the question what 'happened' before time began. Although naively this question looks nonsensical since we no longer have time - for then what can before mean - it still has sense in a speculative & imaginative sense. The only rational sense it seems that one can pose such questions.

In fact, certain speculative cosmologies of the Big Bang implicitly allow something to be exist beforethe big bang. For example, the universe began as a quantum fluctuation; one must ask in what sense physical laws exist before there is a space & time as traditionally understood. For the assertion to make sense at least this much must be true.

The argument that something cannot come out of nothing is a metaphysical one that goes back to at least Parmenides, if not earlier. In fact in the phenomenal world things always have beginnings and endings. For example, I have my hand open & then I close it: a fist has appeared and an open palm has disappeared, but of course what has remained constant between this, is my hand.

If something comes out of nothing then by what agency has it happened? From whence did it come from? If we postulate some fundamental physical law that allows something to come out of nothing, then nothing+physical laws, is not in fact nothing.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Dude.....it's an analogy Prof. Hawking used to illustrate a point about it not being possible for there to be something that is "before time" (since "before" is a time-oriented concept).

But it IS possible if there is another dimension of time.
I am not saying that such exists, just that it is possible.

Since this is anything but my area of expertise, I looked up your question and found this from Cornell's astrophysics dept.

How do gravitons escape black holes to tell the universe about their gravity? (Advanced) - Curious About Astronomy? Ask an Astronomer

The existence of the black hole is based on the premise of Einstein's Relativity Theories.
These forbid anything moving faster than light, and specifically claim that the graviton moves AT the velocity of light.
Now the theorists claim that gravity conveniently moves faster than light to escape the black hole.

So the conclusion contradicts the premise.
If the premise is true, then the premise is false.
Thus the premise is false.

There is no reason to believe that black holes exist.
The very notion contradicts itself.

Now people are welcome to speculate, but to claim that a black hole
is in keeping with Einstein's Relativity, when it contradicts it
is pure pseudo-science, sophistry, and blatant dogma.
(I am tempted to use some less complimentary adjectives)

I didn't say a single thing about Christianity.

I was using this to make a point.
Journals that owe their existence to a belief they have held for many number of years,
are hardly going to admit that they have been wrong for all this time.

Dealing with bureaucrats one at a time is not a prudent way of spreading knowledge.
Publishing privately online allows me to reach thousands of people.
Of course, most people have not the guts to disagree with dominant dogma,
so my project rests on the notion of a few people being both logical and courageous.

But without such characteristics; knowledge would never advance in any sphere.
Despite all our gadgets, humanity is no better at thinking at this point in time
than it was during the middle-ages. It is much easier to shrug, and go back to
pecking at the grains food in the dust, than to wonder what it must be like to see pure truth
as the only ideal worth pursuing!

 

[viole]

Yeah why not
They think god created this universe and believe in causality but they made some mistakes about god's attributes .
This is about the Christian before Islam but after Islam a logical person should think about why god has sent new prophet

Well, it is logical why (alleged) gods send middle men instead to openly reveal Themselves to everybody.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Jose Fly]

But it IS possible if there is another dimension of time.
I am not saying that such exists, just that it is possible.

Ok.

The existence of the black hole is based on the premise of Einstein's Relativity Theories.
These forbid anything moving faster than light, and specifically claim that the graviton moves AT the velocity of light.
Now the theorists claim that gravity conveniently moves faster than light to escape the black hole.

So the conclusion contradicts the premise.
If the premise is true, then the premise is false.
Thus the premise is false.

All you've done is restate your original point without addressing the answer given by physicists.

There is no reason to believe that black holes exist.
The very notion contradicts itself.

Now people are welcome to speculate, but to claim that a black hole
is in keeping with Einstein's Relativity, when it contradicts it
is pure pseudo-science, sophistry, and blatant dogma.
(I am tempted to use some less complimentary adjectives)

I hope you'll understand why I tend to side with the relevant experts rather than someone posting on a religious message board.

I was using this to make a point.
Journals that owe their existence to a belief they have held for many number of years,
are hardly going to admit that they have been wrong for all this time.

Dealing with bureaucrats one at a time is not a prudent way of spreading knowledge.
Publishing privately online allows me to reach thousands of people.
Of course, most people have not the guts to disagree with dominant dogma,
so my project rests on the notion of a few people being both logical and courageous.

But without such characteristics; knowledge would never advance in any sphere.
Despite all our gadgets, humanity is no better at thinking at this point in time
than it was during the middle-ages. It is much easier to shrug, and go back to
pecking at the grains food in the dust, than to wonder what it must be like to see pure truth
as the only ideal worth pursuing!

Except we know for a fact that rebuttal papers are published all the time, and we know for a fact that theories and hypotheses are overturned. Yes it's hard work and can be difficult at times, but it most certainly can be done, especially when you have the data on your side. So what you posted looks to me more like an excuse. If you truly believe you have a genuine scientific case against the Hawking model, I suggest you write it up and submit it to a relevant journal. And if it turns out they reject it for arbitrary reasons, then you'll have that as proof of your point above and can use it to affect real changes.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Ok.

All you've done is restate your original point without addressing the answer given by physicists.

The physicists contradict themselves.
They claim that (for example) the GW150914 experiment is an observation of a pair of orbiting black holes
and that this is in keeping with general relativity. In order for them to orbit one another they would have to give off gravity.
A gravity which is both moving faster than light, (to escape the black hole)
and yet also moving no faster than light in order to satisfy Relativity.

I hope you'll understand why I tend to side with the relevant experts rather than someone posting on a religious message board.

Perhaps you should try thinking for yourself instead of 'taking sides'.
Knowledge is not a game of football.

As I have proven, the 'experts' perpetuate blatant contradictions in the guise of knowledge.

Except we know for a fact that rebuttal papers are published all the time, and we know for a fact that theories and hypotheses are overturned. Yes it's hard work and can be difficult at times, but it most certainly can be done, especially when you have the data on your side. So what you posted looks to me more like an excuse. If you truly believe you have a genuine scientific case against the Hawking model, I suggest you write it up and submit it to a relevant journal. And if it turns out they reject it for arbitrary reasons, then you'll have that as proof of your point above and can use it to affect real changes.

My work is ongoing, and the article I am currently working on
- a computational analysis of the gravitational wave experiment -
is just more interesting than dealing with bureaucrats; for now anyway.
One cannot write one's book and publish it at the same time.

But it is the very narrative of science that the bureaucracy of the day prefers
not to admit it has been wrong until they are cornered. Its called egotism.

As it is, anyone with an honest and logical mind can see I have disproven 90% of the Relativities.
See here :Quantum Relativity for more details; the core info is not on the forum.
As for scoffing at the religious forum itself ; you hypocrite!
If its so bad then what are you doing commenting here yourself!

You do much to demonstrate that those that idol-worship at physics journals
have no capacity for self-referential logic.

If those journals are so relevant, then they should contact me in person and request
a submission with payment in advance as a sign of their good faith - of which I am
becoming increasingly convinced is lacking. The content of my work is far more interesting
than those that have not the humility to admit that gravity cannot be going faster than light
whilst it is also moving at the velocity of light. Why would anyone go out of their way to
seek the approval from such dogmatists?

My aim is philosophy, cosmology & computation; physics is small part of the bigger picture.

 

[joelr]

Let X = universe before the writing of a poem / philosophy
Let X+Y = universe after the writing of the poem / philosophy
(Y = the poem / philosophy)

Therefore Y was nothing, but now Y is something.
Thus Y is something from nothing.

Just because X existed before Y does not mean X caused Y (Hume!)
The existence of X is correlated to Y coming into existence; not necessarily causing it.

It doesn't matter who or what caused Y. But something caused it.
If a new star appears in the galaxy we don't say it came from nothing, we know how stars form, it's a physical process.

It's no different with a poem. Just to write it out it takes the manipulation of trillions of atoms. Each organizing thought burns calories and causes thousands of chemical and electrical processes. It also takes an entire person who had to grow, learn words and abstract thought as well as artistic understanding. Not to mention millions of years of evolution to get a type of brain that could conceive of what language and poetry is.

Sometimes things SEEM like they came from nothing, but that's because we sometimes like to forget that we live a a casual system that does include mind, mental or brain processes.

 

[joelr]

The physicists contradict themselves.
They claim that (for example) the GW150914 experiment is an observation of a pair of orbiting black holes
and that this is in keeping with general relativity. In order for them to orbit one another they would have to give off gravity.
A gravity which is both moving faster than light, (to escape the black hole)
and yet also moving no faster than light in order to satisfy Relativity.
.

Once light crosses the Event Horizon of a black hole it would indeed have to go faster than light to escape. Same with the gravity beyond the event horizon, that area of space-time is stuck.
But gravity from black holes extends out way past the event horizon. 2 black holes can fall into a stable orbit as long as their E.H. do not cross. Beyond the event horizon the objects do not have to exceed light speed to orbit.
It's no different from Earth orbiting the sun. In 2 dimensions the Sun would just pull us right in, we would make a straight line right into the sun, that would be the shortest path.
But space-time is curved in 3 dimensions and the shortest path ends up being a geodesic.

The orbits could also be slowly degrading as more and more energy falls into the holes.