Nothing vs Never Ending

[JohnLeo]

Exactly... Time always has been and always will be... no beginning or end.

Though that statement seems to be true, it most likely is not; which becomes obvious whn you study Einstein's discoveries regarding spacetime. Keep in mind that "the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine."

 

[RedJamaX]

All of this is still based on the "Theory" of Relativity...

What if Einstein was wrong?

 

[JohnLeo]

Do time, space, energy, matter or any of the physical laws of our universe exist beyond the boundaries of our ever expanding universe?
__________________
That is a question we may never be able to answer. Any such area would require a higher dimension of space, a fourth spatial dimension, to which we do not have access since we are three dimensional creatures and only have free movement in those three dimensions. String theory posits the existence of such dimensions but it is very controversiol.

 

[PolyHedral]

Exactly... Time always has been and always will be... no beginning or end.

The big bang is that beginning. (As far as anyone can tell.) It's the point where spacetime started coherently progress from the past to the future.

All of this is still based on the "Theory" of Relativity...

What if Einstein was wrong?

The GPS satellites wouldn't work.

 

[JohnLeo]

I don't beleive in the "Expanding Universe"... Not to say that the galaxies are not moving apart, we have scientific evidence of that. But I beleive our Universe extends far beyond 15 billion light years. Just because something didn't exist in a part of space 20, 30, or 40 billion years ago doesn't mean that it isn't there now.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that our Universe does indeed stop at 15 billions light-years... So, with my theory, is you were to sail past our 15 billion light-year limitaion of viewing... and travel another 100 billion light years away to find more galaxies, YES, those galaxies would also follow the same laws of physics as our own.

Now here is the question... If you traveled another 100 billion light-years of empty space the found another collection of galaxies that was 15 billion light-years across, would that constitute another Universe? I'm not sure that the definition for Universe is so clearly defined. Some definitions say "all matter", other definitions say "known matter".

Unfortunately, you can't do that. Why? You're forgetting that space is curved just like the surface of the earth. You cannot travel along the earth's surface in a straight line because the surface is curved. Try it and eventually you wind up back where you started. The same thing would happen if you could travel great distances through space. Eventually you wind up back where you started. But, hey, don't take my word for it! Check with Einstein.

 

[RedJamaX]

The big bang is that beginning. (As far as anyone can tell.) It's the point where spacetime started coherently progress from the past to the future.

Then what is outside the Universe, and what was before the Big Bang? I refuse to accept "nothing", or even that the Universe continues to collapse on itslef and expand again, that still suggests that the Space itself is contained within a specific measurable distance. So... what's ouside of "Space", there cannot be "nothing". That's actually impossible.

The GPS satellites wouldn't work.

I agree that speed and time are related, definitely prooven by functionality of GPS satellites. It does not proove his theory in its entirety, otherwise it would accepted as scientific law. Much of the interwoven "Fabric of Time and Space" is still theory... (especially the Outside of our Galaxy parts). Makes sense on paper based on the equations we currently have to work with, but not in thought...

Not saying Science won't find the answer, just suggesting that they haven't found it yet...

 

[Koldo]

Then what is outside the Universe, and what was before the Big Bang? I refuse to accept "nothing", or even that the Universe continues to collapse on itslef and expand again, that still suggests that the Space itself is contained within a specific measurable distance. So... what's ouside of "Space", there cannot be "nothing". That's actually impossible.

Why is it impossible?

 

[RedJamaX]

Why is it impossible?

As a concept, it;s completely possible..

As a physical representation, nothing would indicate something.. Even if it was simply open space.

 

[RedJamaX]

Perhaps MIB is right and our Universe is simply contained in an alien's marble kind of like our snow globes, and the last time he shook it was the big Bang that we associate with?? Which would suggest a God Creator, but completely removes the Love and forgiveness thing as it would be a play toy and suggests that everything are was simply manufactured for economic gain as it relates to that of an alien race... Perhaps there was no economic purpose, perpahs it really is a snow globe, made by the alien himself so the soul purpose of entertainment... or we're more like the Who's in Whoville... so what happens when Horton doesn't hear us?

 

[PolyHedral]

Then what is outside the Universe, and what was before the Big Bang? I refuse to accept "nothing", or even that the Universe continues to collapse on itslef and expand again, that still suggests that the Space itself is contained within a specific measurable distance. So... what's ouside of "Space", there cannot be "nothing". That's actually impossible.

There is no outside or before. They are not places that one can be.

I agree that speed and time are related, definitely prooven by functionality of GPS satellites. It does not proove his theory in its entirety, otherwise it would accepted as scientific law. Much of the interwoven "Fabric of Time and Space" is still theory... (especially the Outside of our Galaxy parts). Makes sense on paper based on the equations we currently have to work with, but not in thought...

The thought must defer to the equations that brought you the positron, the laser, and all of space travel.

 

[tumbleweed41]

RedJamaX,

I suggest you learn the actual definitions of Scientific Laws and Theories before referencing them in your arguments.

Einsteins Theory of Relativity will never become a Law. Scientific theories explain, in detail, how something works, and can be adjusted upon new evidence. Laws are concise definitions of an action or set of actions universally accepted to be true.
Both Scientific Theories and Laws are accepted as true based on observational evidence and repeatable, testable, falsifiable and verified hypothesis.

 

[4consideration]

As mentioned, time can have a beginning and always exist. The fact that time always exists is a tautology; however, it doesn't exclude there being a first moment of time to exist. (The mistake is thinking that there is a previous moment "before" that one. There isn't.)

Would the same principle apply to space?

 

[PolyHedral]

Would the same principle apply to space?

I don't know. Space doesn't have an obvious beginning, except the Big Bang.

 

[paarsurrey]

Creationism vs the Big Bang both want to proove where it all came from... The Beginning !?!? The Beginning of what??
Time?
Space?

What's easier to comprehend?

There was NO TIME, NO SPACE, Nothing! Then all of the sudden, either...
1. A single infintecimal spec exploded into eveything we can see, even galaxies 15 Billion light-years away
2. Some All-Powerful Being floating around for an unknown eternity (in nothingness) decides, "Well, I'm bored, how 'bout some Light!?"

OR

Everything we see has always been here. There is no Beginning, and there is no End, to Space or Time. Personally, I find the concept of Nothing, far less likely than the concept of Forever.

For the record, I do not beleive in Creationism, I was rasied Christian and became Atheist. I also think the Big Bang theroy is wrong.

I think nothingness and or something both are different creations of the one true creator God; different dimensions created by Him, in my opinion.

 

[Koldo]

As a concept, it;s completely possible..

As a physical representation, nothing would indicate something.. Even if it was simply open space.

What do you mean by 'physical representation'?

 

[RedJamaX]

What do you mean by 'physical representation'?

Empty space would be a physical representation. Even if the interwoven time-space in which we exist simply exists with that empty space, and we cannot leave our time-space existence to enter into that empty sapce... that would be more feasible than simply "nothing"...

 

[RedJamaX]

RedJamaX,

I suggest you learn the actual definitions of Scientific Laws and Theories before referencing them in your arguments.

Einsteins Theory of Relativity will never become a Law. Scientific theories explain, in detail, how something works, and can be adjusted upon new evidence. Laws are concise definitions of an action or set of actions universally accepted to be true.
Both Scientific Theories and Laws are accepted as true based on observational evidence and repeatable, testable, falsifiable and verified hypothesis.

Scientific Laws and Theories

I stand by what I said. They are very similar, but not the same.

 

[Koldo]

Empty space would be a physical representation. Even if the interwoven time-space in which we exist simply exists with that empty space, and we cannot leave our time-space existence to enter into that empty sapce... that would be more feasible than simply "nothing"...

Certainly there can't be a physical representation for 'nothing' ( the term )...
But that's the point. This is still completely coherent with saying that 'nothing existed before the big bang'.

 

[tumbleweed41]

RedJamaX,

I suggest you learn the actual definitions of Scientific Laws and Theories before referencing them in your arguments.

Einsteins Theory of Relativity will never become a Law. Scientific theories explain, in detail, how something works, and can be adjusted upon new evidence. Laws are concise definitions of an action or set of actions universally accepted to be true.
Both Scientific Theories and Laws are accepted as true based on observational evidence and repeatable, testable, falsifiable and verified hypothesis.

Scientific Laws and Theories

I stand by what I said. They are very similar, but not the same.

You stand by these statements?

Of course it's speculative, but technically, isn't ALL theory speculative... whether it is scientific theory or religious belief?

My own theory... which at least one other scientist has recently theorized as well ....

All of this is still based on the "Theory" of Relativity...

I agree that speed and time are related, definitely prooven by functionality of GPS satellites. It does not proove his theory in its entirety, otherwise it would accepted as scientific law....

 

[adi2d]

Ummmm
:yes: Yes it does.

WAIT A MINUTE!!!
You're RIGHT!! I found it in Wikipedia... March 3, 1923!!! The beginning of TIME.

:no:

That's why I love these forums. People argue and argue and somebody(you) comes in and reveals the TRUTH and you get ignored. I don't see how anyone can disagree with your insight