ValentineMary:
Am skeptical about the ecistence of white holes. Since at d heart of a black hole, space and time seize to exist. How come matter still find a way to leave through a white hole CcJohnnydon22

actually Hawking and some scientists speculates that a white hole is a black hole in reverse,i.e when the blackholes dies(will reach a stage where it can’t get any smaller).it will then pour out all its information (all things trapped within).

krazykoons:
but it is speculated that the bosons gives matter their masses not forgetting "matter" with its effects on space and the universe at large

There are two theory models of mass generation...

-Gravitational models
-And gravity free model. (Bosons falls under this)

ValentineMary:
Am skeptical about the ecistence of white holes. Since at d heart of a black hole, space and time seize to exist. How come matter still find a way to leave through a white hole CcJohnnydon22

Whiteholes even though still theoretical are not necessarily same as a basic blackhole.

In the formation of a blackhole a core of intense Mass (singularity) collapse denting space/time infinitely into a gravitational well.

But in a case a spinning singularity collapsing, the dented space/time will however warp around the spinning singularity thereby creating tunnel of warped space/time. (Wormhole)

And since now it is a tunnel there must then be the other end of the tunnel ... So a whitehole is the other side of the tunnel.

You can call it a negative blackhole.. everything is pushed out rather than pulled in

johnydon22:


There are two theory models of mass generation...

-Gravitational models
-And gravity free model. (Bosons falls under this)

if a process generates mass, it may reasonably be expected to provide information about the nature of what it generates as well

Johnny I don't know if you could make a topic on biological evolution in the future after this one... so that you can educate those with common misconceptions and point them to the thread...

davien:
Johnny I don't know if you could make a topic on biological evolution in the future after this one... so that you can educate those with common misconceptions and point them to the thread...

Every aspiring or established scientist always have an area of specialty ... Mine is mostly On cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics..

I have a basic knowledge of Evolution but There are giants in biology that dwarfs my grasp of the subject, i think Cloudgoddess, donnffd can do it justice far better than i can.

johnydon22:


Every aspiring or established scientist always have an area of specialty ... Mine is mostly On cosmology, Astronomy, Astrophysics..

I have a basic knowledge of Evolution but There are giants in biology that dwarfs my grasp of the subject, i think Cloudgoddess, donnffd can do it justice far better than i can.

Thanks, I just saw Cloudgoddess' topics on evolution... didn't really know she did them extensively.

davien:
Thanks, I just saw Cloudgoddess' topics on evolution... didn't really know she did them extensively.

I would have preferred if she posted it on the Science section other than the religion section.

the animosity such conflicting ideas create in such brews contempt and makes it seem as am adversary to their belief other than a piece of scientific study.

and if you watched closely instead of a good discourse it was only met with emotional yapper and an unrelated pseudoscience as a supposed rebuttal.

johnydon22:


I would have preferred if she posted it on the Science section other than the religion section.

the animosity such conflicting ideas create in such brews contempt and makes it seem as am adversary to their belief other than a piece of scientific study.

and if you watched closely instead of a good discourse it was only met with emotional yapper and an unrelated pseudoscience as a supposed rebuttal.

Sadly that's the fate of any thought-provoking scientific topic posted in the religious section..

davien:
It's just crazy...

Nature is far more crazier than we can ever imagine

davien:
Sadly that's the fate of any thought-provoking scientific topic posted in the religious section..

Which is rather why i always suggest people post these topics in the right section...

Science is the most trusted means of human deductions so there is an intimidating shadow it casts to other conflicting ideas more so on ones held on to by faith and can be rather traced to the beginning of man's quest to understand the world he found himself.

Most basic beliefs, myths, superstitions were products of man's first venture into enquiry of what is before him.

Science (Natural Philosophy) to these early humans had a very religious and spiritual significance.

But we have severed that reconciliation since it encourages deductions be based on emotions and that has rather driven animosity between Beliefs towards science who mostly perceive it as an adversary.

Hi johnydon22, nice thread n discuss so far

I want to dwell on the matter of nothingness, it has bugged me for ages. When i mean nothing,i mean no space, no time, no energy...

imagine a table with nothing on it.....


Ok, cool store that memory

Now imagine a balloon on that table, that balloon is the universe and all there is.
Amazing right?

Now go back to the previous memory of nothingness...you see how hard it is

So wat i am trying to say is, why is there something instead of nothing, and if nothingness really doesn't exist like davien said, but if thats true, then what is the opposite of something...

I do have a hunch on the matter sha but lets hear your view

donnffd:
Hi johnydon22, nice thread n discuss so far

I want to dwell on the matter of nothingness, it has bugged me for ages. When i mean nothing,i mean no space, no time, no energy...

imagine a table with nothing on it.....


Ok, cool store that memory

Now imagine a balloon on that table, that balloon is the universe and all there is.
Amazing right?

Now go back to the previous memory of nothingness...you see how hard it is

So wat i am trying to say is, why is there something instead of nothing, and if nothingness really doesn't exist like davien said, but if thats true, then what is the opposite of something...

I do have a hunch on the matter sha but lets hear your view

I think in this case human perception comes into consideration... Now since HUMANS gave their own definition of what "Something" is in contrast to what "Nothing" is.

This definition one can notice is totally a surface scratch to the quantification of the actual reality of things.

Like the E.g i gave with an empty cup..

To the person percieving the image of the cup it appear to have "Nothing" in it but wheras in actuality it is filled with "something" (air molecules).

So maybe our definition of "Nothing" is really not the opposite of "something" since it can be inferred that "Nothing" to us is simply "something" we can't or may not yet yet percieve at a basic level.

So if there really isn't such a thing as Nothing then i'd say that the answer to the question Why is there something and not nothing? should then be

"Cus there is never such a thing as 'Nothing'"

And if you then ask the opposite of "Something" then we'd have to revisit the definition of nothing to tally with the widening eventuality of the state of existence.

And we can conclude then that "Something" has no opposite since the supposed opposite may not even in actuality exist.

johnydon22:


I think in this case human perception comes into consideration... Now since HUMANS gave their own definition of what "Something" is in contrast to what "Nothing" is.

This definition one can notice is totally a surface scratch to the quantification of the actual reality of things.

Like the E.g i gave with an empty cup..

To the person percieving the image of the cup it appear to have "Nothing" in it but wheras in actuality it is filled with "something" (air molecules).

So maybe our definition of "Nothing" is really not the opposite of "something" since it can be inferred that "Nothing" to us is simply "something" we can't or may not yet yet percieve at a basic level.

So if there really isn't such a thing as Nothing then i'd say that the answer to the question Why is there something and not nothing? should then be

"Cus there is never such a thing as 'Nothing'"

And if you then ask the opposite of "Something" then we'd have to revisit the definition of nothing to tally with the widening eventuality of the state of existence.

And we can conclude then that "Something" has no opposite since the supposed opposite may not even in actuality exist.

I agree to an extent, it is possible that its all human preception, but in some fundamental way you cant deny the duality of existence. Its either something exists or it doesn't.
There is a physicist who likened nothingness to a line graph, she said the she doesnt think there is anything like nothing because 0 is still a point in the line graph.

My take on it is, remove the line graph completely and what do you have, the non existence of it, absolute nothingness...so even if nothing can be a human perception, it still follows the laws of logic and is a valid question to ask.

I dnt know if i am making any sense?

donnffd:


I agree to an extent, it is possible that its all human preception, but in some fundamental way you cant deny the duality of existence. Its either something exists or it doesn't.
There is a physicist who likened nothingness to a line graph, she said the she doesnt think there is anything like nothing because 0 is still a point in the line graph.

My take on it is, remove the line graph completely and what do you have, the non existence of it, absolute nothingness...so even if nothing can be a human perception, it still follows the laws of logic and is a valid question to ask.

I dnt know if i am making any sense?

I am absolutely getting your point but i think the physicist explains it better ...

To further mischievously stretch it "Remove the line graph and you are still left with the platform on which the line was drawn"

I think to cap it all i don't think we even know what "Nothing" is, can or should be

To further yank it in a philosophical mesh up. . . 'Existentiality' is the state of being and if "Nothing" exists other than "something" then "Nothing" becomes "something" by the virtue of it's existiantiality.

So the actuality of "Nothing" nullifies it's self...

There is nothing like nothing

davien:
There is nothing like nothing

Damn!!! That sounds really weird ....

Maybe it should be like this "There is always Nothing but this nothing always has a 'thing' therefore nothing is always 'something' in essence.

Inviting more great minds to our discussion Cc. Sarrassin, SonOfLucifer, ValentineMary Joseph1013, JackBizzle

Floor still Open to more questions and topics for discussions.

johnydon22:
Floor still Open to more questions and topics for discussions.

Very well then. First of all don, love your work!

Exactly... the quantum world to me is a distinct universe of it's own. . . We might be looking for parallel universe outside this but maybe it is already staring at us in the form of the building blocks of ours.

Here are two parallel worlds.

-The macro world is a world where things are governed by the laws of physics.
-the quantum world is so different that it turns all the laws of Physics prevalent in this macro state upside down but yet is the foundation of the macro world.

Cause and effect doesn't tie the quantum world down but yet rules in the macro world.

Here is a state of ruling laws of physics that was build on a state that faults these laws.

It's a progression and evolution of nature, going from the lawless quantum spooky part accumulated to become a physical part that is driven by the physical laws of it's contents.

Upon what premise have these conclusions been drawn? Are they facts, opinion, or theory?

Hmm.... Interesting. Nothing is something

SidL:


Very well then. First of all don, love your work!



Upon what premise have these conclusions been drawn? Are they facts, opinion, or theory?

These are based on observed facts...

example: You are used to the notion of Cause and Effect but in a quantum field particles has been observed to pop in and out of existence without any influence or cause.

You are familiar with the first law of motion: A body at rest will continue at rest and a body in motion will continue in motion at a given direction and speed unless acted upon by an external force but in the quantum world subatomic particles has been found can be induced to speed up almost to the speed of light all by themselves without any external force added.

And also Quantum entanglement, Two particles at very long distance from each other behaving like it's just one particle in two places. . . Information are passed between them faster than the speed of light that when you make one particle spin at a given direction instantaneously the other does the same.

The laws of Physics you are familiar with in this macro state are all turned upside down, man still cannot place his hand on the quantum laws (how things should happen) that govern the microbile world.

I told someone the other day maybe we are used to how things should be done that we are always looking for 'how things should be done' therefore making some eventualities elusive to us, what if the only laws of the quantum state is 'there are no law' then we will spend eternity searching for laws that are not there.

well fingers crossed we can always not know what we'd find the more we look

shollarey:
Hmm.... Interesting. Nothing is something

Sounds crazy right?

make I chill for here first...
nice work John

johnydon22:


Sounds crazy right?

Yea really crazy.... Actually, i didn't really understand it, so i cant contribute but i can learn with 'physics idea'. Well that's d basic. If i may ask, what did you study in school?

shollarey:
Yea really crazy.... Actually, i didn't really understand it, so i cant contribute but i can learn with 'physics idea'. Well that's d basic. If i may ask, what did you study in school?

I am self taught but aspires to study Astrophysics

johnydon22:

I am self taught but aspires to study Astrophysics

okay

shollarey:
okay

The thread is still open to any question about anything concerning the cosmos or a philosophy you may wish to share or discuss.

Pdizzle you are also invited to join us

johnydon22:


I also hold this position that there cannot or was there ever absolute nothingness.

But if space began at a point then musn't there also be a platform unlimited and boundless too but distinct in characteristic necessary for space to expand?


This leans towards bubble universe with inter-universal space in between them.

My view is that if any points in the universe can be described by the set of coordinates {V,T,E,M} where V, T, E and M represents space, time, energy and mass, then one could say that just before the big bang happened the set U = {} which is a null or empty set describes the nothingness of the universe since V, T, E, and M are zero. This is what I think nothing is, and why I also think that you cannot achieve the state of nothingness in a universe that is already something. Doing so would mean finding a location that has all four elements of the set as zero. Such a set, if it exist would be a disjoint set, which means it can only exist outside the boundary of the universe.

As to the bold, do you mean at a point in time or a point in space? The former presumes that the notion of time before the birth of the universe has any meaning and the later fails to understand that space is meaningless outside the universe.

dorox:


My view is that if any points in the universe can be described by the set of coordinates {V,T,E,M} where V, T, E and M represents space, time, energy and mass, then one could say that just before the big bang happened the set U = {} which is a null or empty set describes the nothingness of the universe since V, T, E, and M are zero.

You see here is where the problem is, is the (0) really nothing? (Though is this case i am forgoing the ability of energy to be an uncreated value)

If V,T,E,M= 0 in this mathematical calories 0 is still greater than -1 -2 ...... till -infiniti therefore 0 remains something.

This is what I think nothing is, and why I also think that you cannot achieve the state of nothingness in a universe that is already something. Doing so would mean finding a location that has all four elements of the set as zero. Such a set, if it exist would be a disjoint set, which means it can only exist outside of the universe.

The matter remains that on the virtue of it's existentiality it becomes a 'something'... so for 'nothing' to exist then 'nothing' must become something ... the sheer presumption for the existence of 'nothing' nullifies nothing in itself.

As to the bold, do you mean at a point in time or a point in space? The former presumes that the notion of time before the birth of the universe has any meaning and the later fails to understand that space is meaningless outside the universe.

In that case i was painting a broader picture and even more larger boundless containment for not just "a universe" but rather "universes"..... A multiverse.

Space/time for our universe began at a given point and even there was no time before then for one to ask for a time before our universe would be like asking for the edge of the earth which is improbable since the earth is spherical therefore cannot have an edge.

So if time began at a certain point of instance in our universe then there cannot be such a thing as "time before the universe" since there was no time at all.

To reconcile this i'd then have to assume as a universal dimension TIME becomes subjective to distinct universes limited within their containment with yet then a timeless inter-universal infinite void between them

Err,,,, *prostrates for the bosses* can I come in?