if you have a solid mass occuppying a complete area, what is in that area with the solid mass? see this is an obvious one..NOTHING!!!


three the comma should help you, but i do understand you have difficulties following things.

See, I told ya there's no such thing as nothing

As soon as you give it a name, it becomes something.

I get it, if something is filled to capacity, what else will fit inside it? Nothing.

That's easy.

That's what I've been saying all along.. In this universe, "nothing" makes as much sense as "infinity".. They are both absurd, at least in the sense that they represent things that don't exit.

PAX

"'Nothing' as an abstract, is the absence of anything. Practically applied: If, in space, between two points there are no intervening particles, there is nothing. Even though nature abhoars a vacuum, there seems to a lot of it. It seems vacuum abhoars nature just as much."

"'Infinity' as an abstract is something that goes on without end. Like real numbers, and the pointless threads in War forum about opinions of God. Start counting, when you reach the end, let me know, I'll check the War Forum for pointless posts... They'll still be there."

- Matt Kearns, today.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:"'Nothing' as an abstract, is the absence of anything. Practically applied: If, in space, between two points there are no intervening particles, there is nothing. Even though nature abhoars a vacuum, there seems to a lot of it. It seems vacuum abhoars nature just as much."

- Matt Kearns, today.

EXACTLY but for karidan's education i will take it a step further...and show him how abstract Nothing & Infinity are....

using your example of nothing...the SPACE bewteen the two points now becomes SOMETHING as it is DEFINIED!!!!! and ceases to be nothing!!!!!!

and the vice versa for infinity!!

That's gotta be the dumbest argument ever.

There is no such thing as nothing, because I gave it a name.

What? How does that follow?

You're going to argue against the possibility of a void because you can "define" it?

Something and nothing cannot be the same thing, at least in the definition of the words. But what you're saying is that they're same things?

Where the hell does that make sense?

I know what you're trying to say, and I know what you're trying to prove, but just because we have a word to describe the abscence of anything, doesn't mean that that absence suddenly becomes something. Yes, we can define it from our perspective, but that doesn't make it anything more than it is (which, coincidentally, is nothing). It's our word to comprehend that which might not be entirely comprehendable.

I give my dog a name and it doesn't cease to be a dog. It just ceases to be a dog without a name.

No, Infinity is without end, like I said, start counting numbers, and let me know when you hit the end, note, our numerical system (hindu/arabic, Decimal) has no theoretical or practical limit, so, when you start, unless you decide to stop, there is no end.

There is no wiggle room on that one Pret. Sorry.

You're thinking far too in depth. As I said: think in the abstract. Nothing is the absence of anything. If there are no intervening particle or enegy in a vacuum, there is nothing.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Why i chose to define them as emptiness and fullness--makes it a lott easier to quantify.

As i said, emptiness exists because you can quantify it. Albeit, it's a relatively-measured quanta, but everything we measure is relative.

i.e. No straightedge is truly straight--it has a slight curve to it--it's based on a datum based on the earth's relative surface--which is curved.

However, unless we have an absolute to use as datum (for the uninitiated, a datum is a theoretically exact point from which everything else is measured off of), everything will be based relativistically. Bus still, in the relativistic system, emptiness can be quantified--as well as fullness.

And we don't have an absolute to measure off of--not only coudn't we define it as a true absolute (we don't have the perception), but the concept of an absolute (God, Infinity, The universe--doesn't matter in this argument except they are all concepts that could be considered absolutes), would be the measuring stick for everything, and thus, you could define anything in an infinite number of ways which all conflict with each other.

On the theoretical, however, nothing exists because we can perceive something. Or, in my words, we can percieve fullness, thus emptiness must exist. if we couldn't something (fullness) would be an absolute, and thus we couldn't percieve it because we have no basis on which to measure it off of.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

see this is the problem...

and my haven't we gotten off on a rabbit trail...lolol


nothingness is a term used to describe the undescribable, for ease of understanding.

if i dig a hole in the ground what is in the hole? nothing...but it is still a hole. the hole is something. so what is the hole? the emptiness or the bowl created in the ground? neither because eptiness has to be defined by an object...ie an empty glass and the bowl created in teh ground is the ground not a hole. that is why we have the word NOTHING to give our finite minds something to relate to that is undescribable.


"No, Infinity is without end" - and nothing is with out beginning!!! they are the exact opposites!

Maybe in your mind. But if you want to get technical, the "nothing" in your hole is actually air.

In space, there is a void where there are NO molecules. That's nothing. It's not defined by it's container, because the "container" would have nothing to contain.

So, define the container that is the universe.

And now we're back to the unknowable.

"Maybe in your mind. But if you want to get technical, the "nothing" in your hole is actually air."

WRONG if the "hole is filled with AIR" the hole is not empty!!!! AIR is a physical substance no different than dirt.

"In space, there is a void where there are NO molecules. That's nothing. It's not defined by it's container, because the "container" would have nothing to contain.

So, define the container that is the universe.

And now we're back to the unknowable"

YES and we know this because of QUANTUMPHYSICS!!! NOT PHYSICS!!!!! and these are completely theoritical in arguement and not provable. and really has no baring on this topic of conversation.

NOTHING can not have dimension!!!! nor be measurable using the laws of physics just like infinity can not be obtained by counting, that is why it is NOTHING!!! it is a concept that helps us understand something our FINITE minds can fathom.

lets try it this way... you understand the concept of infinity as being X+1 right? nothing would be x/0.

okay, let me take a shot at this...

Infinity has not only no end, but no beginning. It it not only the infinite, but the infinitessimal--the negative and the positive.

Consider this, you can not only (in theory) count up to infinity, but you can also go the other direction and count DOWN to infinity. Theoretically, when you count down, you're looking for the beginning, and since you'll hit infinity in that direction as well as counting up--towards the end, icne you'll end up to infinity in both directions, it is a concept with no end or no beginning.


As for defining nothingness--or emptiness, it's definable within the relativistic system that constrains the perception in which you're looking at it. Let's assume your hole example--the hole is say 3m deep with a 3m radius.assuming everything in that hole--bounded by the plane that runs coplanar with the surface of the ground, and bounded by the dirt on the remaining sides of the cylindrical volume--we will assume for the sake of the arument that the volume is a perfect cylinger with a 3m radius and a height of 3m:

that leaves it with an approximate volume of 84.82300165m.

Now, we will aslo assume (thus bringing the realtivistic into this) that the smallest particle is a quark, and that particle is a full solid mass (fullness) of a definable size. If we take all the quarks, leptons, muons, gluons, neutrinos, and other subatomic particles in that hole at a specific point in time (to simplify this and eliminate the 4th dimension), and you calculated the volume of all of these particles for everything within the cylindrical hole...

Their volume would be LESS than 84.82300165m.

As such, whatever that volume would be--everything else would be nothingness--the volume of that nothingness is simple subtraction.

Now, everything smaller than a quark that is not discovered yet? Consider this:

When you take the atom--composed of electrons, neutrons, and protons: there is space between each of those subatomic particles. When each of those were broken into quarks, there was space inside each of those subatomic particles.

The trend follows to infinity--the smaller particles you discover doesn't fill the void--the void remains relatively steady.

Now, if we assume a practical limit--and assume that the universe has a finite amount of space and matter (emptiness and fullness) in it, and a measurasble volume, nothing/space/emptiness can be quantified and measure as the difference between the universe's volume and the volume of matter within it.

It's similar to electricity. Electricity is not only the flow of electrons, but the flow of the "holes" of electrons within the conductor. Without taking the holes into consideration--electricity would be impossible: Electricity like all electromagnetic radiation flows though a supercondictive material (a vacuum for light, supercondutors for electricity) at the speed of light--but, the particles that form electricty--and light (the light is a theory here) cannot flow at the speed of light because they have mass and mass cannot flow at that speed lest it be turned itno energy. So, how does it work out? The "holes" can, because they have no mass, and aren't constrained by that law of physics!

Anyhow, in order to fully quantify nothingness--and fullness, you have to reach the omega of the boundaries--the omegas of height, width, and depth--the omegas of time, and all the other dimensions, and the omegas of the universe and of the smallest particles and energy quantas within it. only then can you get the whole picture, but humans are ill-equiped to do so.

God may be able to do it--if God exists...


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

Even the void of space is filled with magnetic waves, solar energy, space dust and possibly dark matter and ZPE. There is no such thing as true emptiness in our universe. Like I said, all energies are inherity positive, IE: they have a value above 0. Zero is an abstract representation of "nothing" but of course it is something because we have difined it. The dog example is bad because it started off conceptualized as something. In fact, you cannot use a metaphore for "nothing" because that is the only thing that is like itself, you could try and define it as the opposite of infinite, but that is difficult too because no calculations involving infinity have any answer other than infinity.. Nothing doesn't work that way. IE: 0 +1 = 1 but infitity + 1 = infinity. Infinity x infinity = infinity. infinity - 1 = infinity. Hense my reasoning that inifinty is irrational and implausable. If you add anything to infinity it expires as you can only ever be left with infinty, unless of course, infinity if full


PAX

Pretjah wrote:if i dig a hole in the ground what is in the hole? nothing...

Pretjah wrote:
"Maybe in your mind. But if you want to get technical, the "nothing" in your hole is actually air."

WRONG if the "hole is filled with AIR" the hole is not empty!!!! AIR is a physical substance no different than dirt.

Sorry, Pret, but degenerated is correct.

And I get accused of not being able to follow things...

And to expand on the comment a bit.

degenerated wrote:In space, there is a void where there are NO molecules.

It is theorized that the matter of space is expanding. It is also theorized that it is accelerating during that expansion.

The 64-dollar question is what is it expanding into?

Nothingness in its purest form. No magnetic waves; solar energy; space dust, stray electrons, quarks, or little green men; gravity; etc.

so where does the nothing go when something of the universe gets there?

i do have to say though that i am surprised at how civil this has stayed, debate on

"In space, there is a void where there are NO molecules."

as hahahaha has explained this ocmment is not correct.

Quantumphysics is theorizing there are pockets or voids that could contain nothing but that is not provable.

put two objects next to each other, actually touching...what is inbetween them? how much of a distance is there between them?

now take earth and pluto? what is inbetween them? whichone is nothing?

before you give the answer..remember nothing CANNOT BE MEASURED.


and for KOTL....infinity CAN have a beginning it juse has no end!!!! if you have zero dollars and i say i'm going to give you an infinite number of dollars. is there a beginning to the dollars i give you?

ToBoGgAn wrote:so where does the nothing go when something of the universe gets there?

The nothing is aborbed by something, thereby ceasing to exist as nothing..

Quote:

now take earth and pluto? what is inbetween them? whichone is nothing?

Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, alot of meteors, countless amounts of space dust, all the planets' satellites, solar energy, and the list goes on.

Pret: it cannot be measured... BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE!!! How can you quantify something that in and of itself is nothing?

And Quantum Physics references coming from you is interesting, not for the fact that Quantum Physics brings about the carbon dating theorems, but also the fact that it is still fairly nebulous. What about Quark-level physics?

Go with what we have now, and there is infact such a thing as nothing (which is an interesting comment in and of itself, I'm speaking in the abstract of course). If you want to get into the tawdry bits: okay... if you go from the sun to Pluto, there are intervening planets, comets, asteroids, moons, dust clouds, etc. between them.. here's a bigger question: whats between the solar systems.. if there are no intervening particles (ie Gases, dust and other space debris) as well as no other energy transmissions, could you please not insult me and the rest of the group that have inklings about science and just bloody admit that there is NOTHING there.

Until we have proven the String theories, or the multiple resident dimensions theories, and until you crack the Theory of Everything, you're arguing something you cannot quantify.. which, interestingly enough, relates to the God theory that this thread was based off of.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM...i'm willing to accept the TERM there is nothing there as the concept we have for nothing. however which statement is more correct

between earth and pluto there is nothing.

or

between earth and pluto there is space.

???

Neither statement would be correct.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:if you go from the sun to Pluto, there are intervening planets, comets, asteroids, moons, dust clouds, etc. between them..

Kardain wrote:Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, alot of meteors, countless amounts of space dust, all the planets' satellites, solar energy, and the list goes on.

okay for the people who have a difficult time understanding let me try agin and make it a bit more specific.

if at an exact moment that there are no pieces of matter in between earth and pluto which statement would be correct.....

The second statement.

Reason being is that there would still be gravitational energy between the two planets.

The area of space would still be something, even with no intervening specks of matter.

now if something absorbs all the nothing does it negate itself/get bigger,get smaller/implode on itself.

where exactly did nothing come from.

one real question, if a true vacuum/nothing actually exists everywhere there is nothing, would it not by current theory (of vacuum properties, ie nothing) is true and vacuums/nothing pulls in matter won't everything eventually be nothing?

wow that is confusing

here is my brand new just thought of theory, not of how we got here but where we are headed

now let's forget aboot the whole where did we come from thing and make it simple, you came from your parents. following this whole argument has made me think more aboot the future, mostly because we cannot change the past so it is irrelevant until we can transcend time.

current theory has the universe expanding in reaction to the "big bang", i have no care how it initially happened but ask why it can't happen again. this "big bang" can really be broken down to resemble a nuclear explosion, ie expansion/contraction. once the universe reaches it's limit that i can not fathom we, as a universe, have reached our half life. wherever the initial site of this "big bang" was will naturally be the epicenter of the universe. once the universe is done expanding it will then be hurled into a contraction of equal speed and force of the expansion by the epicenter where everything became nothing(hold on keep reading). the effect this will have on individual planets and entire solar systems would be most likely devastating to the living but could spur new life on previous;y uninhabitable areas. as the universe begins it's shrinkage this new life will evolve, not necassarily as we have but evolve none the less as it wonders where it came from and strives for meaning it will be taking the opposite journey that we rode out, assuming we were eliminated in the massive halt and redirection of the universe.

now the epicenter of the universe is now pulling all matter back into the void created by the "big bang" slowly filling the nothing with everything until finally all things are now compressed into the densest possible tiniest little bit of something in the middle of all this nothing. simultaneously as all of everything is pulled into and compressed into nothing the shear energy created by this final act creates the next "big bang" and starts the process over again with no guarantees that the results will be the same with life forms.

most people would laugh this off as science fiction but sit and think aboot it for a minute and see where it could be feasible.

this system also makes an elaborate use of the "infinity theory" due to the fact that it would never end and no one will ever be able to trace it to a beginning, especially since everything is constantly destroyed and recreated in a cycle with random outcomes on the same scene repeated over and over.

well, who's gonna be the first to debunk it?

screw reading all that!!!!!!

lol just kidding i'll read it more indepth later....

it is probably not written well enough that is for sure, just hit me so i started typing, have to go back and read it later and try and clean it up.

Is there a place in the universe where you cannot see anything else, no distant stars, no anything. No, not likely, therefore, everywhere in the universe has, at a minimum, light energy passing through it.

There is no such thing as nothing. The best shot at it would be the space between an electron and the nucleus of an atom. That is where ZPE is thought to reside though, and some kind of force is holding that electron in orbit, so it is very likely something there too.

Nothing is truely empty. <-- take every meaning you can from that statement.



Nothing is the absense of something. So I can see how if nothing did exist, it could potentially consume all the something and cause complete destruction. I cannot see a repeating cycle that lasts infinitely though. If there is infinty, it is infinitely old, and therefore infinitely cold. All energys eventually disperse themselves equally, unless the second law of thermodynamics is wrong.

Does the universe have a beginning? I believe so.

PAX