Creation Ex Nihilo

north,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>the formula is meaningless and proves in reality,well "nothing".it only proves that math can do anything that reality can't!!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: From your post I would assume you can explain to us therefore how and why we exist where our net energy equals "Zero".

I'm all ears. Explain away.


"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />north,

<b>the formula is meaningless and proves in reality,well "nothing".it only proves that math can do anything that reality can't!!</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: From your post I would assume you can explain to us therefore how and why we exist where our net energy equals "Zero".

I'm all ears. Explain away.
______________________________________________________________________

mac

why shouldn't we exist,if this "zero" concept is true,then it seems that the balance is the reason we do exist,what ever the mechanism for this balance,apparently it works.the ecology of a forest is balanced,this does not cause it to cease to exist!! what has a net energy of zero have anything to do with the concept of "something from nothing" idea?? obviously we exist because "something" is there to give us existance and you have said yourself that nothing is nothing.look at it this way, what would happen if the equation was NOT balanced!! and even then the imbalance would have to be enough to start an annihalation process, this then i could see as a condition for non-existance. the "zero" is not meant to mean "nothing", for obviously existance is, "zero" just means there is nothing left over."zero" is not the essence of energy balance equation,energy is!! therefore it is energy that gives substance to "zero", energy gives "zero" meaning,"zero" is a symbol of information that comes from the bringing together both sides of the equation but is obviously not meant to represent something physical.try getting energy from "zero".further i think the equation should be one side=the other with "zero" taken out because we in fact exist!! a true "zero" balance would mean non-existance.in fact what would be more interesting is if we existed and there was an imbalance of energy!!

north,

We seem to be in general agreement other than some linguistic differences.

Your suggestion that the formula should be +s = -s is a mere rearrangement algebraically. I use the other form to show the transition from "Nothing" into the two equal oppositie "Somethings".

Your form would specify the balance but not the transition. It too would still equal "0".

Our existance is clearly comprised of tangiable "Somethings" but collectively there is a net "Zero" which seems to support the idea of "Nothing" being bifurcated into the two "Somethings" as a potential origin.


So I don't see a lot of difference overall.

"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

I guess you guys are mistaken on this.

When talking about the nett-total energy of the total universe, is must be considered that you have no basement for define that energy, since you can not measure it against anything else.
The nett-total energy of the universe can be + infinite, 0 or - infinity, or any value in between, but it is a meaningless figure, since we don't have antything to compare it with.

To explain this a bit better, consider for instance inflation theory, in which all energy that exists is held in an inflation field, which is a scalar field. There is no way to define the absolute measure of the scalar field in total, since you can only speak about scalar values at certain points in spacetime, and measure that against another point in spacetime.

What the overall on-average measure is of all scalar values through all space at any time, is simply unmeasureable and undefineable.
It has no value.

huesdens,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>I guess you guys are mistaken on this.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: (50 posts) You re fairly new here and I am not familiar with your views or qualifications, so I won't say much but want to make a couple of observations.

Observation #1: When you say "You guys" you fail to take into account that it is not just "Us guys" but the impressive list of authors quoted at the outset of this thread. Which happens to include Stephen Hawkins. I don't know about you but I think most of us tread lightly before claiming such entities are wrong. That is not to say we ulimately agree with "authority" but you aren't challenging just the members here but some pretty impressive credentials.

Other than your personal view or assumption what basis do you have for your statement.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>The nett-total energy of the universe can be + infinite, 0 or - infinity, or any value in between, but it is a meaningless figure, since we don't have antything to compare it with.</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

ANS: No it can't. Fact #1: Infinity is a concept and nothing tangiable or physical which has measureable finite qualitities can ever become infinite. Energy is a physical measureable thing and as such it is impossbile for energy to exceed any possible quantity of energy. Which is by definition infinite. Infinity requires whatever is infinite to exceed itself's existance. Other than in calculus, not a vary meaningful or useful concept.

Fact #2: I find it courious how you could say "it could be any value" when actual calculations have been done that show that "actual" value between positive and negative energy is exactly balanced. Net "Zero" energy in the universe.

It would be OK to say the values "could have been" but not that "the may be" because actual measurement and calculations already discount those possibiities and shows the net zero result.

You can't just assert that something can be different than it is.






"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mac</i>
<br />huesdens,
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

It is spelled "heusdens".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ANS: (50 posts) You re fairly new here and I am not familiar with your views or qualifications, so I won't say much but want to make a coule of observations.

Observation #1: When you say "You guys" you fail to take into account that it is not just "Us guys" but the impressive list of authors quoted at the outset of this thread. Which happens to include Stephen Hawkins. I don't know about you but I think most of us tread lightly before claiming such entities are wrong. That is not to say we ulimately agree with "authority" but you aren't challenging just the members here but some pretty impressive credentials.

Other than your personal view or assumption what basis do you have for your statement.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I hold it you say here that since a talented and famous scientist is included in that list,the argument is realy infallible then.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ANS: No it can't. Fact #1: Infinity is a concept and nothing tangiable or physical which has measureable finite qualitities can ever become infinite. Energy is a physical measureable thing and as such it is impossbile for energy to exceed any possible quantity of energy. Which is by definition infinite. Infinity requires whatever is infinite to exceed itself's existance. Other than in calculus, not a vary meaningful or useful concept.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You are right, infinity is a concept, and a very usefull concept.
As far as it is related to physical reality, I agree with you that it can't be measured. There is no real physical property that will ever be measured as having a value of Infinity.

However, I don't agree with you that for that reason, Infinity would not be applicable to the real physical world.
Take for example time itself. If time would be said to be finite, then please indicate me, when is time going to stop?
Is there any finite measure that can be quantified as the amount of time that the universe will still go on, after it stops completely?
If no such finite measure exists, then this means time goes on, and time can be said to be infinite (having no end).
If you say there exists a finite measure that is an upper bound to the amount of time the universe will last, then please indicate me what the universe will be or look like in its last minute, and how it could come ton an end.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Fact #2: I find it courious how you could say "it could be any value" when actual calculations have been done that show that "actual" value between positive and negative energy is exactly balanced. Net "Zero" energy in the universe.

It would be OK to say the values "could have been" but not that "the may be" because actual measurement ancd calculations alreaady discount that possibiity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I place this in doubt. There isn't any measurement that could indicate that the total nett-enery of the total universe is exactly zero. That is non-sense for sure.

And further, you have not understood the argument at all. When I make a statement that the electric charge of any object is zero, I make a relative statement, comparing a specific charge against some other object (ground) which is defined to be zero.

But how much is the charge of ground anyway? To measure that, we would have to measure ground against something else, which would then be called "ground" and be defined as zero.

ALL our measurements are relatve, not absolute.

We CAN NOT maeasure the absolute energy contents of the universe, since we have nothing to measure it AGAINST. You can not compare anything to nothing, since outside the universe, there is nothing.

In the ABSOLUTE sense, the value of the nett-energy of the universe is realy without meaning.

ALL measurements are relative measurements. So, if you take measurements outside of that context, if you have nothing to compare it with, the meaning of such measure is simply missing.

It would be equal as to calculate the price of the sun at a time at which not even humans were living on earth.