EXISTENCE (not creation) Ex Nihilo

Tom,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Are you serious or pulling our legs? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was serious.[]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In fact, when matter meets antimatter, the result is that both are converted to massive amounts of energy governed by E = m c^2.

That is fortunate, because if anything ever became nothing, we would have to accept that miracles do occur and that our pursuit of understanding is at an end. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely, I was viewing the matter/antimatter issue from my "ex nihilo" goggles. So, if matter and antimatter are mutually annihilating forms, and the universe came from nothing, then I'd like to see <i>no</i> energy when the two are combined. Bringing matter/antimatter together should yield nothing in that case, signifying the fact that the two came from a void.

On the other hand, if the matter/antimatter pair should yield high energy densities when combined, then they did not come from a void but from ubiquitous other forms. In that sense if find the matter/antimatter terminology a little bit ill chosen

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Are you serious or pulling our legs? <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I was serious.[]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
In fact, when matter meets antimatter, the result is that both are converted to massive amounts of energy governed by E = m c^2.

That is fortunate, because if anything ever became nothing, we would have to accept that miracles do occur and that our pursuit of understanding is at an end. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Absolutely, I was viewing the matter/antimatter issue from my "ex nihilo" goggles. So, if matter and antimatter are mutually annihilating forms, and the universe came from nothing, then I'd like to see <i>no</i> energy when the two are combined. Bringing matter/antimatter together should yield nothing in that case, signifying the fact that the two came from a void.

On the other hand, if the matter/antimatter pair should yield high energy densities when combined, then they did not come from a void but from ubiquitous other forms. In that sense if find the matter/antimatter terminology a little bit ill chosen
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I knew what you meant, since you used the word "should" instead
of a declarative verb in your remark. I didn't feel it appropriate
to speak for someone with a better vocabulary however.

It's sad though some people here,
lacking good rebuttal arguments, resort to ad hominem technics,
some in an indirect way, some more direct, to make themselves feel like they said something relevant. A lot of childish behaviour around here.

It is astonishing how strong the temptation can be to ridicule someone for saying something stupid or ignorant. Part of this is just human nature. I believe it originates in the R-complex and migrates to the cerebral cortex where it becomes conscious thought. (Hmmm. Dinosaurs must have been certified delux *ssh*l*s.)

And another part of this temptation comes from how damned easy it is. You can preface almost anything with the equivalent of "Jane you ignorant slut ..." and your opponent is automatically reduced in stature in the eyes of the audience.

It should not be this way.

But it is.

Even in an audience as sophisticated as this one, although we tend to recover very quickly. And think to ourselves things like "strawman" or "ad hominem".

===

This is a moderated forum, but it is very loosely moderated. At first I thought that was a mistake, but after following it for a few years and comparing it to other forums I've come to appreciate just how well loose moderation works.

In the USENET forums moderation is generally either very strict (sci.physics.research) or non-existant (sci.astro). The former keeps it very clean, but at the expense of filtering most new and related-but-off-topic ideas. The latter is full of new ideas. But most of these new ideas are worthless. And talk about your off-topic items ... many aren't even loosely related to astromomy. For instance, the dumbasstrollogers (copyright) like to cross post there all the time.

[tangent]
If I ridicule some ONE for believing in astrology, I'm not really doing anything wrong. This is an exception to the rule, isn't it?
[/tangent]

So yes, there is childish behavior here. But not nearly as much as most other places on the 'Net. And, I see signs that we are getting better.

LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Messiah</i>
<br />Is existence a condition?<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]: Yes.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Oooops . . . I'm getting worried again. You are equating a state of being (a condition) with being itself - or worse yet, you are putting the cart before the horse saying being is derived from a state of being. Doesn't jibe...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">When you first asked the question, I didn't understand what you meant, so I looked up the definition of "condition" and decided you must have meant "something that is necessary for something else to happen", in which case existence surely is a condition.

But now you say I am "equating a state of being (a condition) with being itself". And I am back to wondering "What does Messiah mean by that?" Please elaborate the point, because nothing that makes sense is being communicated to me. I can see no obvious basis for a difference between "being" and a "state of being", and anything I might guess would be speculation. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jan</i>
<br />On the other hand, if the matter/antimatter pair should yield high energy densities when combined, then they did not come from a void but from ubiquitous other forms. In that sense if find the matter/antimatter terminology a little bit ill chosen<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Antimatter is matter with certain 2-state properties such as charge reversed from the ordinary. However, mass for antimatter is normal. Although mathematics allows us to attach negative signs to anything, including time, mass, and numbers under a square root symbol, this does not mean that a physical counterpart must exist any more than a "square circle" must exist simply because we can say it.

Insofar as our experience of reality is any guide, no such concepts as "negative mass" and "negative energy" exist. But that doesn't keep us from using those words for some other concept if we feel like it. For example, "dark energy" is sometimes referred to as "negative energy" for no better reason than that it pushes instead of pulls, thereby opposing gravity. One problem is that "dark energy" probably doesn't exist because the concept is needed only by the Big Bang theory, which is very likely wrong. But that aside, dark energy's "pushing" energy is the same as ordinary energy in our everyday experience and cannot be called "negative" in the sense used in this discussion, where the combination of a negative and a positive would lead to non-existence. -|Tom|-

Messiah,

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><b>Yeah - and wait until they find out that the cosmological constant is actually a variable</b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

<font color="yellow"><b>ANS: Or wait unitl they realize that the expansion is a natural process as a consequence of energy flow which in inner volume zones of the universe creates gravity but naturally causes expansion pressure for a finite (rather than an infinite) universe.</b></font id="yellow">


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