# Everything came from Nothing

pelastration
Originally posted by heusdens
I think I would become a comet in that solar system.
;-). The Heusdens Comet ;-) I like that.
Originally posted by heusdens
As a human being, how can I not be attracted by "stars"? [/B]
With "HOW" I meant describe me the mechanics behind attraction.
Don't use describing definitions about forces ... just show me.
Originally posted by heusdens
Ok. This time for serious.
I still envision the "curved spacetime" model of gravitation. The curvature of space around a massive object, causes me to "fall" into the centre of gravity.
This model of curved space, is action at a distance. The way I can measure the curvature of space is by measuring the effect of it: a force that is directed towards the center of gravity. [/B]
Heusdens, as you know i like measuring because it gives us causal information (repeatable) about an event. But I am not interested in knowing how high the house is and it's weight ... i am interested to know how you build it. What's the architectural plan and the engineer plan ... and how can I make it also.
A TOE will not describe properties as the essence, but will give the building plan ... so we can rebuild it in ALL DIFFERENT sizes and weights.

You said: "The way I can measure the curvature of space is by measuring the effect of it: a force that is directed towards the center of gravity.". Nice ... this will give you the curvature of space. And then? With that information ... can you build it? Can you build ... a force, can you build ... a center of gravity? OK ... then with combined measurings we can try to make a plan how it can be build given those and those conditions. Next to that we need TOOLS (a type of mechanism) to reshape the building blocs and to connect them. (the magic mechanism of Feynman: the coupling constant). That's the engineering part. That's the essence. Without that ... no explanation.:/

Originally posted by heusdens I think your idea of a membrane that connect everything with anything, although seemingly applies to this ununderstood issue of "action on a distance" fails in some ways. What is the membrane itself consisting of? And how is that stuff "bound to itself" then? [/B]
I don't know. ;-). Therefor it is a postulate! If I would know it would be a fact.
Maybe we can find the solution together. ;-)

But important is that - based on this postulate - we can imagine a mechanism which provokes:
1. Restructuring a minimal of "something" into complex combinations.
2. Combinations which keep their integrity (historical reference framework).
3. Combinations which are reversible. (white hole <-> black hole --> restructuring ... validity of the conservation of energy)
4. Combinations which create density differences (additional layers create higher density) and thus explain the gradual density difference in manifestations levels (matter, sub-matter, sub-sub-matter ... leading even to un-explained events in spirituality)
5. Combinations which create internal friction (and thus a 'global' island vibration = resonance)
6. Combinations which create interaction between non-directly positioned islands.
7. Billion of combinations in which the inter-connectivity (that we call gravitation) is valid.
8. With which the most important experimental measurements and sub-processes are still valid. (explains the quantum leap, speed limit of light, the difference of mesons and bosons, ...)
8. A mechanism that is valid for: MICRO COSMOS and MACRO COSMOS!
Originally posted by heusdens I see no difference in quarks that are bound together by gluon forces, as massive particels that are bound together by gravitation forces. Only the scale of the acting force is different. [/B]
How do gluons work? Same question as above.
The Higgs boson is supposed to bring the solution. It's a mediator which would carry gravitational powers (0,0). My problem with the Higgs boson is: there is still no fundamental mechanical "continuous" relationship.
Originally posted by heusdens And some comments on your "everything is connected hypothese".
I think the source of your hypothese/thought that everything is connected, which in your "pelastration" theory has the form of one huge membrane that literally connects everything to everything else, is a fundamental thought, which reflects on the world in total, and our being in this world. [/B]
That's correct. But my target is to show an engineering picture not a descriptive game of words, weights and heights.
Originally posted by heusdens The way I think of that connection, and reasoned about that within, can be found in the topic https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=876". In that way I could "connect" the existence of everything within my own existence.
This forms a reasoned ground for "beliefs" regarding the interconnectedness of everything to everything. But this connectedness only exists within my reasonings. I don't assume that the material world itself should be in a material way interconnected (at least no more then physics has shown those connections by postulating the material interactions in the form of the 4 fundamental forces). I don't think that some physical substance is causing me to be drawn to a star, other then the spacetime curvature/gravitational force. [/B]
For me the pelastration concept affirms that I am an unique being, like you are and all members of these forums ... and all creations. We are each of us a combination of empty boxes, but the empty boxes have the ability to interact between them inside the unique island called "ME" or "I". My consciousness is an active brain-wave-based interactive system that sensors the internal layers and their interaction, but sensors also the surrounding of that temporal island called "Dirk". In the total of the Universe that Dirk is just a temporal island of virtual reality (VR). Thinking he exists. (The Matrix ? :-0). But he is feed by vibrations and other levels of VR (which also seems to exist). To Dirk these other VR-elements really can make him happy, unhappy, hurt him, kill him, ... by good or bad "interactions". So it's not just reasoning, it's on that level: reality. ...
As "Dirk" I observe my reality, my body and the 3D world that really surrounds me. Another level of that Dirk is just acting like an automatic (following previous stored interactions). This total reality "Dirk" follows his own time frame(s) and lives conscious only in the NOW. Dirk is build of empty boxes in empty boxes etc. (see previous thread) but his "physical surrounding" is build on the same level by other empty boxes which bring interaction (food, water, girls, music, brain waves, ...). The connectedness does exists not only in my reasonings but also in the fact that there are the interactions with others (my five sexy girlfriends), with objects (my car, my hamburger, ...) or processes (fire, car accident, that crazy dog, ...) from the surrounding. The "significance" of those elements of the surrounding is based on the appreciation that the (isolated) island Dirk has for them. (ie. Dirk can deny that there is a fire in his house but will see the consequences if his chosen not to leave = decay = struggle of life). Dirk's limits are embedded in his structure.
Although you and I am "apparently" isolated units/islands we are still really part of all underlying (restructured) combinations of the membrane (cells -> DNA -> molecules -> atoms -> protons, neutrons and electrons -> quarks, etc. called in the Basic Paradox the 3(-) level of matter, but are also all (to our relevant) spiritual levels emanating from the 3(+) level, and both are connected by so many levels of white holes and other interconnections.

So on the yet knowledge based "feeling of Awe" you can add now a "feeling of Joy" that you are part of the whole Unity.

Last edited by a moderator:
M. Gaspar

Originally posted by heusdens
It means it is impossible to comprehend. If the real world behaves in an incomprehensible way, then it is not understandable to us.

We are still in the process of trying to understand how the real world really works, and all we will find is a model of behaviour of the world which is understandable to us. We think our model of reality is improving and becomes a better understanding of what reality really is, but we will never have a complete understanding.

Everyone is working from a "model" of the way things "are". Even describing what your morning was like is to create a "model" that includes only the few things you describe.

Models are "used" to find a way to COMMUNICATE about something. No model is "true"...but only approximates that which MAY be true.

For instance, Pelastrations "model" has merit. If you look at his illustration of "tubes going through tubes" to create "something new" yet still be "attached" to everything else...you can see that this MAY be a possibility for what is "going on"...except there may not really be ACTUAL "tubes"...just a system that can be "explained" by thinking about what "tubes" DO.

Of course, I don't fully (or even minimally) understand Pelastration's view of things. But perhaps this is ANOTHER way to look at the evolution of the Universe...which does not preclude another "model" which may be accurate, too.

I'm not saying that ALL "models" are accurate...only that more than one MIGHT be.

And every time someone makes a "guess" -- and has the COURAGE to put it forward -- the Universe Itself may be "looking at" another POSSIBILITY about Itself.

My "model" has the Universe as a living, conscious Being ...a worthwhile contribution to Its SELF-IMAGE should this, in fact, be the case.

Personally, I think the Sun LIKED it when it was recognized in Ancient Egypt as a conscious Being they called "Ra"...but, as usual, our species went too far and called it "God".

We make the same mistake of "seeking God" when the Universe is all we need...as our SOURCE to be APPRECIATED rather than "worshipped".

If MY model is (ALSO) correct, then I am just giving the Universe its PROPS!

And if you think that I don't know that the above sounds like "pure mysticism" and/or "pure crap"...you're wrong...I DO know how it sounds/reads.

But we only have this limited language to create our limited models ...and this includes the languages of science and mathematics.

heusdens

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Everyone is working from a "model" of the way things "are". Even describing what your morning was like is to create a "model" that includes only the few things you describe.

Models are "used" to find a way to COMMUNICATE about something. No model is "true"...but only approximates that which MAY be true.

For instance, Pelastrations "model" has merit. If you look at his illustration of "tubes going through tubes" to create "something new" yet still be "attached" to everything else...you can see that this MAY be a possibility for what is "going on"...except there may not really be ACTUAL "tubes"...just a system that can be "explained" by thinking about what "tubes" DO.

Of course, I don't fully (or even minimally) understand Pelastration's view of things. But perhaps this is ANOTHER way to look at the evolution of the Universe...which does not preclude another "model" which may be accurate, too.

I'm not saying that ALL "models" are accurate...only that more than one MIGHT be.

And every time someone makes a "guess" -- and has the COURAGE to put it forward -- the Universe Itself may be "looking at" another POSSIBILITY about Itself.

My "model" has the Universe as a living, conscious Being ...a worthwhile contribution to Its SELF-IMAGE should this, in fact, be the case.

Personally, I think the Sun LIKED it when it was recognized in Ancient Egypt as a conscious Being they called "Ra"...but, as usual, our species went too far and called it "God".

We make the same mistake of "seeking God" when the Universe is all we need...as our SOURCE to be APPRECIATED rather than "worshipped".

If MY model is (ALSO) correct, then I am just giving the Universe its PROPS!

And if you think that I don't know that the above sounds like "pure mysticism" and/or "pure crap"...you're wrong...I DO know how it sounds/reads.

But we only have this limited language to create our limited models ...and this includes the languages of science and mathematics.

Models in physics are used not only for explaining/understanding of what goes on in the material world, but also have predictive power.
Predictions which can be verified/tested, can show if a model fits reality or not.

I don't see any predictive value in explaining the universe as "conscious", and if you ask me, the explenation itself is pure meta-physics.

M. Gaspar

Originally posted by heusdens
Models in physics are used not only for explaining/understanding of what goes on in the material world, but also have predictive power.
Predictions which can be verified/tested, can show if a model fits reality or not.

I don't see any predictive value in explaining the universe as "conscious", and if you ask me, the explenation itself is pure meta-physics.

I'm working on it.

M. Gaspar
Originally posted by pelastration
Alexander, to answer your question about the speed of gravity I need to explain more about the nature of the layering caused by pelastration. It's a different way of looking to nature then you are used to. When you want to appreciate this new approach you need to put some other spectacles. If you stick on the superiority of maths you will be not able to see it. But that will be your problem not mine. ;-)

In Pelastration approach the (unbreakable but very strong elastic) membrane is present in everything because it is the essence of everything. It fact: it is the basic structure of everything.

As such the membrane MAKES basic BOXES by the pelastration manifolding. That manifold is like a "white hole' which connects two type of hyperspaces in a NEW COMBINATION. As long as the white hole connection exists as long the two hyperspaces are connected making thus a NEW UNITY (= a new box). The two hyperspace are connected but have each another "position" in the new unity (in a separate dimensions = higher or large dimension in the new unity).
Although they are jointed they still keep there INTEGRITY (their quality of previous layerings = History).

As such there exist in the pelastration approach not the traditional vision of 'fusion'.
What we observe as 'fusion' is a new restructuring of hyperspaces in a new layering combination. (thus elements de-connect [= black hole decay] to become back separate (original) hyperspaces and then - in combinations with other hyperspace restructure in a new white hole (become a plasma white hole for the observer).

Now Motion in one hyperspace in a new unity influences also the other inter-connected hyperspace because the are layered. (Image: when you move your arm you textile sleeve will follow your arm. = unit internal friction).

What we call thus a human observers:'reality or pseudo-reality' are various manifestations (spiritual levels, material levels, ...) of the membrane. They are the result of combinations in the basic layerings, this means the 'restructuring' of the membrane. This restructuring creates apparent "isolated" island or multi-layered boxes. (cfr. Andrei Linde's monopoles).

"Gravity" is thus the result of the restructuring and is NOT a "separate force". For the moment our scientists look after a separate force and tries to calculate the effects in the hope to predict how the separate force will work.
What we call "Gravity" is directly related to the degree of stretchability of the membrane. The degree of stretchability of a unite will depend from the number of layers which are combined internally. So each UNITY (or island or monopole) has it's own degree of combined stretchability. This makes why "light" has it's speed limit in our universe. Thus the degree of stretchability of the membrane determinates a number of our observed constants.
Experimentally found proprieties of electro-weak (photons acting Quarks and Leptons), strong (gluons acting on Quarks and gluons), etc. indicate which membrane levels are combined (and interact) and thus explain the fundamental (level) differences between quarks, leptons and bosons. Because the membrane is the fundamental essence or "material/tissu" of quarks, leptons and bosons it is obvious that these fundamental particles act within the limits offered by the membrane stretchability.
Interesting in this approach is that also mass-less particles can be understood as a concept.

Now the alpha-constant or coupling constant (Freynman's magic number) is probably the mathematical expression of the manifolding mechanism itself, and indicates the bending proprieties of the membrane.

In one box there are thus several layers of the membrane. This mapping of the membrane explains thus also the boundaries between manifestations levels -> explaining the incredible size difference between atoms, electrons, protons, ... Remember: Atoms (10^-10), the nucleus (10^-14), protons (10^-15) and Quarks and electrons (10^-18 or less), and ask yourself "why is there nothing at i.e. 10^-16-level"?

Membrane: from unity the manifold creates internal separation, but creates NEW UNITS (which appears to an observer) as coming from Nothing (but in fact coming from two 'invisible' hyperspaces which are jointed). Each of these hyperspaces have also a number of 'historic' layers, etc.

So my conclusion about the "speed of gravity': the membrane is the essence of everything and has does not have speed, it 'IS'. "Speed" is only a human definition of a repeatable or unique observation between two or more "units" which interact, and thus question: "with what velocity they interfere given a certain observed location". This implicates that an action or motion in a certain 'island' provoke also DIRECT actions by which surface changes in the whole membrane but also INDIRECT vibrational changes in the contacting (local) layers within the island.

PS: Now there is a level that I not touched yet which is that of the dynamics within islands. I will just tell you for the moment that the rotations of tubes (caused by moves of the composing previous hyperspaces) can create (dynamo type) excitation inside sub-layers, next to the length friction of expanding or decaying tubes and next to the inter-vibrations caused by internal events in a, island. So there are three basic movements related to the membrane inside pelastrated islands.

Chaos theory will approach this surface changes and depth interactions from a mathematical model trying to find patterns of behavior, and using fuzzy logic. Synchronicity of CG Jung tried to explain it by referring to causal but non-observable inter-relationships. Kaku explains it with the world of the carp.

To give the essence in a simple image: "If my approach is correct it will show that our universe is in fact a giant Fedex/DHL/TNT package delivery service system (sending box-in-box-in-box-in-box-in-box packages and box+box+box packages, on receipt taking out one box and forwarding the rest to another recipient who adds another bibibibi box and takes out a box of the first, repacks all in a larger package and resends that to another ..., ... till the 'final recipient" has enough (quantum) boxes to built his temporal house. Although all boxes are EMPTY ... a house is made ;-).
Empty boxes are the building stones of the Universe ... Logic?
Matter? It's all a matter of perception."

Have finally read your treatise above and am delighted to tell you that I understand at least 50% of it...maybe more! This I attribute to your ability to communicate your paradigm in simple terms. Bravo on that.

Unfortunately, before I start, I need to say that I am still unable to isolate QUOTES and respond to them individually (whenever I try it, my comments wind up INSIDE the other person's quote...and nobody wants THAT!) So, I'm going to have to respond to your post from the top down...and only with regard to aspects I'm INTERESTED in.

PARAGRAPH 1: I am finding that oftentimes, when one has a certain way of viewing things, they cannot "look through other spectacles". This is frustrating for both the sender and the receiver of new information. Fortunately, I'm a little flexible, so could open my mind to what you are saying.

P2: I "get it" with regard to the "unbreakable but very strong elastic membrane"...which is "present in everything because it is the essence of everything. In fact: it is the basic structure of everything." You have said -- tho I can't find it now -- that you are coming from an engineer's point of view...which is why you can discuss "structure". I believe also that Everything is made from the same stuff -- ENERGY -- but to tell you the truth, I don't have a good "picture" as yet .

P3: Why the term "boxes"? It seems too "rigid" for something that must be "fluidic". Why not "bubbles"? Still, I get your drift...and especially like how they "keep their INTEGRITY (their quality of previous (historical)layerings." This especially means something to me with regard to EVOLUTION in general...how the "memory" of the past is "contained" in the "structure" of the "moment". ...why birds know where to migrate and "we" "know" there's something "higher".

I'm really fearful now that I will be disconnected and all will be lost...so I'm posting at this juncture...but am not finished.

M. Gaspar
More for Pelastration...

P4: This paragraph, for some reason, makes me want to recommend the movie "Tron". The first time I saw it I "got" that "realities" could IMPING on other "realities"...that, say, the "emotional content" of one "system" could influence the emotional content of another (or others ).

P5: Didn't "get it".

P6: Really DO "get it" with regard to gravity being a function of the degree of stretchability of the membrane. The "fact" that it's
NOT a 'separate force'" corresponds to my proposal that "everything is in everything" ...or, that consciousness and spirit are "contained" -- or are INTRINSIC PARTS OF -- every particle and coherent system of "matter".

Ya know, you have TOO MANY paragraphs here, so I think I'll just deliver the goods:

Your way of looking at INTERCONNECTEDNESS makes sense in MY paradigm also, and "explains" (HA HA) how INTENTION may have INFLUENCE on RESULTS by nudging the lynchpin of RANDOMNESS via FORCES that are something like GRAVITY.

Finally, I LOVED your FEDEX analogy because I see It that way too...that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity that's responsive to all of its parts !

The BEST part of all of this is that EACH of us may be "right"...that, although no ONE will ever have ALL the answers as to what the Universe is or is not ...a few of us will come up with a PIECE of the puzzle...and it doesn't really matter if nobody "get it" but US ...and the Universe ITSELF.

After all, this may be one of the "reasons" the Universe takes the trouble to create sentient verbal beings...to inquire about ITSELF.

WUHDUHYA THINK?

nevagil
living universe, membrane, nothing

A living universe like a big organism fits a lot of logical analogies but still leaves the "where it came from (nothing?)"question hanging.
It fits well because everything seems to be part of somethin larger.

Membrains, I mean membranes seem to fit into my realm of possible theories because everything seems to be able to be broken down into smaller things or strings or membranes.
I wonder if membranes could be seen by any creatures, you know like snakes see heat that we humanoids don't and bats use radar to see in their own way, etc. So I wonder if some mosquitoes or possibly alien creatures somewhere can see those Pelastration membranes or strings or something. Maybe really tiny aliens could. Super tiny.

I still think nothing may be vaguely comprehensable, spelling be dammed, like if our living universe has some dead spots in it like humans have dead spots maybe it has nothing spots too. Afterall, if our universe is expanding then what is outside it now? Nothing? The nothing could serve a purpose. AREAS OF NOTHING.
I don't comprehend everything that exists, but it can still exist.

M. Gaspar

Originally posted by nevagil
A living universe like a big organism fits a lot of logical analogies but still leaves the "where it came from (nothing?)"question hanging.
It fits well because everything seems to be part of somethin larger.

Membrains, I mean membranes seem to fit into my realm of possible theories because everything seems to be able to be broken down into smaller things or strings or membranes.
I wonder if membranes could be seen by any creatures, you know like snakes see heat that we humanoids don't and bats use radar to see in their own way, etc. So I wonder if some mosquitoes or possibly alien creatures somewhere can see those Pelastration membranes or strings or something. Maybe really tiny aliens could. Super tiny.

I still think nothing may be vaguely comprehensable, spelling be dammed, like if our living universe has some dead spots in it like humans have dead spots maybe it has nothing spots too. Afterall, if our universe is expanding then what is outside it now? Nothing? The nothing could serve a purpose. AREAS OF NOTHING.
I don't comprehend everything that exists, but it can still exist.

With regard to MY perspective that "sees" the Universe as a living, conscioius Entity responsive to all of its parts"...let me say that once you "accept" that something is "eternal" then you do not "look for" a "beginning" nor a "BEFORE the beginning". As I have said in posts you have probably missed...the Universe might be "an eternal Entity of energy" Whose "life cycle" is "contained" between an infinite number of "Big Bangs" and "Big Crunches".

As to the "membrane theory"...let me pre-empt Pelastration's reply and say that the "membrane" CAN be seen by ALL "creatures" because Everything is -- theoreticaly -- made up of the membrane "substance". Of course, there are parts of the membrane that CAN'T be seen -- like "gravity" for instance -- in which case, we can only see its EFFECTS.

Did I get it Pelastration...or am I off?

pelastration

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
As to the "membrane theory"...let me pre-empt Pelastration's reply and say that the "membrane" CAN be seen by ALL "creatures" because Everything is -- theoreticaly -- made up of the membrane "substance". Of course, there are parts of the membrane that CAN'T be seen -- like "gravity" for instance -- in which case, we can only see its EFFECTS.

Did I get it Pelastration...or am I off?
Pretty good Gaspar ;-)

'Islands' are like white holes coupling at least two different islands (or two hyperspaces).
So the active hyperspace (male, spiritual or ie. blue) impacts in the passive hyperspace (female, matter or ie. yellow).
The active blue penetrates and receives as a second yellow layer as part of the passive hyperspace.
This is the start of an island or holon or "white hole" (hold by a type of pressure valve).
This new island has now two layers. A blue in the center and a yellow one at the outside. To the observer this island will look GREEN.
As long as conditions of inter-pressure in the coupling area stay ... the green island will survive.

A. If there is decay (black hole process) the green island will shrink and will at the end become a tiny green spot with extreme high pressure (just like a black hole is described by Kerr, etc). Once they de-couple completely there is back a separate blue and yellow hyperspace. They are free again.
You can visualize like this: death (separation of spirit and body).

B. If there is further progress our green island can even impact a new other island ( ie. a passive magenta). Then the green has it's two layers (blue and yellow) in it's center and an extra magenta layer, together for an observer: a new purple island.

Result: the green is coupled with the magenta hyperspace and they keep together their POSITION, they are joined. The green has still it's historic integrity (layers: yellow and blue). Now these three layers (blue, yellow, blue and magenta) will press on each other: creating inter-layer tension and inter-layer friction. When the purple island moves ... they move of course all together. ;-)

Add some extra pelastrations and maybe you have an electron or quark. So simple. In our case the blue center will still be the center. and ... it's all membrane ... but restructured membrane in a more complex island.

Now the strange thing is that since the membrane can create - depending from the stretchability - even outside or inside of the specific island - on all levels of layers - tiny micro membrane tubes again.
For example the blue membrane may be excited by the yellow membrane vibration and create twenty tiny sub-blue-membrane tubes. And also these can couple and de-couple just like the bigger ones. That's how "fields-effects" can be explained in a mechanical way.
But that's also how you can visualize consciousness.
And store knowledge.

[If there would be a decay of the purple island back in magenta and green ... those sub-blue-membrane-tubes would still be inside the blue layer. ;-) Got it?] [ some will like this because such a mechanism may explain reincarnation]

The conditions of sub-membrane tubes will depend from the oscillation of the whole island or the inharmonic or harmonic resonance (friction) between the layers.

Finally you can come to our visual world with humans, animals, plants, etc.
So indeed you can see the membrane became visual (dense) by it's many layers. Indeed you see the dense effect.

Last edited:
M. Gaspar

Originally posted by pelastration
Pretty good Gaspar ;-)

'Islands' are like white holes coupling at least two different islands (or two hyperspaces).
So the active hyperspace (male, spiritual or ie. blue) impacts in the passive hyperspace (female, matter or ie. yellow).
The active blue penetrates and receives as a second yellow layer as part of the passive hyperspace.
This is the start of an island or holon or "white hole" (hold by a type of pressure valve).
This new island has now two layers. A blue in the center and a yellow one at the outside. To the observer this island will look GREEN.
As long as conditions of inter-pressure in the coupling area stay ... the green island will survive.

A. If there is decay (black hole process) the green island will shrink and will at the end become a tiny green spot with extreme high pressure (just like a black hole is described by Kerr, etc). Once they de-couple completely there is back a separate blue and yellow hyperspace. They are free again.
You can visualize like this: death (separation of spirit and body).

B. If there is further progress our green island can even impact a new other island ( ie. a passive magenta). Then the green has it's two layers (blue and yellow) in it's center and an extra magenta layer, together for an observer: a new purple island.

Result: the green is coupled with the magenta hyperspace and they keep together their POSITION, they are joined. The green has still it's historic integrity (layers: yellow and blue). Now these three layers (blue, yellow, blue and magenta) will press on each other: creating inter-layer tension and inter-layer friction. When the purple island moves ... they move of course all together. ;-)

Add some extra pelastrations and maybe you have an electron or quark. So simple. In our case the blue center will still be the center. and ... it's all membrane ... but restructured membrane in a more complex island.

Now the strange thing is that since the membrane can create - depending from the stretchability - even outside or inside of the specific island - on all levels of layers - tiny micro membrane tubes again.
For example the blue membrane may be excited by the yellow membrane vibration and create twenty tiny sub-blue-membrane tubes. And also these can couple and de-couple just like the bigger ones. That's how "fields-effects" can be explained in a mechanical way.
But that's also how you can visualize consciousness.
And store knowledge.

[If there would be a decay of the purple island back in magenta and green ... those sub-blue-membrane-tubes would still be inside the blue layer. ;-) Got it?] [ some will like this because such a mechanism may explain reincarnation]

The conditions of sub-membrane tubes will depend from the oscillation of the whole island or the inharmonic or harmonic resonance (friction) between the layers.

Finally you can come to our visual world with humans, animals, plants, etc.
So indeed you can see the membrane became visual (dense) by it's many layers. Indeed you see the dense effect.

I should have quit while I was ahead!

Say what?

Will printout what you have written and will get back to you after I "submerse" myself in it with the hope of extracting some comprehension. (Apparently, I'm not in the right "space" at the moment.)

BY THE WAY, I'm hoping your "Pretty Good, Gaspar" includes the two LONGER posts above...and not just my stab at responding to Nevagil. I'm talking about the end of pg. 19 and the beginning of this pg. 20.

Last edited:
"Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything."

Someone said they hoped it was a joke, you said it wasn't. I sure hope it's a joke to you now.

Everything can't come from nothing. Nothing can't be possible, thus you can't have everything coming from a false state.

This is just a use of creative language, but it means nothing in reality. It's a poem at best, and it doesn't even rhyme.

M. Gaspar
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
"Everything came from nothing because it is the only thing
that doesn't come from anything."

Someone said they hoped it was a joke, you said it wasn't. I sure hope it's a joke to you now.

Everything can't come from nothing. Nothing can't be possible, thus you can't have everything coming from a false state.

This is just a use of creative language, but it means nothing in reality. It's a poem at best, and it doesn't even rhyme.

HE'S BAAACK...l'enfant terrible!

I do not recall saying that your lead statement above was or wasn't a joke. Rather than get lost in double negatives and the like...here is where I stand.

Everything comes from Something ! Can I be CLEARER?

Now I have to "Submit Reply" to re-read your poetic contribution. Then I'll be back to say whether you have wasted my time...

...re 1. and 2...you'll have to do #3. Meanwhile, I've always wondered whether idiots KNOW they're idiots. Please say.

Last edited:
Gaspar - I reported your post. Furthermore, I'm going to say you're being immature and unintelligent, please apoligize.

First off, my post was not something I wrote. Read the first post in this thread.

What makes you think I was talking to you.

Secondly you mistook my words for someone else.

Thiurdly because of this you tried to insult me?

Get real, pay attention, apoligize.

there's a reason it was in quotes. It's the damn point of this whole thread - the first post. Pay attention man, yer looking horrible here!

M. Gaspar
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gaspar - I reported your post. Furthermore, I'm going to say you're being immature and unintelligent, please apoligize.

First off, my post was not something I wrote. Read the first post in this thread.

What makes you think I was talking to you.

Secondly you mistook my words for someone else.

Thiurdly because of this you tried to insult me?

Get real, pay attention, apoligize.

there's a reason it was in quotes. It's the damn point of this whole thread - the first post. Pay attention man, yer looking horrible here!

When you, LogicalAtheist, use the pronoun "you" directly after my post, my erroneous assumption was that you were addressing me . Since you believe in "defining one's terms", you might, in the future, identify who you are addressing.

Secondly, it seemed to me that YOU mistook MY words for someone else('s). But I was wrong: you weren't addressing me.

I may look "horrible" to you...yet good to others. It's a mystery.

Meanwhile, I've reported a few of your posts... -- including the fact that you EDITED your "poem" -- with the promise that I would not allow myself to be "baited" and that you will become the first charter member of my "IGNORE LIST".

Bye.

Last edited:
None of the known conservation laws prohibit origin of universe(s) from nothing. Indeed, net energy of our universe is zero, net momentum is zero, net angular momentum is zero, net charge is zero.

Math indeed allows to have something from nothing: 0=+1-1, so if math let's it then why can't nature do so?

heusdens
Originally posted by Alexander
None of the known conservation laws prohibit origin of universe(s) from nothing. Indeed, net energy of our universe is zero, net momentum is zero, net angular momentum is zero, net charge is zero.

Math indeed allows to have something from nothing: 0=+1-1, so if math let's it then why can't nature do so?

You are talking blattant nonsense here.
You are talking about summed values (sum of energy, momentum, etc).
This is something completely different as talking about a "nothingness" in which nothting material, not even space or time do exist. This "state" (which can not be called an "existing state") is eternal or timeless, and without change.
It can not even exist, so what are you talking about?

Mentat
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Gaspar - I reported your post. Furthermore, I'm going to say you're being immature and unintelligent, please apoligize.

You must be outside of your mind!

M.Gaspar's post is nothing compared to the horrible attitude that you have had in some of your posts. How is it possible that someone with your attitude can get hurt feelings over a little frustration, on M.Gaspar's part?

Don't get me wrong, I like you, and I appreciate your participation in the Forums, but don't ever expect to be treated better than you treat others, because it just ain't happening.

I don't "treat" people. I treat their claims. If they take offense to it, as I said look at my signature and take the advice on how to prepare your claim better.

I don't take offense to anyone attacking problems in my claims, as you saw mentat when you corrected my errors.

Ad hominems are fine sometimes. If I need to say to someone "learn more before you propose things" or "you're posting ideas that go against way to much science, and providing no evidence" then I am going to say it. I'm not name calling here (really).

If one is emotionally attached to their claims, they're going to feel offended, I can't smile and pat everyone on the back, this place is for debate and discussion.

Mentat
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I don't "treat" people. I treat their claims. If they take offense to it, as I said look at my signature and take the advice on how to prepare your claim better.

I don't take offense to anyone attacking problems in my claims, as you saw mentat when you corrected my errors.

Ad hominems are fine sometimes. If I need to say to someone "learn more before you propose things" or "you're posting ideas that go against way to much science, and providing no evidence" then I am going to say it. I'm not name calling here (really).

If one is emotionally attached to their claims, they're going to feel offended, I can't smile and pat everyone on the back, this place is for debate and discussion.

But when someone says something that is out of line, in your opinion, you won't hesitate to point out exactly how idiotic it was. Also, it is your attitude about "attacking" ideas that leads some (myself not included) to dislike you.

If some dislike me, that's OK. But it gets them nowhere. However if they took into account my signature suggestions, it'd be better for both them and me. They are not able to bring to the forum a well constructed idea like people such as MENTAT yourself, is able to do.

I merely ask them to do so because it would allow me to address it better. If I don't understand the question, or the question is loaded or falsely presumptious, I just wasted time reading something that's worthless. It bothers me.

Rather than taking offense, one should take the advice.

Mentat
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
If some dislike me, that's OK. But it gets them nowhere. However if they took into account my signature suggestions, it'd be better for both them and me. They are not able to bring to the forum a well constructed idea like people such as MENTAT yourself, is able to do.

I merely ask them to do so because it would allow me to address it better. If I don't understand the question, or the question is loaded or falsely presumptious, I just wasted time reading something that's worthless. It bothers me.

Rather than taking offense, one should take the advice.

Alright then, can we agree: No harm, no foul?

Originally posted by heusdens
You are talking blattant nonsense here.
You are talking about summed values (sum of energy, momentum, etc).
This is something completely different as talking about a "nothingness" in which nothting material, not even space or time do exist.

Nope. Mathematically 0 and +1-1 are EQUAL.

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Originally posted by Alexander
Nope. Mathematically 0 and +1-1 are EQUAL.

0 is not the mathematical representation of "nothing". In fact, 0 is something: it is the additive identity.

What Heusdens is talking about is more closely represented in mathematics by the empty set {}, which contains no elements, not even itself.

The empty set is not a sum of any two things.

If empty set does not contain itself, then does it exist?

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Originally posted by Alexander
If empty set does not contain itself, then does it exist?

Only as a concept, which I think is the same kind of "nothingness" that heusdens is talking about.

heusdens
Originally posted by Alexander
Nope. Mathematically 0 and +1-1 are EQUAL.

Yeah. Well in theory it can be even sillier.
Take for example an electric potential function. For all of the universe, we hold it, this should equal to 0 (zero), but this is just by definition, it could be any value (like + 100.00 Volts or - 20.000.000 Volts), we can not know that, because we can not compare it with anything outside the universe. Therefore it is said to be 0.

Inflation theory goes about a scalar field, it designates to any point in space time a certain field potential, which can vary in time due to quauntum mechanical effects.
The total potential of the field, also is defined to be 0 (zero).

It sure looks like all matter and energy and fields, everything material, can equal something defined as 0 (zero). But again, that ain't nothing, instead, it is everything.

0 V for universe is same as +100 V or as -20.000.000 V - this is indeed correct. No difference.

That is why electric charge conserves (because universe is invariant to shifts in electric potential).

And conservation of charge mean that the net charge of entire universe shall be zero (if universe originated from nothing).

That is what we indeed observe in universe - net charge is zero. Number of electrons coinside with the number of protons.

Last edited by a moderator:
heusdens
Originally posted by Alexander
0 V for universe is same as +100 V or as -20.000.000 V - this is indeed correct. No difference.

That is why electric charge conserves (because universe is invariant to shifts in electric potential).

And conservation of charge mean that the net charge of entire universe shall be zero (if universe originated from nothing).

That is what we indeed observe in universe - net charge is zero. Number of electrons coinside with the number of protons.

The universe did not orgininate from nothing, the universe has no "origin". From nothing, comes nothing. The fact that the universe exist (is not nothing, even when it could contain the summation of things which yield zero), means it could not come from nothing, hence has existed all the time.

M. Gaspar
Originally posted by heusdens
The universe did not orgininate from nothing, the universe has no "origin". From nothing, comes nothing. The fact that the universe exist (is not nothing, even when it could contain the summation of things which yield zero), means it could not come from nothing, hence has existed all the time.

Thank you!

nevagil
part something, part nothing

Maybe the universe came from one part nothing and two parts something.

If you're not laughing too hard at this stupid idea, bear with me, it seems okay to me.

Example - a full bucket of kool-aid powder and a full bucket of water can't mix until you get a empty bucket (yes, a bucket of nothing) for them to mix in.
So, maybe there was a area of nothing that was met by a couple of dense universes that couldn't do anything but travel until the found the area of "nothing".

To me "nothing" seems possible to exist unless we consider membranes, etc are everywhere. Isn't there spaces of "nothing" between electrons, or other tiny things? ?

BTW, if the universe is expanding, isn't it expanding into an area of nothing? And I'm don't even care if the "nothing" has an area.

Originally posted by heusdens
The universe did not orgininate from nothing, the universe has no "origin". From nothing, comes nothing.

Any proof? These are just empty words.

Proof of opposite: 0=-1+1.

Originally posted by Alexander
Any proof? These are just empty words.

Proof of opposite: 0=-1+1.

Alex - Your small equation proves nothing. You're making the mistake of thinking that some use of the mathematical language must fit into reality.

It's identical to saying that because one can say something in the english language (just another language) it must be true in reality.

Besides, your equation includes negative one, which is already known to be completely impossible. So you're using an impossible argument.

Mentat

Originally posted by nevagil
Maybe the universe came from one part nothing and two parts something.

If you're not laughing too hard at this stupid idea, bear with me, it seems okay to me.

Example - a full bucket of kool-aid powder and a full bucket of water can't mix until you get a empty bucket (yes, a bucket of nothing) for them to mix in.
So, maybe there was a area of nothing that was met by a couple of dense universes that couldn't do anything but travel until the found the area of "nothing".

To me "nothing" seems possible to exist unless we consider membranes, etc are everywhere. Isn't there spaces of "nothing" between electrons, or other tiny things? ?

BTW, if the universe is expanding, isn't it expanding into an area of nothing? And I'm don't even care if the "nothing" has an area.

Mentat
Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex - Your small equation proves nothing. You're making the mistake of thinking that some use of the mathematical language must fit into reality.

It's identical to saying that because one can say something in the english language (just another language) it must be true in reality.

Besides, your equation includes negative one, which is already known to be completely impossible. So you're using an impossible argument.

Actually, the "-1" refers to the negative energy of gravitational fields (which directly cancels out the energy of the mass itself).

However, I agree with your other point.

mentat.intelligent = true