PDA

View Full Version : Origin of the our universe



moonwalk2200
2003-Sep-10, 02:38 PM
Hello to all,
The idea that the universe was created from
nothing is a fallacy,without doubt!
Looking forward to other's views.

Alaskan
2003-Sep-10, 10:33 PM
Perhaps we are the other side of a super-massive black hole that reached the energy-limit of its expansion and detonated in another dimension?

Josh
2003-Sep-11, 02:33 AM
I think (which is a good start...)

I think that time is not the linear road we percieve. Time may be circular or a jumble with no end and no beginning. We humans are masters of the mind here on Earth (or so we lead ourselves to believe) but when it comes to fathoming the workings of time and space we are still infants. To say the universe comes from nothing is obviously incorrect. To say it comes from something may also be just as inaccurate.

The universe just is. And always has been.

$0.02

Deep_Eye
2003-Sep-12, 12:25 AM
Are you people athiests? I think that God at some time created the universe, or at least the "stuff" for the big bang, and made it happen. Why would he do that and just not "puff" it into being? as a test? Who knows......

moonwalk2200
2003-Sep-12, 03:40 AM
Hello,
The questions that we are trying to answer are
on a purely scientific basis. The question of
creation which includes a God is a different issue.

bob hoover
2003-Sep-12, 01:27 PM
Our Universe evolved from the output of a Black Hole from some other Universe as Dr. Lee Smolin formerly of Penn State University suggested in his book.
Obiously the singularity wherein all mass converges to an infinitesimally small point must pop up and go somewhere.

Where the first universe and first black hole came from is beyond comprehension unless we get metaphysical and take the easy way out i.e. a Supreme Creator.

A small boy who is being educated at home by his uneducated Mother via correspondence from their Christian church in Florida told me with a knowing smile that the Earth and Universe were created by God 6000 years ago because it says so in the Bible. "Just do the Math" he said. He is Happy with his belief but so is a small boy taught by his mother to blow up himself and others in order to attain Paradise.

Both grow up with Lots of Peace of Mind.

Organized Religion may be blamed for the spread of ignorance and the cause of much pain and suffering today and in the past as well I.E. the Catholic Inquisition , the Crusades , the Current Middle East situation and the spread of Fanatical Muslim Fundamentalism but the concept of a Supreme Intelligence is very tempting in that Peace of Mind and solutions for all questions and problems are there for the taking.

But as for me , with some Peace of Mind , my "Gnostic" belief is :
"The Scientific Truth shall set you Free"

Bob Hoover

moonwalk2200
2003-Sep-12, 03:12 PM
To say thay our universe is formed from some other source,
(anything you mention), is just a multiple of the same problem,
that's why in my first posting I said: for simplicity let's assume
that our universe is the only one.

moonwalk2200
2003-Sep-12, 03:21 PM
Those who claim that the universe was formed from nothing,
( I have seen a few claim that) , I would like them to define
nothing. Is it the same nothing as defined by the mathematical
symbol of zero?

LYNN
2003-Sep-12, 04:16 PM
Need some difinitions here. Define: nothing. Define: universe. And does universe include unseen as well as seen stuff? Is process part of it? Are we talking about our perceptions? And couldn't they differ from what is actually out there or in existence? A post said something to the effect that it didn't make sense to say something that got incredibly dense didn't present itself subsequently as something more massive. It seems to me that observation doesn't necessarly pertain to how things work on either the very massive scale or the universe or the very small scale of atomic particles. It's what we expect of things in the sphere of the world in which we, as human entities deal with, on a day to day basis, but maybe that's not the standard we should be working with to elucidate this riddle.

saturn sweetheart
2003-Sep-12, 04:45 PM
first of all I want to say i am for creationism and god created the universe but i have a question for you guys using the big bang thery where everything started out as a tiny dot in space and then expanded and and exploded and the materials for the universe where thrown out well my question is this what came before the big bang if god did not start it then how did the point get there

big huh
2003-Sep-12, 09:06 PM
Satarn Sweetheart, I have a question for you. Why must the Universe ulitimitaly have a creator? If concept such as the Universe need to have a creator in order to come into existance as we know it, then what created god? Surely there must have been a starting point for this concept (aside for human emotional and societal needs) as well. I look forward to your response.

Aside from that, I believe that the Universe is eternal and infinite. The Universe cannot be aged because there was no beginning. As soon as physicists can seperate themselves from the erronous view that space and time are connected we will advance in our futile knowledge our eternal home....

To address the "big bang" concept, I agree that there was, is and will be "big bangs" throughout the Universe, I believe that these big bangs are the creators of galaxies as we know them today and will cause the evolution of galaxies in the "future" (for lack of a better term). As for the ulitimate cause of these big bangs.... we must look to black holes....

Josh
2003-Sep-13, 02:24 AM
As I said in an earlier post ... everything gets a lot simpler (and at the same time a lot more difficult) to understand if you don't assume that the big bang was the beginning of the universe. Rather think of it as the beginning of "linear time". So while time may be linear for us we need a point of origin, a datum, so we take the Big Bang as that beginning. But prior to that there may have been a just a catasrophic and immense Big Crunch or Contraction.

Starry7
2003-Sep-13, 05:10 AM
Saturn Sweetheart, are you refering to the Intelligent Design theory when you say that something had to create the Big Bang? In case you have never heard of it, the Intelligent Design theory says that someone (a Supreme Being, say) organized the universe in such a way that people would know that someone intelligent created it. Therefore, (according to this theory), the Big Bang was not just a random bunch of particles that came together under the right conditions to create matter, it was something that was orchastrated by someone (in this case, a Supreme Being).

moonwalk2200
2003-Sep-13, 06:03 AM
I think we have been brainwashed for some time, that
the big bang is the beginning of the universe. There is doubt
that a singularity occurred at the big bang, when quantum effects
are taken into account. I rather think of the big bang as part of the
history of the universe. The big bang may not be anything special,
its just that we are lacking information.

kashi
2003-Sep-13, 06:07 AM
bob hoover

the singularity wherein all mass converges to an infinitesimally small point must pop up and go somewhere

Why is this so Bob? To my knowledge we don't see black holes "go pop" in the universe we know today, rather they evaporate slowly (that is in theory when quantum theory and thermodynamics are taken into account).

This is an interesting topic. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that the big bang was indeed the beggining of the universe, but if time had a beggining, what happened "before" that beggining to cause it? There was no such thing as before.

Imaginary time deals with a lot of the questions everyone has been asking in this topic. I recommend Hawking's latest book "The Universe in a Nutshell". It explains these subjects very clearly.

Kashi

PolarBear
2003-Sep-13, 12:43 PM
Hi.

A possibility of the Universe creature from nothing assumes that at some moment this "nothing" was splitted in two parts: the positive energy and the negative one. If these (+) and (-) energies are added up, we get 0 in result.

//I think, the law of energy conservation is main of the physical laws. Sincerely, I think, it is the entity which a lot of people consider as God (beg their pardon). Because, the laws of physics are very similar to natural laws of humans and animals relations. Say, the laws of energy and impulse conservation are very similar to those of justice and common sence. But this is another question.//

So. The positive energy is what we know as matter etc. What is the negative one? A notion about that is mentioned in the Stephen Hawking's "A Brief Hisory of Time".

Consider a system of two bodies. If you move them apart, potential energy of the system increases, but gravity between the bodies decreases. In this sense gravity can be considered as negative energy.

Actually, what gravity does? It tries to bring bodies together. Maybe, to return them to their previos state of unity and unexistence (0 energy)?

Best regards to everybody.

imported_ROB
2003-Sep-17, 12:27 PM
If then as it seems we all agree in the big bang theory then how will the universe end with compleate expansion so every thing is stretched out in to nothing or will the expansion finally retract back on its self till we are left with that which started it to re start once again? or will the universe reach a limit and sustane itself.........

moonwalk2200
2003-Sep-17, 08:44 PM
The assumption that the big bang is the beginning of the universe
is not proven, hence questions such as:

1. What caused the bing bang
2. What occurred before the big bang

are irrelevant and redundant, based on a false assumption.

It is more likely that the big bang is just a transition point
in the history of the universe.

Fraser
2003-Sep-17, 09:37 PM
The Big Bang nicely matches the observations that astronomers have made about the Universe. It explains why most galaxies are moving away from each other. The theory merely explains what happened after the Big Bang, but doesn't include anything before. Other theorists are working on that problem.

So moonwalk, why do you feel the Big Bang is a false assumption? What theory do you support that better matches the state of the Universe, and what evidence supports it?

Deep_Eye
2003-Sep-17, 10:29 PM
Sorry for sort of intruding, but I'd like to say to you for those of you who questioned why the universe needs a creator? The answer is simple...The universe is made of matter and matter has to come from something!

Dave Mitsky
2003-Sep-18, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by ROB@Sep 17 2003, 12:27 PM
If then as it seems we all agree in the big bang theory then how will the universe end with compleate expansion so every thing is stretched out in to nothing or will the expansion finally retract back on its self till we are left with that which started it to re start once again? or will the universe reach a limit and sustane itself.........
http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmo...CosmosFate.html (http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/Cosmos/CosmosFate.html)

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog...ogy_faq.html#BC (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BC)

Dave Mitsky

imported_ROB
2003-Sep-18, 11:08 AM
:o thanks dave
those are some good links.
ta

:D

VanderL
2003-Sep-19, 04:19 PM
Frase I'm sorry to break into your question to Moonwalk, but I think you won't mind hearing about other theories that can explain the Universe better than the Big Bang.


The Big Bang nicely matches the observations that astronomers have made about the Universe.

No it doesn’t; there are a lot of areas where the Big Bang doesn't match the observations. To name a few (you can find all these comments in other threads)
- It is based on the false assumption that all redshift is caused by a Doppler effect.
- It can’t explain high- and low-redshift objects that are linked to each other.
- It needs strange unobserved matter and black holes as well as dark energy to maintain its status.
- It does not take into account that plasma and electrical fields are a very important in the Universe. Because of this, data are wrongly interpreted and it leads to fantastical objects like neutron stars, magnetars etc.
- How do galaxies collide if space itself is expanding? Either they are not colliding or the Universe is not expanding (or even both options can be true).




It explains why most galaxies are moving away from each other. The theory merely explains what happened after the Big Bang, but doesn’t include anything before. Other theorists are working on that problem.
So moonwalk, why do you feel the Big Bang is a false assumption? What theory do you support that better matches the state of the Universe, and what evidence supports it?


I think the Electric or Plasma Universe is a better model, it can explain why gravity is not enough to account for the motions of galaxies. This theory gets rid of the dark matter and black hole fantasies and gives us back a Universe that can be seen and understood.

Supporting evidence comes from a number of different observations. There's too much to cram into this post. Just one example:
Researchers say Pioneer 10 is being pulled back to the sun by an unknown force. The effect shows no sign of getting weaker as the spacecraft travels deeper into space, and scientists are considering the possibility that the probe has revealed a new force of nature. This effect is expalined when electrical forces are taken into account, details in www.holoscience.org news article called Mystery Solved.

Thanks.

moonwalk2200
2003-Oct-10, 01:59 PM
To clarrify what i mean , Vanderi: even if the big bang theory
correctly predicts the observable universe, it does not prove that
it is the beginning of the universe.

SOMSOC
2003-Oct-12, 02:26 PM
Hi All,

I believe in the theory that s "supreme being" planned the big bang in such a way so we could understand it. but the thing is I don't think that we are sure of how it all started, so we can go on making assumptions on how it all started.

Not long ago we we as humans were convinced that the earth was flat and the sun revolved around us!!.

VanderL
2003-Oct-12, 06:13 PM
Sorry Moonwalk,

Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post, I was saying that observations do NOT support a Big Bang. This could mean the Universe is much bigger than we think (we observe only a small fraction) and this could also mean the Universe is infinite.

Dave Mitsky
2003-Oct-13, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by VanderL@Oct 12 2003, 06:13 PM
Sorry Moonwalk,

Maybe I wasn't clear in my previous post, I was saying that observations do NOT support a Big Bang.* This could mean the Universe is much bigger than we think (we observe only a small fraction) and this could also mean the Universe is infinite.
Your first sentence is not accurate. The BB does have its problems but so does plasma cosmology, which is unable to explain the data as well. That isn't to say that plasma physics doesn't play a part in the mix, however.

Dave Mitsky

Matthew
2003-Oct-13, 10:47 AM
But a supreme being had to have a 'beginning', so where was its beginning? I've heard an interesting possibility from somwhere on these boards that the universe may go to the big crunch, but that energy and matter cycles back to the big bang.

VanderL
2003-Oct-13, 12:49 PM
Well Dave,

It just depends on how big those problems are to the theory, or in this case how big those problems are perceived. I think that Arp clearly showed that there must be an intrinsic redshift component, which is in direct conflict with the Big Bang model. So you may be right that my sentence was not accurate (not all observations contradict the Big Bang after all), but that doesn't mean Big Bang cosmology is correct.

Louis.

Dave Mitsky
2003-Oct-13, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Oct 13 2003, 12:49 PM
Well Dave,

It just depends on how big those problems are to the theory, or in this case how big those problems are perceived. I think that Arp clearly showed that there must be an intrinsic redshift component, which is in direct conflict with the Big Bang model. So you may be right that my sentence was not accurate (not all observations contradict the Big Bang after all), but that doesn't mean Big Bang cosmology is correct.

Louis.
Halton Arp's argument on the significance of red-shift is based on statistical evidence that has been shown to be flawed, for instance - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_...3325b47acc06425 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1995ApJ...441..505N&db_key=AST&high=3325b47acc06425)

Dave Mitsky

VanderL
2003-Oct-13, 04:13 PM
Thanks Dave,

I'm aware that statistical analyses can give false results, but to me the main issue is not this particular argument about redshift groupings, it is the interaction between galaxies and quasars. Halton Arp and others have shown a bridges of material between low-redshift galaxies and high- redshift quasars (NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 for example). This would be impossible in a Big bang model.

Dave Mitsky
2003-Oct-14, 07:45 AM
And that evidence is not convincing. If it were Arp wouldn't have to play the "persecuted" maverick astronomer that he is made out to be.

Dave Mitsky

VanderL
2003-Oct-14, 08:26 AM
It is convincing to me, and the reason it hasn't convinced you and a lot of astronomers is that the implications are so big, it must be repeated at least a million times.
The other thing is that Arp has built an alternative cosmology that is fragmentary at best. But however we may feel about it, if redshift is not a distance indicator we will ultimately find the evidence that wil convince everybody; truth can't be voted on.

Dave Mitsky
2003-Oct-14, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by VanderL@Oct 14 2003, 08:26 AM
It is convincing to me, and the reason it hasn't convinced you and a lot of astronomers is that the implications are so big, it must be repeated at least a million times.

Edit

That statement is more than a little presumptuous.

Data from studies of type Ia supernovae led to the completely unexpected result that the expansion of the universe was accelerating. Yet it was accepted by the general astronomical community just as any evidence that conclusively demonstrated that the Hot Big Bang Model was erroneous would be, but not without some heated debate I imagine. After all, that's what happened with the discovery of the CMB radiation and the original steady state theories.

Dave Mitsky

VanderL
2003-Oct-15, 12:14 PM
Dave,

When science finds evidence that builds on previously accepted theory (expansion is accepted, accelerated expansion was not) there is no real conflict. the underlying principles and assumptions are still intact, "only" the view on the universe has changed (which is this case is a considerable change). What Arp is saying is something completely different, he says that science was wrong and has been wrong for a very long time on a very basic assumption. I hate to compare him with Gallileo, but he is basically telling astronomers what Gallileo told the church. Maybe a better comparison is Alfred Wegener with his theory of plate tectonics, it took a very long time for his work to be recognised (after being ridiculed as well).
The problem is very complex I think, if Arp is right there was no Big Bang, but that in itself gives us no alternative. I know a lot of people are open to new insights, as you pointed out, but we have to keep in mind that we do rely on assumptions that could be false. My reaction to Arp's finding is the same as anybody else's; "is this really true?". I looked at his arguments and looked at his data and it convinced me completely. And if you have arguments against NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 being connected, please let me know. and if I'm presumptuous I'm sorry, it's just the way I see it.

Louis.

Dave Mitsky
2003-Oct-15, 02:03 PM
Wegner (correct spelling), who was not a geologist by the way, wasn't accepted for decades because he was quite wrong about the mechanism of plate tectonics. See http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol/plat...onic%20Theories (http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol/platec/platec.html#Tectonic%20Theories) for an explanation.

When Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was published it certainly was met with scepticism as was the case later with Quantum Mechanics. (Einstein himself had problems with Quantum Theory.) Both were adopted eventually because they explained the observed data far better than classical physics ever could. This is not the case with Arp who certainly isn't being "persecuted" by the astronomical "establishment" as Galileo was by the Catholic Church. Galileo's abrasive personality played a large part in his treatment by the way.

Dave Mitsky

VanderL
2003-Oct-15, 02:30 PM
Dave,

Sorry about misspellings and an incomplete historical knowledge, but the question remains, is Arp right in his claim about a connection between NGC 4319 and Mark 205?

moonwalk2200
2003-Oct-17, 11:04 AM
I support the idea that the universe is in a state of continuity,
it has no beginning.

VanderL
2003-Oct-17, 07:11 PM
Moonwalk,

Could you be more specific? The generally accepted theory says it started with some sort of creative moment from a single point. As you stated earlier it doesn't have to mean that it was also the beginning of the Universe, but where do you see the evidence, or is this more a gut feeling?

starrman
2003-Oct-17, 09:32 PM
On October 15, VanderL asked:
is Arp right in his claim about a connection between NGC 4319 and Mark 205?


VanderL, as far as I know, all of Arp's evidence for connections between objects such as NGC 4319/Markarian 205, NGC 7320/NGC 7317, 7318A et al, and other such objects, is based soley on the apparent visual connections - "bridges," "tails" and so forth - that appear in various images of these objects. While I agree that there are numerous unanswered questions related to the standard model for the Big Bang, and that there may well be some supplanting methodology for re-examination of the evidence, it seems to me that chance superposition of objects fails to meet the requirements of rigor necessary to overturn the current approach.
In addition, I must say I find Arp's dismissal of the evidence for gravitational lensing to be somewhat uninformed and self-serving. It may well be that the observational evidence that current orbital instruments will provide can settle some of these questions more definitively.

John

VanderL
2003-Oct-18, 01:35 PM
Thanks John,

What your suggestions comes down to is more observational (not theoretical) data on the existence of the bridges and tails of material. I totally agree that this is paramount. In my opnion this is long overdue, certainly for an observation that could basically change our view on the Universe.

Louis.

starrman
2003-Oct-18, 04:06 PM
Actually, VanderL, I was suggesting that Arp's evidence is sparse, and limited to a miniscule fraction of the total observational data that are currently available. In addition, his theoretical model is problematic at best, requiring that major aspects of currently accepted gravitational theory be discarded while lacking any replacement that can account for the data. Until Arp or his proteges can present an internally consistent model that explains the so-called "conflicts" in red-shift measurements, his conclusions must be regarded with skepticism. As Carl Sagan once observed, extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence.

John

VanderL
2003-Oct-18, 04:57 PM
Sure John,

But isn't it scientific to investigate other people's claims as well as testing your own ideas? The data Arp shows seem to be unconvincing to the majority of astronomers, but some could also try to prove or disprove his claims, hence more observational data are required.
You're right that his alternative cosmology is patchy at best but I would think it is not only up to Arp (is he already 90 years old?) and his protegés but also the rest of the scientific community. And my thanks for elaborating on why you don't agree on Arp's views. Arguments are needed to clarify the problems.
Btw I don't agree with Sagan's adaggio, all claims should be treated equally.

Louis.

imported_Earthman
2003-Oct-20, 05:57 PM
Bob, it is interesting to here of Dr. Lee Smolin's theory - I did search for some of his material - because it is similiar to one my father and I have discussed for some time. Since Black Holes appear to reach and eventuality of a single place/time, it seems possible that they all may lead to the same place/time. The "beginning" of the universe for lack of a better term. Or the place in the universe that matter appears to come from. In this way the entire universe is cycling and the existing matter -regardless were it came from- will recycle. This of course -like Dr. Smolin's theory- moves away from both the expanding & collapsing universe theory. Black Holes are truely the most amazing thing we know of. All the rules (known man-made rules) of our physical universe no longer apply due to their enormous density. The gravitational force (the weakest of all) of every particle combining to the point where both the EM & Nuclear forces are overpowered.

imported_Earthman
2003-Oct-20, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by Dave Mitsky@Oct 15 2003, 02:03 PM
When Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity was published it certainly was met with scepticism as was the case later with Quantum Mechanics. (Einstein himself had problems with Quantum Theory.) Both were adopted eventually because they explained the observed data far better than classical physics ever could.
Dave, while this statement is true, it disregards the fact that both/either the theory of relativity and/or quantum mechanics are flawed. Certain experiments have proven this:
Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen & Bell's inequalities
Young's Double-slit experiment
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ei...senParadox.html (http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Einstein-Podolsky-RosenParadox.html)

Yet both theories are required to explain our universe at this time. But it is obvious that we are missing something vital. Also, another mishap used in science is are use of light/time in measurements. We determine the distance of objects in the universe by the amount of time light takes to travel. But what if light was slowing down? Our theories about expanding & collasping universes are based on the assumption that the speed of light is constant, but there is no way to prove this. It appears that the speed of light is not necessarily constant with regards to black holes anyway.

OldBlood
2003-Oct-30, 12:23 PM
Define nothing. Question your own existence - Wouldn't "God" question his own existence and reality?
God would be something, so why would he be here, why isn't there nothing instead!?
Wat does nothing look like? black? white? it can't look like anything, it's nothing! Questioning reality plays with your mind a lot but it's highly interesting. :blink:

Haglund
2003-Oct-30, 01:08 PM
The theories of relativity and quantum mechanics aren't flawed, they aren't wrong when it comes to describe what they do describe. But they need to be revised if we want to combine them, that is true. And also, why would we assume the light is slowing down?

moonwalk2200
2003-Oct-30, 03:54 PM
Defining nothing is an important issue.(though it may
seem unimportant to some.) I would assume that nothing
means:

1. There are no measurable quantities of any kind.

2. There are no laws of physics. Quantum mechanics,
false vacuums,quantum flucuations,etc, DON'T EXIST.

3. The state of nothing is a TRUE DEAD END in physics.

OldBlood
2003-Oct-30, 10:56 PM
indeed.

A mind is also something, so if there is absolutely nothing like before the universe was born, then..... NOTHING, that's hard to think about.
After death, if our soul lives on or we go to heaven etc, i'm sure we will still question our existence... unless we turn blissfully dumb :blink:

I agree, defining nothing is very important. It's stupid to ignore it. It's good to know how everything works today but... don't ignore nothing lol.. don't sit in ur room missing life over it aswell! O_o

No one knows what reality is and nobody will ever know. It's INSANE!

"It's Just A Ride" - Bill Hicks (PLEEEASE LOOK HIM UP :D "Another Dead Hero")

moonwalk2200
2003-Nov-02, 10:41 AM
So if: 'a state of nothing'. is the dead end of physics,then
the universe MUST be in a state of continuity. (Continuity
does not necessarily follow the time line.)

Planetwatcher
2003-Nov-02, 09:54 PM
LOL guys. Nothing out of nothing is what I see in this string. :lol:

imported_ROB
2003-Nov-05, 08:37 AM
hi all,
just read this peice about a parellel universe or a 5th dimention kick starting our universal big bang, any thoughts?



new theory (http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/bob9.asp)

Dave Mitsky
2003-Nov-05, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Planetwatcher@Nov 2 2003, 09:54 PM
LOL guys. Nothing out of nothing is what I see in this string. :lol:
"Nothin' from nothin' leaves nothin" ?

Billy Preston, 1974

http://www.lyricsxp.com/lyrics/n/nothing_f...ly_preston.html (http://www.lyricsxp.com/lyrics/n/nothing_from_nothing_billy_preston.html)

Dave Mitsky

moonwalk2200
2003-Nov-05, 01:05 PM
In my posting on Nov. 2, I mentioned continuity. I want to
use a simple example to show how it is meant to differ from
time. Suppose the universe experiences a big crunch. It is
possible that time may lose its continuity. The continuity line
remains intact as long as we emerge from the big crunch. So the
only way continuity would stop is if at the big crunch all would
cancel and we end up with nothing. ( Nothing as I defined it in
my Oct 30 posting.)

.