My reasoning here is that nothing is in not acually what we think it is. Not to say its not nothing or something persay but just not what we think or believe it to be. I say this because we can imagine it. We can dream it. And we can think it. If we can do either of these things it pretty much speaks enough to me that there is more to it than what we suppose or assume it to be without further question. To elaborate, many times a concept will be discovered, in physics perhaps a concept much like eisteins equation of e=mc2. Considering this, we know the concept, we have the equation and we understand the variables involved, yet scientists are still working through it and discovering new ways that it is applicable to the universe, as well as ways that it isnt. What I mean to say is, a pretty good idea is not a perfect understanding of what things are. The concepts in themselves go much deeper than that and in my understanding, completely understanding any one single thing could very well also mean completely understanding all things.
Otherwise, the way I understood the current prevailing M-theory was that there are alternate universes or existances besides our own upon which two collided during what we call the big bang upon which the rippled sides of these two flowing like universe were creating a sort of... "spark" upon contact upon which the so call nothing or void which you have mentioned was the "tinder". As well as this, something quite interesting but perhaps a bit off topic as well was stated that neither of these universes, which "collided" to form ours, lost any matter or energy in the process nor did any of the universes themselves experience any turmoil because of the "collision". Hence why I have put collision in parentheseis.
With that said it becomes difficult to answer your question fully. However, I can take a stab at it and tell you that I dont think there was a time when ABSOLUTE NOTHING existed. The reason is because I speculate the universe itself is a paradox with the ending and the beginning being one and the same thing.
Sorry for all the typos and stuff, im sort of in a rush. Hope you can read between the lines on the 2 paragraph or part.
2007-03-07 16:45:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by Thought 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The fabric of the cosmos may be empty space, but empty space is not nothing. As you point out, there is the time dimension. There is also the virtual world of quantum potential. The false vacuum. Yes, nothing is actually something.
2007-03-07 15:41:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
its all dependent upon who's doing the viewing. I feel "I" exist because I am looking out from "I", yet to you, you look at me and doubt my existence, because you are the only true "I".
so the nothing may be something in itself, but we lack the reasoning to include a nothing as a something. nothing may be the technical term for something, but the act of being nothing makes it something...
recently they have touched upon the notion of "dark matter", and that the space we see, in the vacuum surrounding us, between what we see as matter is actually a something. so the nothing is something. and it makes up 99% of the universe, and is the black stuff we see as space between the solids.
bizarre.
but looking through mankind's senses, we are sure to miss the point in most things, as we try to fit things into OUR senses, rather than try to stretch our senses to accommodate the real.
2007-03-07 19:39:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by SAINT G 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The be conscious "rapture" skill, "to be over excited" or "caught up". The scripture in a million Thessalonians 4:17 says, "Then we that are alive and proceed to be would be caught up with them interior the clouds...". using the be conscious rapture is in simple terms a condensing of this scripture. people who're conscious of this journey use the be conscious rapture as a connection with this scripture, which could be complicated for people who do no longer learn the Bible on a everyday foundation. it particularly is no longer including something to the scripture, yet clarifying it.
2016-11-23 14:38:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
no there could never be such a state, there is always something and never nothing.. nothing is just a bad exuse or detail for those who are too lazy to explain...
therefore in this example there would have to be SOMETHING.. such as a color (clear counts, its an adj.)
2007-03-08 10:14:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Munchy.Blind.Bear. 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Nothing" is the opposite of "something."
Space is "nothing" until you add a few objects in it - it then becomes the distance and relative positions of the objects. It is the objects that give the space meaning.
2007-03-07 15:44:44
·
answer #6
·
answered by LeAnne 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
It is obviously not possible for there to be a time when time did not exist. If that time existed then there would be time.
2007-03-07 15:58:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by anonimous 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Mathmaticians like to remind us that zero is really the first number.
2007-03-07 15:39:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by jam_please 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
its called a vacuum. all hail the mighty vacuum. you know that atoms are spheres,so there are spaces with nothingness. those are vacuums.
2007-03-07 16:29:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by DBSG/SS501_fan 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes it is, nothing is actually the empty set of anything and everything.
2007-03-07 15:41:54
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋