Discussion. another one.

[Katana Steel]

or more likely Nothing added to something already there in the first place.

If it isn't real one moment, what should make it real, the
next?

[Coldfire26]

thats exactly the same thing. whether its something thats added to nothing, or the opposite, nothing doesn't substitute it. (0 + 1 = 1)

define nothing.

[poortwistedme]

The opposite to something.

[Coldfire26]

Define Something

[Katana Steel]

You say it's Somthing that starts out with not being real
and then turn in to somthing real.

/me thinking  out loud
/* But I think that the Universe exist only of a finit
* amount of matter, there for the Universe can only be
* of a finit size. Every thing outside the Universe isn't
* Real, and there will never be anything outside it.
*
* Or can there? I'm begining to doubt.
* The Universe is expanding, spreading the matter i a
* space that is already there.
*/
Conclusion Anything not Real, cannot become real.
If something is discovered to be real, it was also real
before, everybody just didn't know, Nothing just become
real because we discover it to be real.

[Stewsburntmonkey]

It seems the issue is how you define real.  The whole idea of spacetime is that it is a canvas for matter and energy to interact in, in that way it exists.  To say spacetime is somehow broken whenever there is no matter there, is like saying the tree in the middle of the forrest ceases to exist if no one is around to see it.  It is always there, though it may not be observable.  Scientifically the arguement that space only exists when matter or energy occupies it is so inaccurate as to be childish and silly.  You cannot argue a scientific point with symantics and pure speculation.  If you have some evidence of your postulations please bring them forward, otherwise don't keep making the vast unfounded assertions just on your speculations.  Your method thus far has been to say something and then make people tell you how what you said was wrong, that is an insulting and selfish way to make an arguement.  You are putting all the work on others.  Points should be made with evidense and thought behind them.  You should seek to prove your points, not have others disprove them.  This style of arguement has become increasingly common because it takes advantage of the ignorance of most people about the given subject, meaning if you say something with conviction most people will accept it as fact.  This is  demagoguery and in my mind a totally amoral way to approach an arguement.

[Coldfire26]

yet again, we return to this agruement of the tree. I say again, like i said many times before:
Inorder so no one would see the tree, it has to be non existent already.

(Edited by Coldfire26 at 5:47 pm on Dec. 10, 2003)


(Edited by Coldfire26 at 5:51 pm on Dec. 10, 2003)

[Stewsburntmonkey]

Do you even you your own arguement, because I could decern none it that post. . .

[Coldfire26]

...

(Edited by Coldfire26 at 6:31 pm on Dec. 10, 2003)

[ToRmEnToR]

gah! there is so much a man can suffer.... i've stopped reading somewhere around page 5, and i see the recursive pattern over and over again...

coldfire starts thinking about stuff, gets in the argument, and gets confused along the way :\
coldfire, you act very "rosh katan" (hebrew expression). even though we are talking about purely theoretical conditions, you keep on sticking with the annoying little details. i mean:

"SB: to form a perfect vaccum, you'de have to discard the box. won't you? and everything that serrounds it, as the box still exists, and gives off particles."

we are talking about a hypothetical situation where the box acts as a border which contains a vacuum, ie space.

so what happend is,  that Sonnybobiche gave you a fair argument, to which you faild to respond, and than you just struck back with , err, "rosh katan" sentences... :\
also , your use of math to explain abstract ideas and consepts is also flawed most of the time :\

you must defind the way you use the term 'existance' before you use it.

the lack of matter in space != non-existance.

non-existance doesnt exit by definition. like i said before , every time we adress non-existance, we make it exist.
you wont find non-existance, and you cant generate non-existance, cuz it simply doesnt exist.

heh , i'm sure coldfire will turn this into -

1 = 1 + 0

you see! 0 is there, so non-existance exists!!!!!!
<end sarcasm>

[poortwistedme]

Quote: from Stewsburntmonkey on 5:43 pm on Dec. 10, 2003[br]Do you even you your own arguement, because I could decern none it that post. . .

?

[Coldfire26]

I admit that i have said some @ss stupid things lately, I have a lot on my mind currently, and can't conentrate, beside that, i'm tired of explaining stuff to ppl that don't understand my arguements AND repeating them all the time. *sigh* oh well:

What i meant is that you can't put borders on something without some Aflections. in any case (except hypothetical, in that case i can't even consider tham as borders (i can't consider no borders as borders, but just for this time i will.))the box would lose atoms, causing the nothing to be violated, in any case, Bordered nothing can  be counted as space, howeve the nothing outside the universe cannot, as it is not bordered.

and SBM: truely '?'

(Edited by Coldfire26 at 8:01 pm on Dec. 10, 2003)

[Stewsburntmonkey]

What would cause the box to loose atoms?  I keep asking and you never answer.  Loosing atoms is not a given.  Atoms tend to want to stay in their bonds, they aren't just popping around as you seem to think.  Left to its own devises an atom in an object will stay in the object.  It seems you have never taken a serious chemistry class, pitty.

[Coldfire26]

OK, they just move around the nothing and change its borders, fine?!?!?!? it still counts as a violation of pure vaccum. i won't get in the details when the will come apart and why. either way, it doesn't matter shit, the only thing that does is this: Borders have some aflictions.

[Miah]

Dude, if that's the case, then there is no such thing as a pure vacuum!