We live in a infinite universe

[fuelair]

Appears more like a Pooh to me!!!!!

Or even just a tiny silent "poot"!!!

 

[Belz...]

Then tell us all about these gems of erudition that I am so ignorant of.

What are you babbling about now?

Or would it be my lack of knowledge of the term 'quantum substrate', which turned out to be a term you made up.

Made up or not, it correctly describes what I was talking about. Perhaps you should stop getting stuck with that word.

Then, when I suggested you actually meant 'quantum foam', you pretended you'd told me this in the first instance and informed me pompously that actually, quantum foam is an 'actual term'.

Another lie. I never said anything of the sort.

Gee thanks for the lesson, guru!

Oh, and maintaining your previous lie as well. Nice work!

Yes, I've been reading Hawking's material for almost 30 years. Which part of it do you imagine proves your assertion that something cannot come from nothing?

Did you read the link I posted yes or no?

 

[Belz...]

The quote itself is obviously not the full story, and neither is it meant to be, so that's why you might also hear Hawking referring to more detailed examples, saying things like

As I've noted before, he's not talking about the same sort of "nothing" that the OP is talking about, which is the total absence of anything.

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes but they are not of much interest since they do not last long enough to develop galaxies and stars, let alone intelligent life. A few of the little bubbles, however, grow to a certain size at which they are safe from recollapse. They will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate, and will form the bubbles we see. They will correspond to universes that would start off expanding at an ever increasing rate. This is called inflation, like the way prices go up every year.

This has been around for decades, so I'm surprised none of your 40 books mentioned this.

 

[baron]

As I've noted before, he's not talking about the same sort of "nothing" that the OP is talking about, which is the total absence of anything.

Oh right, so when Hawking says "[a de Sitter universe] would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all", he doesn't actually mean 'nothing at all', he means 'something'.

I've no interesting in attempting to discuss this further in the face of such blatant disregard for the facts. Perhaps someone else will come along who will value your tutorship. LOL!

 

[Belz...]

Oh right, so when Hawking says "[a de Sitter universe] would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all", he doesn't actually mean 'nothing at all', he means 'something'.

Correct.

I've no interesting in attempting to discuss this further in the face of such blatant disregard for the facts.

Did you read the text I linked to OR NOT? Did you see the part I quoted? Do you understand it?

Damn, that's quite a big pride there. You saw "Hawking" and thought "Pfft! I've read Hawking before so I don't need to read the link"? He discusses exactly what I mentioned. That's what you asked me to demonstrate, not the meaning of "nothing". The dishonesty you've displayed in this thread is staggering.

Perhaps someone else will come along who will value your tutorship. LOL!

Stop lying, baron.

 

[baron]

Correct.

Your argument has descended even deeper into farce when you deny what's in front of your face. How ridiculous.

Did you read the text I linked to OR NOT?

NOT. And I guarantee, without even looking at it, that nowhere does Hawking state that something cannot arise from nothing, or that when he himself says 'absolutely nothing' he actually means' something'.

Did you see the part I quoted?

No, you didn't quote anything.

Do you understand it?

No, I did not understand the quote you did not post.

Damn, that's quite a big pride there. You saw "Hawking" and thought "Pfft! I've read Hawking before so I don't need to read the link"?

Exactly right.

He discusses exactly what I mentioned. That's what you asked me to demonstrate, not the meaning of "nothing". The dishonesty you've displayed in this thread is staggering.

I didn't ask you to demonstrate anything other than the topic you decided - without any foundation - to challenge me on. If you want to waffle about other topics then go ahead, but don't expect me to pander to your demands to read your links.

 

[phiwum]

Wait! Your entire premise is that the universe is infinite. Infinite means it has no boundaries. The very concepts of Beginning and End are boundaries. If you say that something is infinite, it means that it has neither physical *nor* temporal boundaries.

IOW, your claim is that, among other things, the universe always existed, that it has neither beginning nor end.

If it has no beginning, the universe could not have come from Nothing because the universe has always existed and it is made of Something; therefore *Something always existed*. This, in turn, means that Nothing never existed, and the entire concept disappears in a grammatical double-negative whirlpool.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

This is not at all clear to me. Something could be spatially infinite but temporally bounded.

For that matter, infinite and unbounded are not always synonyms. The set [0,1] is infinite but bounded both above and below.

 

[phiwum]

Delete, misread Dave's post.

 

[Belz...]

Your argument has descended even deeper into farce when you deny what's in front of your face. How ridiculous.

Yes, I'm quite aware that you can fill posts with many words expressing your shock and confusion and condescension, but apparently not with arguments.

NOT. And I guarantee, without even looking at it, that nowhere does Hawking state that something cannot arise from nothing

Again, that's not what you asked me to demonstrate. You asked me to explain the "substrate" comment. Keep up.

But at least thanks for admitting that you don't even read the evidence you ask me to provide when I do provide it. So your request for evidence was a smokescreen; a distraction.

No, you didn't quote anything.

Wow, you just lie and lie, don't you?

Post 123.

Exactly right.

So you can't even consider the possibility that you're wrong.

I didn't ask you to demonstrate anything other than the topic you decided - without any foundation - to challenge me on.

Well excuse me for challenging you, mighty sage!

 

[baron]

Yes, I'm quite aware that you can fill posts with many words expressing your shock and confusion and condescension, but apparently not with arguments.

Again, that's not what you asked me to demonstrate. You asked me to explain the "substrate" comment. Keep up.

No, we've already established you made up that phrase and it is meaningless.

But at least thanks for admitting that you don't even read the evidence you ask me to provide when I do provide it. So your request for evidence was a smokescreen; a distraction.

Wow, you just lie and lie, don't you?

Post 123.

Pardon me, I thought you meant a quote relevant to the topic, not some random quote about bubble universes that has no bearing on what is being discussed. So let's have it, where is your quote that demonstrates Hawking believes you cannot get something from nothing. I have posted one of Hawking's quotes where he explicitly and repeatedly asserts that it is possible, so over to you, and try not to fabricate any more phrases and claim they mean something.

So you can't even consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Well excuse me for challenging you, mighty sage!

On the contrary, I would welcome a challenge, this is like shooting (dead) fish in a barrel.

 

[fuelair]

Yes, I'm quite aware that you can fill posts with many words expressing your shock and confusion and condescension, but apparently not with arguments.



Again, that's not what you asked me to demonstrate. You asked me to explain the "substrate" comment. Keep up.

But at least thanks for admitting that you don't even read the evidence you ask me to provide when I do provide it. So your request for evidence was a smokescreen; a distraction.



Wow, you just lie and lie, don't you?

Post 123.





So you can't even consider the possibility that you're wrong.



Well excuse me for challenging you, mighty sage!

O sage? Sau sage? Mes sage? Ma sage? Pa sage?

 

[fuelair]

No, we've already established you made up that phrase and it is meaningless.



Pardon me, I thought you meant a quote relevant to the topic, not some random quote about bubble universes that has no bearing on what is being discussed. So let's have it, where is your quote that demonstrates Hawking believes you cannot get something from nothing. I have posted one of Hawking's quotes where he explicitly and repeatedly asserts that it is possible, so over to you, and try not to fabricate any more phrases and claim they mean something.



On the contrary, I would welcome a challenge, this is like shooting (dead) fish in a barrel.

Well, something certainly stinks - perhaps that last explains the source!!!!

 

[fuelair]

Which type of sith are you building it with ? I assume some that is more solidish......

And how deep is that sith? Enquirer minds want to NO!!!!!!!!!

 

[Belz...]

No, we've already established you made up that phrase and it is meaningless.

And you're still lying. Incredible!

I said, right off the bat, that it was my wording, not a technical one. You asked me what I meant by it and I provided you with a link from Stephen *********** Hawking, and you ignored it because, one can only guess, you know he'll support my point and not yours.

Pardon me, I thought you meant a quote relevant to the topic, not some random quote about bubble universes that has no bearing on what is being discussed.

The topic of the thread is the OP's ramblings, not the "universe from nothing" part of his post you now decide to focus on, after I've provided what you asked for as a response to another part of his ramblings.

So let's have it, where is your quote that demonstrates Hawking believes you cannot get something from nothing.

Again, that isn't what we were discussing. But nice attempt to make it seem like it was.

On the contrary, I would welcome a challenge, this is like shooting (dead) fish in a barrel.

You can't even keep your own lies straight. You're the one who brought up the idea that I challenged you!

 

[baron]

And you're still lying. Incredible!

I said, right off the bat, that it was my wording, not a technical one.

And there again you admit you made it up. That and the idea of particles arising from the 'quantum state'. The fact that you need to make up terminology to describe basic concepts strongly suggests you are unfamiliar with the topic. Which is fine, but then you turn around and call other people ignorant because they dare to question what you mean.

You asked me what I meant by it and I provided you with a link from Stephen *********** Hawking, and you ignored it because, one can only guess, you know he'll support my point and not yours.

I'm still waiting for you to show this. Again, I ask, "So let's have it, where is your quote that demonstrates Hawking believes you cannot get something from nothing."

The topic of the thread is the OP's ramblings, not the "universe from nothing" part of his post you now decide to focus on, after I've provided what you asked for as a response to another part of his ramblings.

Wrong. I corrected you on your typically pompous statement, "You need to brush up on your physics courses because you can't get 'something' from 'nothing'" and that is where you started making up terminology and calling me ignorant, then posted a link to a Stephen Hawking lecture and refused to say what point you thought it proves or how it disproves mine.

Again, that isn't what we were discussing. But nice attempt to make it seem like it was.

Really? So you weren't discussing getting something from nothing when you said

First, we know that nothing can't come from something; that's logic and not physics, sure, but it's a good start. Second, we know a bit about quantum mechanics now, enough to say that the universe is, most probably, a semi-stable bubble within the spacetime substrate

clearly linking this bubble universe substrate waffle with the answer to my question

and

You need to brush up on your physics courses because you can't get 'something' from 'nothing'.

(followed by your bizarre claim that Stephen Hawking actually agrees with you when he says "[a de Sitter universe] would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all")

and also worthy of mention

No, they happen because we live in a physical, causal universe. Infinity has nothing to do with this. Also, the universe isn't infinite.

if only for your authoritative declaration of something unknown and quite possibly unknowable.

 

[Beady]

And there again you admit you made it up. That and the idea of particles arising from the 'quantum state'. The fact that you need to make up terminology to describe basic concepts strongly suggests you are unfamiliar with the topic. Which is fine, but then you turn around and call other people ignorant because they dare to question what you mean.



I'm still waiting for you to show this. Again, I ask, "So let's have it, where is your quote that demonstrates Hawking believes you cannot get something from nothing."



Wrong. I corrected you on your typically pompous statement, "You need to brush up on your physics courses because you can't get 'something' from 'nothing'" and that is where you started making up terminology and calling me ignorant, then posted a link to a Stephen Hawking lecture and refused to say what point you thought it proves or how it disproves mine.



Really? So you weren't discussing getting something from nothing when you said



clearly linking this bubble universe substrate waffle with the answer to my question

and



(followed by your bizarre claim that Stephen Hawking actually agrees with you when he says "[a de Sitter universe] would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all")

and also worthy of mention



if only for your authoritative declaration of something unknown and quite possibly unknowable.

The sexual tension in this thread is downright palpable. My buttocks are all a-quiver to see what happens next! Who will be on top? Inquiring minds want to know.

This signature is intended to irritate people.

 

[p0lka]

No, it really doesn't. It's one fewer "entity" to be assumed.

I'm not sure how you can believe that when you're quoting bubble universes and confusing the scientist's metaphors with reality?

 

[Belz...]

And there again you admit you made it up.

You act as if this is some sort of "gotcha" moment for you, when I actually said right there and then that it was my wording because I was just trying to explain the general concept. So yeah, congratulations on finding this out once again.

The fact that you need to make up terminology to describe basic concepts strongly suggests you are unfamiliar with the topic.

Only to someone who can't draw conclusions from premises. It suggests nothing of the sort.

I'm still waiting for you to show this. Again, I ask, "So let's have it, where is your quote that demonstrates Hawking believes you cannot get something from nothing."

Read the damned link I gave you, particularily the quote I gave you TWICE.

(followed by your bizarre claim that Stephen Hawking actually agrees with you when he says "[a de Sitter universe] would quite literally be created out of nothing: not just out of the vacuum, but out of absolutely nothing at all")

Tell you what, why don't you ask him?

Either discuss the issue instead of discussing me and stroking your ego, or go away.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not sure how you can believe that when you're quoting bubble universes and confusing the scientist's metaphors with reality?

How am I confusing metaphors with reality? Nothing I've said suggests this. Of course there aren't actual "bubbles", but our explanation of things that don't, for example, have dimensions, or not the number of dimensions we're used to, you're going to have to use analogies and metaphors. What's your point?

 

[slipknot0129]

I love living in this infinite universe of love. With God and stuff in it.