Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Irony of borrowing from nothingness concept

Irony of borrowing from nothingness concept

Morgan - 25-1-2012 at 07:54

I wonder if we will ever understand how you go about making a universe - how to split nothingness into positive and negative charges. In one sense you apparently don't need anything, it just happens. Maybe you could use a giant electrophorus. ha

"To understand how something can come out of nothing, he writes, you have to appreciate the fact that "there probably isn't anything here anyway" -- that "at a deep level there is nothing" in the universe, really. "The substrate of existence," he argues, "is nothing at all."
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/brainiac/2011/06/the...

neptunium - 25-1-2012 at 08:08

tricky concept hum?
if you wait long enough ,things that normaly dont happen in the physical world will happen.
long enough being trillions of trillions of years ,much longer than the life of the universe.
99% of any atom is mostly empty space.
that space is space its something called space its not nothingness.
it has a certain level of potential energy in a balanced state.
the balance could tilt either way (positive or negative energy) and in fact it does it all the time , the average of all this positive and negative energy is most of the time equal to zero...but wait long enough and things start to happen .
Particules seems to pop up out of it or...whole universes
the quantum foam is too small to be seen but its effect can be felt in laboratory.

White Yeti - 25-1-2012 at 10:38

Interesting stuff.

There's actually a theory (it might be outdated) that black holes radiate positive gravity particles which appear from.... nothingness.

Actually, I don't think the universe is "nothingness". In fact, I'd argue that the universe is (or once was) pure energy. You could argue that the big bang was just a colossal conversion of massive amounts of energy to matter.

I like armchair speculation on this subject, because it involves things that are beyond our understanding. I think that if there is perfect symmetry in this universe, we would have to find "negative energy". Since everythig with mass has energy, we would either have to find negative mass or negative energy to prove that the universe came from nothing, and is perfectly symmetric.

neptunium - 25-1-2012 at 10:52

Quote: Originally posted by White Yeti

Interesting stuff.

There's actually a theory (it might be outdated) that black holes radiate positive gravity particles which appear from.... nothingness.

Actually, I don't think the universe is "nothingness". In fact, I'd argue that the universe is (or once was) pure energy. You could argue that the big bang was just a colossal conversion of massive amounts of energy to matter.

back in the golden age of black holes (70's and 80's) it was speculated that black holes evaporate over time by radiating real particules from the vacuum...is a gamma ray of energy >1.02Mev passes by a black hole just at the event horizon, and materialises in a pair of electron/positron one could be free if the other was captured by the black hole.
hence the radiation of real particule from pure energy.

the universe is NOT nothingness it arises FROM nothingness ,
i like these armchair speculation as well ....

one thing that wakes me up at night (besides the bills and my wife) is the fact that this very universe we live in could very well be the last edition of a non working concept and many many trials of failled universes could indeed came to be on a scale of time beyond comprehension...this universe and reality could be just one that works for intelligent life to wonder and think about it .

White Yeti - 25-1-2012 at 11:07

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

the universe is NOT nothingness it arises FROM nothingness ,
i like these armchair speculation as well ....

That's my point, if the universe arose from nothingness, it would mean that it has perfect symmetry, that is, all the mass and all the energy in this universe adds up to zero, meaning there is either negative mass or negative energy somewhere out there and we haven't found it yet. This, of course would rely on E=mc2 being completely and unquestionably correct, even at the instant of a big bang or in the presence of black holes and what not.

neptunium - 25-1-2012 at 11:13

do you remember the anti matter problem?

it was true the first few milliseconds of the universe life but somehow 1 in a billion particule of matter versus anti matter was in exes , resulting in what we can see today. everything came from that 1 in a billion particule that survived the original anihilation.
why? i am not smart enough to answer that but it did happen.
so what now? is E=MC2 not true?
no it is still valid for what we can see and experiment with today but somehow 1 particule out of 10e9 survived....

Adas - 25-1-2012 at 11:26

How can you say it was created out of "nothing"???

neptunium - 25-1-2012 at 11:29

how? because a lot of people think so. and thats the best we've got! there has to be nothing before anything right?

phlogiston - 25-1-2012 at 15:16

AFAIK the theory that black holes radiate (so called hawking radiation) is still thought to be correct.

What puzzles me is how conservation of energy is preserved by black holes.

You gain energy when mass falls into the black holes gravity field. Eventually it dissapears into the black hole, but its mass is converted into radiation (=more energy).

Where is any work being performed in this process?

Sedit - 25-1-2012 at 18:33

Since we are on an armchair basis here I have no shame in stating that there is no such thing as matter, all matter appears to be is a bending of electromagnetic radiation by energy to give the appearance of a solid object of a specific color. It has already been proven that matter and energy are interchangeable, I argue that it is energy in the form of a standing wave that causes it to push other standing waves(other matter) away from itself causing the illusion of it being a solid object.

My hypothesis goes much deeper then this but its a rough outline on how I view matter. I have done much research into standing waves and I have noticed groups of them moving though water and acting as if it where a solid object. If those waves where to small for me to see I would no doubt feel that the cluster was nothing more then a solid object.

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by Sedit]

phlogiston - 26-1-2012 at 06:33

There is no such things as a 'solid object'.
At the smallest level, particles have no dimensions or color.

The fact that we experience something as solid at the human scale is because electromagnetic interactions generate a force. If you push your finger against the wall, what you feel pushing back are the electrons in the wall exchanging (virtual) photons with the electrons in the tip your finger.

Consider a 'collision' of elementary particles, for instance in a accelerator. What I imagine really happens is that the speeding particles exchange photons/gluons/Z-bosons etc, and these mediate a force between the two, altering their trajectory, or even generating new particles if the interaction is energetic enough. It is called a 'collision', but the process is quite different from what you might picture as a such at the human scale.

neptunium - 26-1-2012 at 07:42

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Since we are on an armchair basis here I have no shame in stating that there is no such thing as matter, all matter appears to be is a bending of electromagnetic radiation by energy to give the appearance of a solid object of a specific color. It has already been proven that matter and energy are interchangeable, I argue that it is energy in the form of a standing wave that causes it to push other standing waves(other matter) away from itself causing the illusion of it being a solid object.

My hypothesis goes much deeper then this but its a rough outline on how I view matter. I have done much research into standing waves and I have noticed groups of them moving though water and acting as if it where a solid object. If those waves where to small for me to see I would no doubt feel that the cluster was nothing more then a solid object.

[Edited on 26-1-2012 by Sedit]

sounds alot like string theory.

Bot0nist - 26-1-2012 at 07:47

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

Have you read "The Holographic Universe"?, by Talbot I think.

It was a great read. I love speculation on this subject a well. There are many good programs that I have seen recently on the science channels. Some stuff will really blow your mind. A lot of really good science (and some bad). The book talked a lot about interference patterns, and how the holographic model explained many of the unexplainables in physics. I definitely recommend it. Even if it is not meant to be taken "seriously," it is still great at stretching the bounds of your logic and helping see things from a different perspective.

Pulverulescent - 26-1-2012 at 09:40

"irony of borrowing from nothingness concept"???

If this isn't completely nonsensical ─ then I'm losing my fucking mind!

P

neptunium - 26-1-2012 at 14:25

relax ! it will be alright

Pulverulescent - 26-1-2012 at 14:49

(er) We are talking about the same thing?
What'll be alright?

P

neptunium - 26-1-2012 at 14:54

you,re not gonna lose your mind brother, the subject is very interesting but very abstract and at limit of science fiction...
i think its cool

Morgan - 26-1-2012 at 18:22

While this podcast doesn't provide any answer to the question of how it all began, it does a good job of hinting about the nature of how "it" works. The actual start of the program begins around the 2:30 minute mark if you want to skip the chaff. At first you will probably be skeptical, but as you listen to the analogies with air and Joseph Priestley, light and eyes, and such you might get a glimmer of perceiving the universe in a new way. One of the speakers remarks that the idea presented in the book is kind of creepy. And to me too, it's kind of eerie to look at what might really be going on and what is to come. If you can just hang in there, the latter part of the talk will be worth the listen I think.
I promise you won't lose your mind, there's some stairstepping but I didn't hear anything along the lines of my feeble attempt of satirizing "borrowing from nothingness" or all adding up to zero as in the article I first posted/linked.
Recall the article...
"To understand how something can come out of nothing, he writes, you have to appreciate the fact that "there probably isn't anything here anyway" -- that "at a deep level there is nothing" in the universe, really."

Anyway, this talk explores a different aspect, and might provide some clues.
What Does Technology Want?
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/nov/16/idea...

AndersHoveland - 26-1-2012 at 22:51

Why do you assume that the universe began with nothingness? Also remember that there is a relationship between mass, space, and gravity. The phenomena of space arrises from mass. The phenomena of mass arrises from the potential energy of gravitational force. "Space" is a very long wavelength type of energy, so long that the flux is imperceptible. The "vacuum" energy (responsible for radioactive decay) is more of a rogue wave phenomena. In the absence of space, matter would move infinitely fast, simultaneously occupying an entire linear path, which is the same effect that would be observed if the matter was without mass. Neutrinos have a much lower cross section interaction, so it is possible to exceed the speed of light because there is less coupling with the vacuum energy. The coupling between light and vacuum energy is analogous to the coupling between a photon of light inside a transparent dielectric medium. (Photons are, in fact, statistically transiently absorbed into their medium, but they are reradiated in synchrony due to interference phenomena, rather than scattered)

The original reason for discounting the theory of the "aether" as a medium for the propagation of light did itself become obsolete after the theory of relativity, but theorists never went back to reexamine their justification for the non-existence of aether. In other words, it is a logical fallacy to infer that the Michelson–Morley experiment disproves the theory of aether while at the same time accepting the theory of relativity. The "aether" itself is electromagnetic radiation subject to relativity, so any possible confirmation of the Michelson–Morley experiment would be contradictory to the theory of relativity.

As for the nature of the universe, the only thing that can be said is that everything that "exists" is only relative to everything else that exists. It is illogical to claim any inherent property for anything outside of this.

[Edited on 27-1-2012 by AndersHoveland]

neptunium - 27-1-2012 at 09:34

Quote: Originally posted by AndersHoveland

Why do you assume that the universe began with nothingness? Also remember that there is a relationship between mass, space, and gravity. The phenomena of space arrises from mass. The phenomena of mass arrises from the potential energy of gravitational force. "Space" is a very long wavelength type of energy, so long that the flux is imperceptible. The "vacuum" energy (responsible for radioactive decay)]

i am a simple man with a simple mind ...you lost me there !
however
Neutrinos DO have a mass indeed o.o7 ev ! small ! granted, and a very discrete cross section but absolutly no potential for traveling over the speed of light at all!
did you mean tachions? theorytical particules invented to account for observation on entanglement.

please explain the vacuum energy and radioactive decay?

Morgan - 27-1-2012 at 10:35

I don't think there's an explantion, for neither proposition seems to make any sense. 13 billion years ago and then here we are, incubated from stars, all the horror and wonder and on some level not a clue to where these forces are headed. In the podcast it was brought up how the eye evolves without any direction or intelligent design, and yet some powerful force drives it to happen. There's a kind of intelligence in matter that likes to mimic itself, to parrot the sounds it hears, to playback the images of itself.
I was watching an episode of The Power of Myth where Joseph Campbell talks about the earth as an embryo and people becoming it's eyes to see itself. And when asked about a purpose he says there is no purpose to life.

This article kind of plays into the closing theme of the podcast of What Technology Wants and where the author assumes we are headed, the podcast suggesting higher artificial life forms may come to solve the riddle but we, never to comprehend.
Humans will become the 'dogs of the house', says Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak
http://www.news.com.au/technology/humans-will-become-the-pet...
Or this thought ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_hlGm8V3Yc#t=6m0s

[Edited on 27-1-2012 by Morgan]

Pulverulescent - 27-1-2012 at 12:58

Quote:

you,re not gonna lose your mind brother, the subject is very interesting but very abstract and at limit of science fiction...
i think its cool

I can give you only one out of three, nep!
'Could try harder . . .

neptunium - 27-1-2012 at 17:47

talking about time without space is irrelevant, talking about space without time is irrelevant as well...
time and space are one aspect of reality. it can be stretched and compress at will , but i still struggle to understand where does radioactivity fits in all of this .....
protons are the longest living particules known but yet they too have a half life of several trillion years...so what is matter ?

wait i am getting off course.

time matter and space were created at the big bang thats a known fact, but from what ? nothing ?
possibly ,
the M theory ( M or brane for menbrane) put a recycling universe that keeps bouncing on itself ,and everytime it does ,a new big bang appear...again thats just a theory but very seductive i may say ...
it does beg the question...
where and when the hell does it all begin????

Morgan - 27-1-2012 at 20:54

Tidbit about the cube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gt4WSK_NlQ&feature=fvwp&...

Morgan - 28-1-2012 at 11:56

Roses and hummingbirds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCqA9EHQDYE#t=1m0s

Morgan - 28-1-2012 at 12:58

Reflections of a Bonehunter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC1CGr1qoUE#t=32s

[Edited on 28-1-2012 by Morgan]

neptunium - 29-1-2012 at 09:15

thats a little too big for my weak connection but i get the point..

Rosco Bodine - 29-1-2012 at 10:31

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope

It all leads inexorably to the deeply philosophical but plainly rhetorical question......

In a fiber optic universe, what would any homing pigeon most likely employ for guidance?

[Edited on 29-1-2012 by Rosco Bodine]

AndersHoveland - 29-1-2012 at 13:04

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

Neutrinos DO have a mass indeed o.o7 ev ! small ! granted, and a very discrete cross section but absolutly no potential for traveling over the speed of light at all!

The relation between mass and momentum could actually be a generalization rather than a fundamental law, meaning it might seem to hold true, but is inadequate to describe certain extreme conditions. This would be analogous to how Newtonian physics was later discovered to be a generalization that does not completely hold true under extremely high velocities.

The anti-electron neutrinos from the SN 1987A supernova event were observed to arrive at almost at the same time as the light, indicating that the neutrino speed did not exceed the speed of light. These neutrinos had typical energies of 10 MeV.

The OPERA experiment seemed to show that muon neutrinos, of an energy around 20-40 GeV, could slightly exceed the speed of light. The measured difference in velocity was only around 7 km/sec, which is extremely small compared to the speed of light or other fast moving particles at these energies.

One possible explanation that would explain the difference between these two observations are that the higher energy muon-neutrinos would have less interaction. Muons, for example, only weakly interact with matter, and can therfore penetrate through matter with even more ease than gamma rays or neutrons. Muons can go through 6 to 8 feet of steel without being stopped. Higher velocities are also known to reduce probability of interaction and lead to more penetrating power.

The effective limit in velocity as a particle approaches the speed of light could be caused by interaction with the background energy that permeates "empty" space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

[Edited on 29-1-2012 by AndersHoveland]

neptunium - 29-1-2012 at 13:50

the current laws and mathematical descriptions of the word are not 100% correct , they are just the best approximations and hold true for a vast majority of cases .

I`ve heard about the OPERA results ,the first estimate were arround 12 Km/s !but they are still being debated,

less interactions with regular matter wont save the muon from the space time continuum, they must follow the same path that light did to get to our detectors,

the supernovae of 1987 is 168 000 ly away a difference in speed of 7 Km/s over a distance like this would be a colosal blow to the theory of relativity ! understandably a lot of people are skeptical over these results,

dark matter and dark energy could`ve play a small role in this odd result although weak in our galactic backyard...i guess everyone can speculate ...

Morgan - 29-1-2012 at 16:24

Tidbits on size and left field theories.

Graham's number
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwPVoFuWARw

Comic book writer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH7gSkuNBzc#t=14s

watson.fawkes - 30-1-2012 at 14:49

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Read this article.

The magazine these articles are from is published by Lyndon LaRouche's organization, a fact worthy of disclosure if you expect folks to take you seriously in the long term. This is as opposed to taking you seriously in the short term, where suppressing just unflattering facts may help you.

Perhaps if you are interested in promoting the debate you could also post Roger Balian's rebuttal of Allais's arguments, Allais's counter-response, and any subsequent debate on the matter by them or others.

Or, if you are merely a polemicist, you could add nothing more.

neptunium - 30-1-2012 at 15:08

ouch!

Sedit - 30-1-2012 at 22:23

Quote: Originally posted by neptunium

Quote: Originally posted by Sedit

sounds alot like string theory.

Yes in a way is shares many similaritys with string theory however I developed my line of thinking without much knowledge of string theory and my current understanding of it is still rather crude. A clean and easy to demonstration to visualize what I am trying to describe is to place a bowl of water over a vibrating plate. Try to keep the frequencys of the standing waves high by making the water shallow and use a metallic surface with some pennys or other small objects that would assist in creating wave patterns. It will amaze one how something so simple can demonstate how wave forms can behave as solid objects because they move and interact with one another as though the clusters where indeed solid material. They attract, repel, bounce off one another ect... A truely elegant demostration of a possible fundemental law of psysics and energy interaction. If Electromagnetic radiation standing waves managed to behave in the same manner as transversal standing waves on a fundemental level then it could quite possible could lead to a grand unification theory with further study of the dynamics behind the phenomenon.

Pulverulescent - 31-1-2012 at 02:04

Quote:

. . . sounds a lot like string theory.

'More like 'strung out theory', to me! (

)

P

Vogelzang - 31-1-2012 at 02:47

Quote: Originally posted by watson.fawkes

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Read this article.

That's about the most ignorant response imaginable.

http://www.real-debt-elimination.com/real_freedom/Propaganda...

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

http://www.aulis.com/albert_einstein.htm

http://sciliterature.50webs.com/RelativityDebates.htm

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm

watson.fawkes - 31-1-2012 at 07:40

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

That's about the most ignorant response imaginable.

Oh, you misunderstand. I was attacking the messenger, not the message. In other words, it's all about you.

Allais isn't a loon, but certainly heterodox. There's a recent paper on large-scale anisotropy of space involving small changes in the fine-structure constant. This was, as I recall, their fourth round of these results, which had been partial before. The latest advance was correlating northern and southern hemisphere observations. So I'm perfectly willing to entertain anisotropy claims. Indeed, I think it's much more likely than not that large-scale anisotropy is true.

What I wasn't familiar with was Allais's claims. And therefore I turn back to you. Quoting a LaRouche publication is a very quick way to stamp the "gullible" brand on your forehead. Further link-spamming does nothing for your credibility. Do you even understand these arguments well enough to summarize them in your own words? Or is your competence just great enough to understand that they are contrarian, and immediately latch on to them?

I have no interest in discussing anything with a link of hypertext links. Perhaps with a person with enough courage to assert a claim as their own.

Vogelzang - 31-1-2012 at 13:54

Special Relativity is impossible to test. It requires the belief that the speed of light is constant which can't be proven with absolute accuracy since all real instruments produce some error. Also, special relativity only applies where there's no gravity or acceleration. Gravity exists everywhere in our big bang universe so that's another reason Special Relativity is impossible to test. Issac Newton, Christen Huygens and Johannes Soldner all proposed theories about light bending in a gravitational field before Einstein worked on his theory. Einstein plagiarized the math from Gerber and Hilbert. It might work, but gravity is a kind of aether density gradient not curved space. Undergraduate physics experiments prove gravity is NOT curved space. If the space was curved then every projectile would follow the same path independent of velocity, but experiments show that the faster a projectile goes in a gravitation field the straighter its path. Therefore, gravity is not curved space. Eric Baird wrote about his theory of an aether density gradient as a theory for gravity.

[Edited on 31-1-2012 by Vogelzang]

Vogelzang - 31-1-2012 at 13:58

The Lorentz transformations were worked out by Heaviside, Voigt, Fitzgerald, Lamor, Lorentz and Poincaré before Einstein. The twin paradox proves Special Relativity is impossible. The Lorentz transformations are assymetric, ie. they occur as a function of the velocity relative to the aether not the observer.

Vogelzang - 31-1-2012 at 14:03

Stellar aberation experiments with binary stars appear to show the earth is moving through a transmitting medium of light since the telescope tilt is the same for both stars. Supporters of Einsteinian Relativity argued the stellar aberation was due to relative motion between the earth and star, but when the experiments are done with binary stars which move at different velocities, the tilt is the same.

Vogelzang - 31-1-2012 at 14:04

I didn't quote a LaRouche publication. The authors are not LaRouche. The first article was written by Maurice Allais and the second article was written by Laurence Hecht.

[Edited on 31-1-2012 by Vogelzang]

Vogelzang - 31-1-2012 at 14:07

Here's another link for you.

The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert?
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/MainPage.htm

Vogelzang - 31-1-2012 at 14:18

The aether is not at absolute rest and aether drift experiments don't measure absolute velocities.

http://www.anti-relativity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t...

Sedit - 31-1-2012 at 14:31

Quote: Originally posted by Pulverulescent

Quote:

. . . sounds a lot like string theory.

'More like 'strung out theory', to me! (

)

P

Perhaps but one must speculate and hypothesis before any theory can become solid. Would you care to offer an alternative hypothesis by any chance?

It's not a hypothesis that is crazy its only when one refuses to alter there hypothesis and point of view when new evidence presents itself that makes an idea crazy. I personally think current understanding is starting to fall into this realm because it has been almost a century since Einsteins theorys where developed but we have yet to use them to form a grand unified theory. This to me suggest that somewhere along the line his theorys are fundamentally flawed and need to be revamped at there core in order to gain a greater understanding of physics. I honestly feel that the main sticking point is that the speed of light is a constant but its one of those things that will in the end be very hard to see if there is a slight variation.

I feel one day people will look back at the theory of relativity and laugh at its absurdness in the same way that we laugh at the idea of the earth being flat.

Pulverulescent - 31-1-2012 at 15:26

Quote:

'More like 'strung out theory', to me! (

)

Quote:

Would you care to offer an alternative hypothesis by any chance?

Why sure, hows about 'strung up theory'? (

)

P

watson.fawkes - 1-2-2012 at 04:43

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

I didn't quote a LaRouche publication. The authors are not LaRouche. The first article was written by Maurice Allais and the second article was written by Laurence Hecht.

You are either entirely ignorant about this or entirely craven about lying about it.

The first link in Google, searching on the title, is the magazine itself. The second link states clearly that it's a LaRouche publication and talks about some of its history. The Wikipedia page on the LaRouche movement lists it as their publication. And if that wasn't enough, the home page of the site has a link titled "Science & the LaRouche Youth Movement".

While Allais was an actual scientist (he died recently), Hecht is indeed a LaRouche crony. He's a regular writer for that publication. His articles are blurbed on the LAROUCHEPAC site. He had assets seized in a judgement for securities fraud against some of the LaRouche organizations (see this link).

watson.fawkes - 1-2-2012 at 04:44

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Special Relativity is impossible to test. It requires the belief that the speed of light is constant which can't be proven with absolute accuracy since all real instruments produce some error.

I won't be discussing science with you, given your puerile understanding of the relationship between experiment and theory.

neptunium - 1-2-2012 at 06:56

Quote: Originally posted by Vogelzang

Here's another link for you.

The name "Einstein" evokes images of genius, but was Albert Einstein, in fact, a plagiarist, who copied the theories of Lorentz, Poincare, Gerber, and Hilbert?
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/MainPage.htm

CONSPIRACY THEORIST ALERT
what a bold and grossly inaccurate statement ! wise up

could we re center the debate on the origine of the universe from nothingness?

[Edited on 1-2-2012 by neptunium]

The best theories employ the most adherents.

franklyn - 27-12-2015 at 21:25

It is remarkably difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.
— Upton Sinclair

http://listverse.com/2015/12/27/10-alternatives-to-the-conve...

It all depends on how you see.

related thread
www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=12819#pid2620...

TheAlchemistPirate - 27-12-2015 at 23:09

"In the beginning the universe was created. This made many people very angry and was widely regarded as a bad move."

Sulaiman - 28-12-2015 at 03:25

Quote: Originally posted by TheAlchemistPirate

"In the beginning the universe was created. This made many people very angry and was widely regarded as a bad move."

I suspect that this is as close to THE answer that we can ever scientifically deduce, or just 42...

P.S. the validity of borrowing from nothingness is presently being researched by our top economists and financial wizards, early results are not encouraging, full results due soon :mad:

[Edited on 28-12-2015 by Sulaiman]

Morgan - 29-12-2015 at 06:52

Quote: Originally posted by TheAlchemistPirate

"In the beginning the universe was created. This made many people very angry and was widely regarded as a bad move."

The universe also borrows a lot of beauty from sadness. Can it do more than break even feeding on itself?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH50UYtCG08
Viewer comment.
"Plos twist: that baby seal would have fed a polar bear cub if not for being rescued by those guys."