<font color = lightgreen> [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] I don't have to prove that nothing exists. It is simply a statement of reality that "Nothing exists".

Think about it some more and you'll begin to understand. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

Numbering dimensions isnt absolute. A lot of scientist give the dimension time the number -0-. This is because the 5th dimension had a space-like direction too. Time doesnt lie in a space-like direction, but a time-like. So its disrupting a nice fluid line of dimensions.
Giving time the number 0 gives it a better "flow". ;)

In order for any object to travel faster than light, it must have 4 dimension and lie in a space-like direction instead of a time-like one .. IIRC.

I'm not pretending I understand what the heck they're talking about, but its an example of where its easier to number all space-like dimension 1 - 4.

EDIT:
What's so wrong with nothing anywayz ?
There's lots of nothing to go around, if nothing didnt exist . .everything would be completely filled up. [img]tongue.gif[/img] That'd make for a pretty dense world

[ 01-07-2003, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: daan ]

well said

Absolute zero isnt absolute nothing is it ?
It's just a state where the molecules have no energy anymore .. stand completely still. Too bad we'll never know, even if we reach it . .because in order to measure absolute zero, you'll need some kind of measuring instrument.
Second problem is, once again .. time.
One theory on time its basically a series of pictures. Every time any molecule even changes a slight bit, consider that a new photo. All of these photo's exist infinitely long .. "time" is the average between two consecutive pictures. Not saying that's true, but some give that as an example for explaining that at Absolute zero, time stands still.

Ah well .. im talking a lot and saying surprisingly little relevant stuff again :D

Quote:

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Ah, but you can't proove that nothing exists (counter intuitive), like wise you can't proove something does not exist. Negatives can only be supported or not supported by positive proofs.

<font color = lightgreen> [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] I don't have to prove that nothing exists. It is simply a statement of reality that "Nothing exists".

Think about it some more and you'll begin to understand. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font></font>[/QUOTE]So by declaring that "Nothing Exists", you are really just declaring an ambiguous constant to make the equations "work". [img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] Like say Boltzmans constant or the speed of light - both of which are not constant upon closer inspection. ..... [img]graemlins/uhoh2.gif[/img]

And besides "Nothing" can't exist, for if it did, then it becomes "something". Ahh, I love paradoxes...

[ 01-07-2003, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

So what's the stuff between a nucleus and its electrons then ?

Or if you close up on a few H-atoms for instance . .you'll see some room between those atoms .. and between the H2-molecules too.
There's nothing else there, you know 'cause an H-atom is the smallest one around.

The fact that nothing cant exist, because then it'd be something is just one of those language-tricks.

Paradoxes should show that the fact that you can make it sound logicall using language, doesnt mean its true.

EDIT:
Using language:
If I would ask you if I'm right . . would your answer be the same as the answer to this question ?

[ 01-07-2003, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: daan ]

And note, you are not prooving that "nothing" exists. You are observing the lack of "something" between two "somethings". You are using positives to support the presence (or lack there of) of a negative, not prooving the negative.

The answer of course is NOTHING LOL ................. that we know of!

Electrons used to be the smallest known particle, but we now know that this negatively charged particle is made up of smaller (strangely neutrally charged) particles. Ironically these same particles also make up protons (positive charge) and neutrons (obvious).

Well said.

I agree with point 1. well put. Good thing to remember.

No.2 however, is speculation. Even if true, we can be hypothetically speaking about what is outside the universe. We can still speculate about nothing, absence of anything. We'd just have to adjust our thinking of where 'nothing' is.

Like we did with air and the atmosphere. Where prior to knowledge of air and the atmoshpere and molecules etc, an empty box (actually filled with air) is empty, so too would we have to readjust our perception of "outer space" not being space.

Until we discover such material, we can describe space as void/vacuum/space as far as we know

I like the idea that absolute truth DOES exist, but whether we will ever know it is another question.