The Steel Guitar Forum

Alan Brookes wrote:So there never was, and never will be, a time where NOTHING exists. The Universe wasn't created: it always was.

So, this thread can now be closed? Seems to be nothing to justify keeping it open. 88 pages spent discussing a null concept. Holy crap!

Allan Munro wrote:... 88 pages spent discussing a null concept...

Sounds a bit like Hansard, doesn't it.

Close NOTHING??? No way!

Roger Crawford wrote:Close NOTHING??? No way!

So that's it then - nothing has been closed?
OK people - move along now, there is NOTHING to see here...

So there never was, and never will be, a time where NOTHING exists. The Universe wasn't created: it always was.

ANSWERS ___ do you want answers, Alan? I said, "do you want answers"?
Can you handle the truth, the whole truth, and NOTHING but the truth?

You use the word "theory" in your explanation.
And, then you assert it as truth.
I'm open to the term "creation".
I'm open to evolution, after "creation".
I'm open to something I don't yet know about the entire subject.

Bohr and Einstein laid the foundation of modern physics.
The late comers would know NOTHING, if they did not stand on these men's shoulders.
Standing on these men's shoulders, they get dizzy and fall off.
Working their way back 13.7 billion years, they forget time is elastic.

The key word is PURPOSE.
Everything is not for no purpose, but for a purpose.

The higher reasoning power must have a purpose.
I assert this as wisdom, without mathematical dependence.

Now, prove your point or ___ say NOTHING.

Rick Collins wrote:...Now, prove your point or say NOTHING.

Aha ! A challenge. As you know, nothing is provable about the laws of gravity. It's all a matter of scientific observation, which is much better than religious speculation, which caused the Aztecs and the Mayans to believe that the world was on the back of a giant turtle, and the Roman Catholic church to believe that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

Without getting into religion I question the idea of a higher reasoning power. We like to imagine that humans are the de facto reason that the universe exists, and so we create a god with human attributes, but in reality we know nothing about our creator, and speculation, whether it be by the christian church, hinduism, islam, buddhism, etc., are all blaspehemy. Religion, no matter what denomination, is, at its best, pure speculation. The horse doesn't spend its life worrying about its eternal soul: only humans think that they're sufficiantly intelligent to know the answers. But the only wise approach is to acknowlege one's own limitations and conclude that human beings are not sufficiently intelligent to determine the truth of existence. Religion is, at its best, speculation without evidence, and, at its worse, control of the people via ancient superstition.

I don't pretend to know the answers. If you want to pretend you do, go ahead, but you're not fooling anyone with any intelligence.

I can prove NOTHING about the reason for being, as Alan Brookes cannot.
I can only postulate certain beliefs about truth; just like Albert Einstein based his science of relativity on the speed of light being absolute.

Arrogance, cannot raise the level of intelligence.
It can, however, lead to some eventual surprizes.
Openness can eventually lead to more revelation.

I fault no one or no group for seeking the truth.
I fault anyone holding a position of apathy.

Gravity is the "shape of space around a mass",
simply because it has not, to date, been shown conclusively that it has any other explanation.

Nothing does not exist.

If you take the words "No" and "Thing" and combine them, you get the word "Nothing". It is the only acceptable way by the majority to explain the opposite of the word "Everything".

Everything that "Is" exists between these two descriptive words.

b0b wrote:Nothing does not exist.

It must be true __ I've looked in a lot of places and I can't find it.

Everything that "Is" exists between these two descriptive words.

As a famous man once said, "well, that depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Nucleus __ electron, everything between these two words is not NOTHING, but space; except for this sentence, and here it's a straight line.

Isn't the space between atomic particles nothing?

Wave/Particle flames will be ignored...

Ray Minich wrote:Isn't the space between atomic particles nothing?

It can be measured. Nothing can not be measured.

Wave/Particle flames will be ignored...

<flame> bye bye </flame>

b0b wrote:...Nothing can not be measured.

http://bb.steelguitarforum.com/viewtopi ... highlight=
And nothing cannot be measured either.

b0b wrote:...Nothing can not be measured.

I have always measured nothing in feet, inches, miles, hours, etc. Examples:
Nothing leaked out of my new truck engine for the first 4 miles I drove it...Nothing good was on TV for two hours tonight...I sipped on my quart of brandy until the bottle contained nothing...Nothing has been posted in this thread for the past hour...I opened a new box of strings but nothing was in the box...

Now I ask ya...ain't these measurements, or don't they amount to nothing?

Sometimes we are confronted with contradictory observations. Light has a duality __ it is both wave and particle.
There are other transmutations in nature too.
In quantum mechanics, a particle might not travel from one place to another; but it might disappear from one place and reappear in another.
Spooky, but true.

"I looked into the room and I saw NOTHING, but emptyness".
Whoever made this statement apparently has seen NOTHING, and has also observed emptyness.

Now you decide:
At this moment is the light from your computer monitor slapping you in the face with several billion photons, or is it just waving at you?

This is the 1st thread i have seen where there is NOTHING to argue about.

Of course there ain't nothing to argue about. I never argue, I'm a peaceful man and I'll whup anyone who says otherwise.

Now let's hear nothing more about it.

Orthogonally, I agree with nothing in this topic.

b0b wrote:Orthogonally, I agree with nothing in this topic.

Orthogonally, I agree with NOTHING in this topic either.

I had to look that word up:
topic (top'ik) subject of a paragraph, essay, speech, etc.

So if someone reopened NOTHING it would be a

NEWORTHOGONAL !!??

Much ado about nothing

Doctor Gustav Egloff !!

A name to recall NOTHING about...

Hey b0b, That article is really something now, ain't it. Soooooo, that makes you off topic. (don't b0b catch you!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAYLD06MefI