But then that rule would still exist the whole appeal to science is things must be repeatable....

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What rule would still exist?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The rule something could come from nothing.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

For all we know, that rule still does. What I meant was that everything came from nothing, including laws of physics. Therefore, the laws of physics suppress "something coming from nothing" w/ the law of conservation of matter and energy. My theory only works if the laws of physics started to exist when they had something to exist about.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, but in order for your theory to work... then everything that we have learned so far will be dis-proven, do you see the dilemma?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Isn't that what a lot of theories do, disprove other theories. Also, I'm not saying my theory is proven fact, but what if it is right? Then wouldn't it be disproving things that are false? (something I think is good)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Wait, and what exactly does my theory disprove?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The idea that energy is neither created or destroyed would be useless. Yeah, but you kind of need some back up for your "theory", you can't just say it's a one time deal and we missed it, so there...?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

No no no, I'm not saying that energy can't be creating/destroyed (at least not anymore). I'm saying that it had to have a start, and that start was when energy was first created. How can there be a rule for something that doesn't exist? Of course I can say it was a one time deal... There's other theories that talk about "One time deals". Besides, who knows, maybe laws of physics one day could cease to exist from some unknown factor. At that point this whole thing could start again.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

It's a an vicous cycle. Something can't exist without rules stating that it can exist. And how can the rules can't exist when there's...nothing...else...that exists...wait what?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

There's no such thing as "before anything existed". Time started when the universe came into existence.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

How do you know? /smartass.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I wasn't looking at time as an object, but as a concept. Therefor, before time existed in the sense that you described, a type of "time" was still at play.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

This is so dumb. Nothingness has no properties, so something can not come out of nothing without an efficient cause.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The laws of physics exist in a vacuum (which is essentially an area of nothing). It isn't like stuff came into existance then invented the rule that nothing can do that. That rule was around before, it's just that nothing was there to act on it. Also, wouldn't there not be a "before"? Time didn't exist. ... Confusing...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Okay, first, If the laws of physics always existed, then how did matter get here? If the whole "everything of a universe" was a vacuum and laws of physics were in place, then does that mean matter could never begin to exist, meaning that every thing is a lie!? Plus, I still don't believe something can exist about something that doesn't exist. For the "before" time didn't exist thing, look at the reply I made a couple posts up, "I wasn't looking at time as an object, but as a concept. Therefor, before time existed in the sense that you described, a type of "time" was still at play." It's hard to explain but look at it like this new type of time is called "tTime". tTime can't be slowed, stopped, speed, or skipped. It also always exists, because it is a concept. And so tTime was the time I was referring to in my "before". I know, thinking about how things work when we can't experiment with them is confusing...

by Anonymous 13 years ago

When you guys are talking about a vacuum, are you talking about space itself? Because space has its own properties too, it can be bent and warped for example. If we think of space as nothingness, then imagining what came before space is impossible to comprehend.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I'm not sure exactly what he meant when he said vacuum, but I answered it like he was talking about everything was a vacuum. So, what are you suggesting by space being able to be warped?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Heavy objects such as stars cause space around to bend around them, which essentially what gravity is. You can think of space as a stretched out piece of rubber, and when you put something heavy in the center, it sinks down and causes all things within the depression to "fall" towards it. Of course space is 3d so it's not exactly like that.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

But then again, we're talking about before they are stars and thing to make gravity.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The stars are made of matter. Before the big bang or whatever the start of the universe was, was space still there, just completely empty of matter? What I'm pointing out is that space without matter is still something, not nothing, because it has these properties. Interestingly, though, some ideas that try to explain quantum entanglement suggest that all of space itself is an illusion and that really everything is still touching. It's a very intriguing subject.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Before the Big Bang, there was neither space nor time.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's only if the Big Bang theory is true. Maybe the universe we perceive is actually part of multiverse.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

We have no reason to believe that. It's pure speculation. Actually, we have good reasons to not believe it....

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What do you mean? M theory predicts multiple universes and the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a mainstream interpretation.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I don't remember much about the M theory, but I don't think it predicts multiple universes. I think it just presents something like 10^500 possible universes. Nevertheless, if we live in a multiverse, we should be observing a much smaller universe, closer to the size of our solar system. It is vastly improbable that we should be observing a universe this large. Roger Penrose calls it utter chickenfeed by comparison.

by Anonymous 13 years ago