Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (to Till)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Terry wrote:
 <snip>

> 

> TERRY

> Try to understand this Derek, "your" own Scientist have resonably

> established that the Universe DOES  have a beginning,  <snip>


Dave G.
Lets try to put this into perspective.  The Universe includes both the
vacuum of space and the interspersed matter found in various forms.

If you separate the matter from the vacuum of space, and collect all the
matter 
in one area (a collapsed universe), you no longer have "a Universe."  I
don't even 
know if a specific name exists for this mass of matter, but for the
purpose of this post I'll call it a protouniverse. 
If the matter contained in this protouniverse has been reduced to its
most minute
subatomic form, then after a "big bang" (or big band, depending on who
sends the post :>) these subatomic particles eventually merge to form
the matter contained within an atom.  These atoms attract together to
form specific types molecules.  Based on the rate of radiometric decay
of these elements, one could determine an approximate age of the now
existing universe.

Therefore, if matter in its most minute subatomic form has always
existed, and the void of space has always existed, then it would be
reasonable to state that matter
has always existed, but the universe has a beginning and an end.

I believe this universe will eventually collapse, detonate again and a
new universe will form from that big bang.  I also believe this has
likely been occurring from infinity and will continue to occur into
infinity. 

This is a very simplified example of the "matter has always existed but
universes have a beginning theory".  For those who are up on this stuff
I realize my example is crude, but do I have the gist of the theory?

• Previous message: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (to Till)
• Next message: Nothing from nothing leaves nothing (to Till)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]