The paradox of overunity

[WilbyInebriated]

All things have opposites and cannot exist without them. In reality they are different (yet opposed) aspects of the same phenomena.

assumption.

All particles in physics are now understood to have mirror opposites ("no-things" to match every "thing".

particle theory is nothing more than that... a theory. and where is the higgs boson on which the whole house of cards (theory) rests? this monstrous, yet oh so elusive 'particle'.

One cannot have stars without a void to hang them in. There would be no point of reference.

what evidences do you have to support this?

Accordingly I reasonably believe "ex nihilo, totem fit". From nothing, everything comes".

what evidences do you have to support this?

[SchubertReijiMaigo]

Beware with the Big Bang Theory, it's a Theory not a certitude, Creil effect can explain the Redshift of the stars, so no more expansion or very fast expansion...
PS: Creil effect is a Redshift of the light when she is travelling through some particule and giant cloud of gas in the univers...
The Big Bang Theory does not take into account the Creil Effect...

So it's possible that our conception of univers is in part false or entirely false !!!

And in a philosophic view, where does this matter/energy coming from ? From nothing ? So this an indirect proof you can create something out of nothing (which is prohibited by our current physics). It look like the biblical creation (the original explosion), for this, this is a red flag here...

So, I don't understand what I have missed here !?

[quantumtangles]

assumption.
particle theory is nothing more than that... a theory. and where is the higgs boson on which the whole house of cards (theory) rests? this monstrous, yet oh so elusive 'particle'.
what evidences do you have to support this?
what evidences do you have to support this?

I accept big bang theory and quantum theory are only theories, not facts.

But I stand by the assertion "ex nihilo totem fit" (from nothing everything comes).

If you take a contrary view, you can end up in hot water. If for example you argue that a super-cognate made the universe, this can be seen as representing a logical regression because if all things came from "something" we then have to explain not only the existence of the universe, but also how that something that made the universe came into being as well.

Any theory we may have about what caused the universe to spring into being, whether scientific or philosophical, is ultimately theoretical physics.

Logical regressions (postulating a causam interveniens) are still physics, but not very good physics.

Some physicists (the head of Fermilab and many at Cern) maintain that gravitons (theoretical particles thought to impart the force of gravity) exist in a parallel dimension. A dimension only capable of being observed at very high Tesla values (in high magnetic force fields). So I may well be wrong in saying ex nihilo nihil fit if in reality the nothingness I speak of is instead a parallel 'something' capable of observation only in high Tesla fields.

The whole history of human thought is a history of error. The probability I constitute the first exception is remote. 

When I said "One cannot have stars without a void to hang them in. There would be no point of reference" you justifiably responded:

"What evidence do you have to support this?"

I argue that stars cannot exist unless surrounded by space. I suggest space would not be capable of identification in the absence of stars. I hypothesize they are interdependent. That you cannot have one without the other.

If stars and only stars existed, or if empty space and only empty space existed, how would you know?

You cannot see white ink on white paper. Without a point of reference, without contrast, how would we know?

We know from Einstein that matter and energy are the same things in different forms (E=Mc2). The same stuff in different states. All useful machines are open systems that allow both matter and energy to transcend the system boundaries.

Stars must also have system boundaries. If they did not they would not be able to radiate electromagnetic energy (because everything surrounding them would be homogeneous mass and electromagnetic energy.

So there must be a contrast between any system and its environment (marked by the system boundary). If you remove the void of space from the periphery of a star, it ceases to be a star.

[allcanadian]

@quantumtangles

But I stand by the assertion "ex nihilo totem fit" (from nothing everything comes).

I think part of the problem with this theory relates directly to the term "nothing", if there is nothing in empty space then why does some 30000 metric tons of extraterrestrial dust fall to Earth each year? If there is nothing out there in empty space then how can all of this dust be falling on not only the earth but every astronomical body?.

As well we could relate your statements here to the same line of thought-----

Stars must also have system boundaries. If they did not they would not be able to radiate electromagnetic energy (because everything surrounding them would be homogeneous mass and electromagnetic energy.
So there must be a contrast between any system and its environment (marked by the system boundary). If you remove the void of space from the periphery of a star, it ceases to be a star.

If all stars in our universe not unlike our own sun radiate energy throughout the EM spectrum and we know as a fact that this energy propogates outward in all directions then how can any supposedly empty space have nothing in it when we know it must be saturated with EM energy in transition from one place to another?. I find this very confusing because we know as a fact that at no place can there be "nothing" as it must be full of matter or EM energy in transition yet we still say there is "nothing" there.

As well concerning the known universe, we have been given absolutely no reason to believe that it began somewhere or that it must end somewhere and the fact that matter and energy must be conserved should be our first indication that our theories may be incomplete. As well the farther we look outward the more we see as such the facts we have tell us there is no end to how large things may be. The farther we look inward into matter the more we see thus the facts we have tell us there is no end to how small things can be.
I have a theory that follows the logic that despite the reality of what we know we must continually separate and classify things or create imaginary boundaries so that things make sense otherwise we might be overwhelmed by the facts we know. That is we have no conception of things that are infinitely small or large and things which seem to have no beginning or end, they are simply beyond our understanding however just because we do not fully understand something does not mean it isn't true.
As well from another perspective we could say there is no "something" nor is there "nothing" as our limited understanding of these things relates directly to the distribution of matter, that is the density in a given space. I can have a softball in my hand and everyone would agree there is something there however by simply expanding the volume a few thousand times everyone would agree there is nothing there, this does not change the facts only our perception of them because we believe matter is conserved.
As such I think the theories we have relate directly to the limited understanding we have at this time however as we understand more things I believe these theories may change.
Regards
AC

[WilbyInebriated]

I accept big bang theory and quantum theory are only theories, not facts.

that's smart.

But I stand by the assertion "ex nihilo totem fit" (from nothing everything comes).

at least you realize that is all it is... an assertion with no evidences to support it.

If you take a contrary view, you can end up in hot water. If for example you argue that a super-cognate made the universe, this can be seen as representing a logical regression because if all things came from "something" we then have to explain not only the existence of the universe, but also how that something that made the universe came into being as well.

Any theory we may have about what caused the universe to spring into being, whether scientific or philosophical, is ultimately theoretical physics.

Logical regressions (postulating a causam interveniens) are still physics, but not very good physics.

Some physicists (the head of Fermilab and many at Cern) maintain that gravitons (theoretical particles thought to impart the force of gravity) exist in a parallel dimension. A dimension only capable of being observed at very high Tesla values (in high magnetic force fields). So I may well be wrong in saying ex nihilo nihil fit if in reality the nothingness I speak of is instead a parallel 'something' capable of observation only in high Tesla fields.

The whole history of human thought is a history of error. The probability I constitute the first exception is remote.

yes, theory it is. and postulations are nothing more than that... postulations, not physics.

When I said "One cannot have stars without a void to hang them in. There would be no point of reference" you justifiably responded:

"What evidence do you have to support this?"

I argue that stars cannot exist unless surrounded by space. I suggest space would not be capable of identification in the absence of stars. I hypothesize they are interdependent. That you cannot have one without the other.

If stars and only stars existed, or if empty space and only empty space existed, how would you know?

You cannot see white ink on white paper. Without a point of reference, without contrast, how would we know?

now you are changing your tune... you said "VOID" and now you have altered it to "SPACE". these two term are NOT synonymous. and then you go on to modify "SPACE" into "EMPTY SPACE"... please, a little consistency. you provided no evidences. just more assumption, speculation and conjecture. edit: so, i cannot see white ink on white paper... the ink is still there... and so is the paper. bad analogy.

We know from Einstein that matter and energy are the same things in different forms (E=Mc2). The same stuff in different states. All useful machines are open systems that allow both matter and energy to transcend the system boundaries.

Stars must also have system boundaries. If they did not they would not be able to radiate electromagnetic energy (because everything surrounding them would be homogeneous mass and electromagnetic energy.

So there must be a contrast between any system and its environment (marked by the system boundary). If you remove the void of space from the periphery of a star, it ceases to be a star.

i don't put much faith into einstein either. his claims are almost as extraordinary as the big bang. i understand what you are trying to say. to describe the behavior of anything, you must also describe the behavior of its environment. supposing 'i walk', and you want to describe the action of walking. you can't talk about my walking without also describing the floor, because if you don't describe the floor and the space in which i am moving, all you will be describing is somebody swinging his legs in 'empty' space. so as to describe my walking, you must describe the space in which you find me. you couldn't see me unless you could also see my 'background', what stands behind me.

    * Most discipline is hidden discipline, designed not to liberate but to limit. Do not ask Why? Be cautious with How? Why? leads inexorably to paradox. How? traps you in a universe of cause and effect. Both deny the infinite.
          o The Apocrypha of Arrakis