Duality of Nothing: Triality of Existence

This was submitted as a post in an other thread and I thought it was so good that it needed its own thread. Enjoy

Dichotomous Nothing, Trichotomous Existence

The "universe" as it is called, that which means one experience or one expression (or one line of poetry?), I think more properly should be referred to as the omni-verse, expressions and experiences of Eternity.

Now, I don't want people to start calling it the omni-verse, it is only being stated to think for the self and realize what Existence is being called and how Existence is being handled.

It is common and all most standard now days to hear scientists say that the universe was created at the big initation of the bang, lol, the "big bang". There is a problem preceding this event, what Existed before it?

Firstly, "nothing" is non existent, it is only a "thing" that can Exist (no-thing, no thing), thus how can no thing Exist before this "big bang". Secondly, we are lead to believe that the uni-verse is a big bubble that somewhere ends and is expanding at faster than the velocity of light. Here we run in to another problem, what is Existing outside of this bubble? Is it that nothingness again?

Explanation: Nothing can and can not be known; only half way understood. Nothing is dichotomous: Existing as an expression so that we may know never ending Existence, and not Existing so that we may know its expression.

Substitute the word universe in for "Existence" in the above definition and things may become even more clear.

Thirdly, light is Existing as an immeasurable every whereness, omni-directionally and eternally. How can light not travel and/or travel faster than its self if it is all ready Existing immeasurably every where? There is no speed of light because speed is a measurement derived from "time", and "time" does not Exist "universally" because there was no beginning, being that nothing can not Exist.

A shadow of light is darkness, a shadow of dark is light, light is every where and light is every thing.

Just as the temperature of "cold" is only a lesser degree of heat, and there can never be an absolute zero because heat is eternal. A lesser degree of light is a shadow, but never can there be absolute darkness because light is eternal. In essence we are the warmth of the light.

Nothing is non existent, every thing Exists. Have fun with the dichotomy of nothing...

In Reference To Calling Every Thing "One":

When every thing is connected it is not one-thing because one-thing is a measurable unit, when everything is connected it becomes no-thing, an immeasurable connectedness. It is an eternal connectedness that can not be measured. There are limits within the limitless and the grand picture is a formless abyss, with forms making it up, and there is no expansion occuring: Existence is eternally every where that is no where.

We are thing, no-thing, and every thing experiencing its self: the trichotomy of Existence.

Please volunteer your comments

Have a ravishing experience while on ATS and enjoy the rest of this lovely day

[edit on 24-3-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
the uni-verse is a big bubble that somewhere ends and is expanding at faster than the velocity of light. Here we run in to another problem, what is Existing outside of this bubble? Is it that nothingness again?

You're acting as if this "nothing" has to occupy space or have some attribute. Nothing is simply the absence of something just like we say that something is dry because water is absent from it. Dark is simply the absence of light. The concept of beyond the universe doesn't really make sense. The Universe is all inclusive to include anything in existence. There is not such thing as the edge of the Universe. You could say that there's a lot of space without any stars or planets in it, but once you stepped into that area you would find that you were still in the Universe since you are part of the Universe.

Who says that the Universe is expanding anyways? Things can move further away from us without the expansion of the Universe. Here on Earth you can move away from an object without the expansion of the Earth, and I challenge you to find the end of the Earth.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
There is no speed of light because speed is a measurement derived from "time", and "time" does not Exist "universally"

Time does exist, but it's just your personal time. It's how you personally perceive higher dimensions. Saying that light has no speed is just silly. We all know what the speed of light is. It's how fast light moves away from you. Light is a physical substance that is affected by gravity (or the warping of space-time) and yes it's speed can be measured. It doesn't arrive at it's destination instantaneously.

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Nothing is non existent, every thing Exists. Have fun with the dichotomy of nothing...

That's just psycho-babble, Non-sense. (Yes, the absence of sense and logic) This is the Science forum which means you have to do more than mumble some sort of elusive idea to prove a point.

[edit on 10-4-2007 by dbates]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
It is common and all most standard now days to hear scientists say that the universe was created at the big initation of the bang, lol, the "big bang". There is a problem preceding this event, what Existed before it?

How about we don't have a clue?

Originally posted by dbates
You're acting as if this "nothing" has to occupy space or have some attribute. Nothing is simply the absence of something just like we say that something is dry because water is absent from it.

The absence of something. But in order for something to be absent, it has to be absent from something else. You can't simply have "nothing", because in order for that nothing too be nothing, it has to be observed. Human language does not do the word "nothing" justice.

It is the "there is nothing after death" hypothesis that keeps people within this bubble of believing "nothing" is possible, because if the truth were known reality itself is conscious, and that death is merely a transition of your own consciousness, then the word "nothing" would take on a different meaning entirely.

Originally posted by dbates
The concept of beyond the universe doesn't really make sense. The Universe is all inclusive to include anything in existence. There is not such thing as the edge of the Universe.

Then what was the Big Bang, and why did it happen. If the universe is all inclusive, then there should have been no need for a big bang at all. I think you've unintentionally got yourself into a paradox without realising it lol.

Originally posted by dbates
Who says that the Universe is expanding anyways? Things can move further away from us without the expansion of the Universe...and I challenge you to find the end of the Earth.

Science says the universe is expanding (not that i agree with that statement). As for the end of the earth...how about when i dream...or when 2012 comes about

Originally posted by dbates
Time does exist, but it's just your personal time. It's how you personally perceive higher dimensions. Saying that light has no speed is just silly. We all know what the speed of light is. It's how fast light moves away from you. Light is a physical substance that is affected by gravity (or the warping of space-time) and yes it's speed can be measured. It doesn't arrive at it's destination instantaneously.

Again, you've made yourself a paradox. You say time exists, but that "its just your personal time".. so your saying human time is universal, that we are the centre of the universe? I think we know that is not the case lol.

You misunderstood what the OP was saying about light. Light only appears to have speed to us because we are immersed within it, and we are moving through it, thus two spatial points can be discerned, thus measured/speed of "light" observed. Light itself is what you would call the "1st dimension", although i really hate using that term for it.

Space-time being curved/warping of space time is one of the greatest errors of science, ever. If a blackhole has infinite mass, then why do we see jets of plasma being ejected from the poles of some blackholes..

"Our hopes and expectations, Blackholes and Revelations" - Muse, Starlight

When scientist say "the universe is expanding" they mean the objects that we can see are all moving away from each other. I guess I'm asking a larger question, that being is the universe simply what we see?

Originally posted by dbates
When scientist say "the universe is expanding" they mean the objects that we can see are all moving away from each other. I guess I'm asking a larger question, that being is the universe simply what we see?

dbates, hello again.

I think shrunkensimon did a really good job at replying, so I'll leave it at that, and thank you SS.

As for the expansion of the "universe". Every thing is eternally in motion, how can we measure so called "expansion" if there is no bubble ( no point of reference)? Objects are simply moving. Most of these ideas come from people who still think the milky way/Earth is the center of the Existence.

Now I understand what scientists are attempting to put forth with this definition, but I believe we as a species need to start being responsible with every single word we choose to use, i.e. expansion.

Some scientists and physicists do actually believe that the "universe" is an expanding bubble. Objects are not all moving away from each other, many objects collide, including galaxies.

What has really happened here on Earth is the following: Many of the religious elites are attempting to gain control of scientific knowledge once again and conform it to their "God" image. They know that without God they have no power. That is why we have the "big bang" and that is why we have an "expanding universe" theory. It's just too hard for people to accept that every thing has always been. There was no creation of reality and no creation of Existence.

Thank you for the conversing.

I apologize for a tone of voice I took on with you in the thread "why time does NOT exist!"

p.s. if black holes had infinite mass then they would encompass every thing. Can there be an infinite within an infinite? No. not as far as Existence is concerned. Existence (universe) is infinitey massive, the mass of the never ending "universe", so no thing within it, can of its self, contain infinite mass

[edit on 11-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
As for the expansion of the "universe". Every thing is eternally in motion, how can we measure so called "expansion" if there is no bubble ( no point of reference)? Objects are simply moving. Most of these ideas come from people who still think the milky way/Earth is the center of the Existence.

Then why are they all moving AWAY from us?

Explain the Backround radiation? How would that fit in if there wasn't a big bang?
And Hubble's Law?

[edit on 11-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by DarkSide

Then why are they all moving AWAY from us?

Are they? Who said that? I heard that we'll be colliding with Andromeda in a few billion years

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal

Originally posted by DarkSide

Then why are they all moving AWAY from us?

Are they? Who said that? I heard that we'll be colliding with Andromeda in a few billion years

Edwin Hubble, Vesto Slipher... They used the doppler effect to see at what speed the other galaxies were moving, and they all show a Redshift, meaning they're moving AWAY from us.

All away from a center, and yes Andromeda can still collide with us safely

[edit on 11-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Originally posted by DarkSide

Edwin Hubble, Vesto Slipher... They used the doppler effect to see at what speed the other galaxies were moving, and they all show a Redshift, meaning they're moving AWAY from us.

Can you explain this redshift?

All away from a center, and yes Andromeda can still collide with us safely

Ah, the center of the universe, what I term the God effect.

There is no center to Existence once "Nothing" is entirely understood. Read the O.P. once more and see if it makes sense. I know it looks like a whole bunch fancy shmancy, but it's also very important to comprehend and it is dealt with very seriously

[edit on 11-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Can you explain this redshift?

From a book I own, I think it's properly explained and I certainly couldn't explain it better :p

"The simplest way of calculating the speed of distant objects is to analyze the change of sound or light they emit, otherwise known as the Doppler effect. Cars make this sound as they pass us on the highway. Police use the Doppler effect to calculate your speed; they flash a laser beam onto your car, which reflects back to the police car. By analyzing the shift in frequency of the laser light, the police can calculate your velocity.

If a star, for example, is moving torward you, the light waves it emits are squeezed like an accordeon. As a result, its wavelenght gets shorter. A yellow star will appear slightly bluish (because the color blue has a shorter wavelenght than yellow). Similarly, if a star is moving away from you, its light waves are stretched, giving it a longer wavelenght, so that a yellow star appears slightly reddish. The greater the distortion, the greater the velocity of the star. Thus if we know the shift in frequency of starlight, we can determine the star's speed"

From "Parallel Worlds", Michio Kaku.

Ah, the center of the universe, what I term the God effect.
There is no center to Existence once "Nothing" is entirely understood. Read the O.P. once more and see if it makes sense. I know it looks like a whole bunch fancy shmancy, but it's also very important to comprehend and it is dealt with very seriously

[edit on 11-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

There is a center. All the matter is moving away from the same point, the center, confirmed by numerous instruments.

Originally posted by DarkSide

"The simplest way of calculating the speed of distant objects is to analyze the change of sound or light they emit, otherwise known as the Doppler effect. Cars make this sound as they pass us on the highway. Police use the Doppler effect to calculate your speed; they flash a laser beam onto your car, which reflects back to the police car. By analyzing the shift in frequency of the laser light, the police can calculate your velocity.

Okay, but how does this explain a big bang? It is used to analyze, measure, and calculate the "speed" of stars relative to the speed of the telescope in non local space.

If a star, for example, is moving torward you, the light waves it emits are squeezed like an accordeon.

Why are they squeezed when moving towards us?

Stars are circular, thus they emit all forms of light in a 360 degree fashion, therefore every star's light throughout the eternity of Existence should be Existing every where (there are an unlimited amount of stars). Now how do they take one star and capture the light that it is emitting without that light being interfered with by other stars that are emitting light? I'm not saying that their method is wrong, I'm just curious as to how other star's light does not interfere? Stars do not emit light in a single line.

Why do you think light has waves? Could it be cause and effect that every thing is vibration, light, and degrees of temperature? Motion is eternal, vibration is motion. Now, how can light waves be squeezed like an accordeon if they are not traveling from the star in a line, but rather omnidirectionally? This is all based on point of reference. Perhaps it is the scientists, instruments, and their understanding of Existence that is flawed? I think methods and systems of belief about how Existence "came to be" should be revised before trying to explain Existence, otherwise we're left with a biased answer.

As a result, its wavelength gets shorter. A yellow star will appear slightly bluish (because the color blue has a shorter wavelenght than yellow).

Agreed, I understand the workings of light. (for future reference)

Similarly, if a star is moving away from you, its light waves are stretched, giving it a longer wavelenght, so that a yellow star appears slightly reddish. The greater the distortion, the greater the velocity of the star. Thus if we know the shift in frequency of starlight, we can determine the star's speed"

So "universally" they are picking up this redshift? They've looked in every direction with the hubble telescope and/or other telescopes such as the Chanda x-ray, etc. to know this? I find it hard to believe that they have measured every speck of the sky in every direction. It takes many months, and sometimes upwards of a year or more just to capture an area the size of a pinhead. So, think about how long that would take!

And why are they always so sure of how old the "universe" is, then they decide to change their minds again? Have you noticed that?

And why can't they see the "end". There would be an edge or a beginning point to be witnessed if there was truly a big bang that occured some 13-15 billion years ago. (imo, the earth could be that old) We'd simply have to look back 15 billion light years and we'd end up seeing "nothing"... but wait, that can't happen! Oh no, the paradox of creation and the eternity of Existence.

From "Parallel Worlds", Michio Kaku.

I personally do not like Michio Kaku's ideas. He's another one of the "multi-dimensional" scientists.

There is a center. All the matter is moving away from the same point, the center, confirmed by numerous instruments.

This center is created, imho so that "Godly" scientists can say that this is where "God" created the universe.

Please see the definition of Nothing as to why there is no center.

The Existence, or universe, is eternal. Eternity is not only a measure of time, it is a definition of space as well. Are not time and space interrelated? Think about that and tell me where you get.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can build an instrument that detects the point at which God created the universe while we can not solve the aids epidemic. Think about it.

In conclusion: Some stars and/or distant galaxies have been seen to be moving away from us, some. Where does this constitute a big bang?

Thank you for retrieving those quotes for me Appreciated! ♥

[edit on 11-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
Okay, but how does this explain a big bang? It is used to analyze, measure, and calculate the "speed" of stars relative to the speed of the telescope in non local space.

Because the galaxies are all moving away from the same central point, not moving in random directions (if not lots would be blueshift, some slightly red, etc). Also the further away the galaxy is, the greater it's redshift is, so the faster they're moving away from us.

Why are they squeezed when moving towards us?

Because the galaxies are not really moving apart, rather space is expanding. And when photons are traveling through expanding space their "stretched" (wavelenght being increased) Of course in the case of approaching galaxies the opposite happens.

Stars are circular, thus they emit all forms of light in a 360 degree fashion, therefore every star's light throughout the eternity of Existence should be Existing every where (there are an unlimited amount of stars).

No, if that was the case, the whole universe would be flooded in light and there would be no darkness. 'See Olbers Paradox)

Why do you think light has waves? Could it be cause and effect that every thing is vibration, light, and degrees of temperature?

Light is one form of EM Radiation, which are waves.

So "universally" they are picking up this redshift? They've looked in every direction with the hubble telescope and/or other telescopes such as the Chanda x-ray, etc. to know this? I find it hard to believe that they have measured every speck of the sky in every direction. It takes many months, and sometimes upwards of a year or more just to capture an area the size of a pinhead. So, think about how long that would take!

Because all the light that's reaching Earth from other galaxies is redshifted. No need to analyze every star of a galaxy.

And why are they always so sure of how old the "universe" is, then they decide to change their minds again? Have you noticed that?

We don't know how old it is exaclty, there are only estimates (~13/15 bill yrs)

And why can't they see the "end". There would be an edge or a beginning point to be witnessed if there was truly a big bang that occured some 13-15 billion years ago. (imo, the earth could be that old) We'd simply have to look back 15 billion light years and we'd end up seeing "nothing"... but wait, that can't happen! Oh no, the paradox of creation and the eternity of Existence.

Because the light from the places we can't see hasn't reached us yet. It is possible that there is more than we can see.

I personally do not like Michio Kaku's ideas. He's another one of the "multi-dimensional" scientists.

The idea of other dimensions is hypothetical, but it's good to keep every possibility open. Which doesn't make his other reasoning untrue.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can build an instrument that detects the point at which God created the universe while we can not solve the aids epidemic. Think about it.

What's aids got to do with it? The instruments have been built, since before AIDS was even known about...

In conclusion: Some stars and/or distant galaxies have been seen to be moving away from us, some. Where does this constitute a big bang?

Not some, all. Think of a balloon, draw little galaxies on it's surface, and inflate it.

Quick response. I have some things to take care of.

If every thing is moving from the same central point, then we should be seeing blue shift and redshift, and not only redshift. That is, unless we are the center of the universe and every thing is moving away from only us, and that would be quite Godly and narcissistic of us.

Will reply to the above responses later. Thanks

[edit on 11-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

Originally posted by DarkSide

Not some, all. Think of a balloon, draw little galaxies on it's surface, and inflate it.

Ah, so you think that there was a big bang that initiated from Nothing, a Nothing that doesn't Exist. So what is outside of this balloon? I see where we are going wrong here.

The only reason this balloon analogy can be used is because of the Eternity of Existence allowing it to be used.

I think re-reading the O.P. and the definition(s) of Nothing would help our conversation move forward immensely. There's no bubble universe until someone can answer how Nothing Exists, and then realize that Nothing Existing is exactly that, and that can and cannot be because of the duality of Nothing.

So since you are a proponent of the "balloon" theory, who blew air in to the balloon to inflate it? And what factory created its rubber? Is it trademarked "of God"?

No, if that was the case, the whole universe would be flooded in light and there would be no darkness. 'See Olbers Paradox)

That is the case. Please read the O.P. Shadow (darkness) is only a lesser degree of light, and light is only a lesser degree of shadow (darkness). Light and dark are not to be viewed as separate, they are creating each other and they are every thing. They are a measurable degree, not 2 separate entities.

Since Nothing, or zero, does not Exist, there is never an absolute darkness, and there is never an absolute zero of temperature either. Warmth is a lesser degree of cold and cold is a lesser degree of warmth. It is a scale for measuring temperature, but this scale can never cease to Exist because only Nothing does

[edit on 11-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

If every thing is moving from the same central point, then we should be seeing blue shift and redshift, and not only redshift.

Not at all, think of the balloon, galaxies that are close together would be still moving apart (altough in a relatively similar direction, so they would be moving apart slowly (slight redshift), the galaxies on the other side of the balloon would be moving apart in the opposite direction (great redshift)

That is, unless we are the center of the universe and every thing is moving away from only us, and that would be quite Godly and narcissistic of us

No we are moving too

Ah, so you think that there was a big bang that initiated from Nothing, a Nothing that doesn't Exist.

Who said there was nothing before the big bang?

So what is outside of this balloon?So since you are a proponent of the "balloon" theory, who blew air in to the balloon to inflate it? And what factory created its rubber?

We can only guess

Originally posted by DarkSide

We can only guess

No, we can know. To propose the balloon is to propose the creator. To propose the balloon is to propose the Nothingness outside of the balloon "universe". Nothing is Nothing, I hope you come to see this I must go eat, having Chinese. Thank you for the chat Enjoy your day. I'll be back in a few hours.

I have to say, with all pride aside, I laugh at such philosophies

[edit on 11-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]

That is the case. Please read the O.P. Shadow (darkness) is only a lesser degree of light, and light is only a lesser degree of shadow (darkness). Light and dark are not to be viewed as separate, they are creating each other and they are every thing. They are a measurable degree, not 2 separate entities.

It is not, if there were an infinite amount of stars, radiating an infinite amount of light, then an infinite amount of light would be reaching the earth from every angle, and the sky would be permanently lit up like a 1000 suns, and i'm not speaking about the heat

Aslo if the universe was infinite with an infinite amount of stars, and if gravity is always attractive why aren't stars torn apart?

No, we can know. To propose the balloon is to propose the creator.

No it isn't. The fact that we don't know what was before the big bang, apart from hypothesis, doesn't mean god did it.






[edit on 11-4-2007 by DarkSide]

Interesting theory, but I take it you haven't read any of Neil DeGrasse Tyson's wonderful books? research.amnh.org...

Okay, but how does this explain a big bang? It is used to analyze, measure, and calculate the "speed" of stars relative to the speed of the telescope in non local space.

Or read Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History Of Time." Seriously. We can give you brief answers, but the details are so much more interesting and imaginative than we can explain here.

Again, the redshift is being used to calculate this.

Why are they squeezed when moving towards us?

This is basic physics and is a known phenomina. They're actually not being "squeezed" but what happens is that you're encountering them more quickly than you would if you were moving away from them. We see this as being "squeezed" although we know that there is no such compression going on.

Einstein's theory of relativity explains this phenomina (no, not the E=MC2 one.) www.pbs.org...

Stars are circular, thus they emit all forms of light in a 360 degree fashion, therefore every star's light throughout the eternity of Existence should be Existing every where (there are an unlimited amount of stars).

It isn't. It doesn't, as the Inverse Square Law explains. At some point you have a lot of space and only one or two photons that covers it. That's why things disappear in the distance. The inverse-square law

Why do you think light has waves?

This has been known since the 1600's (European science). Robert Hooke published a book on it. Thomas Young was the first of many to win a Nobel Prize for experimental work that showed light was a wave.
nobelprize.org...

...although it's really more properly a wavicle or wave front.

So "universally" they are picking up this redshift? They've looked in every direction with the hubble telescope and/or other telescopes such as the Chanda x-ray, etc. to know this?

Yes, redshifts, blueshifts, lateral motion.

I find it hard to believe that they have measured every speck of the sky in every direction. It takes many months, and sometimes upwards of a year or more just to capture an area the size of a pinhead. So, think about how long that would take!

Three things you're not taking into account... computer assistance on this, photography, and the amount of time that astronomers have been studying the sky.

Here's a PBS site with some relatively (relative to college) simple math that goes over this:
www.pbs.org...

And why are they always so sure of how old the "universe" is, then they decide to change their minds again? Have you noticed that?

Better instruments means they get better measurements. You wouldn't want them to stick by an old (bad) measurement, would you?

And why can't they see the "end". There would be an edge or a beginning point to be witnessed if there was truly a big bang that occured some 13-15 billion years ago.

Because it's all around us. There's not an 'edge'.
www.npr.org...

(imo, the earth could be that old)

Nope. It'd show in the rocks if it was that old. 4.5 billion years (subject to adjusting if we get better instruments.)

This center is created, imho so that "Godly" scientists can say that this is where "God" created the universe.

I think you may find that scientists don't ever mention a deity or any deities in their theories. In fact, there's no "proof test" (beyond 'this is my book of religion and it names the CORRECT deity!') that any deity had a hand involved or what the deity is.

The Existence, or universe, is eternal. Eternity is not only a measure of time, it is a definition of space as well. Are not time and space interrelated? Think about that and tell me where you get.

Then you get into the question of 'what experiments do you do that show it's eternal'... and that's actually already been covered (and argued) by Hawking and others. So you'd have to overcome their data and observations and experiments to show why your concept is right and theirs is wrong.

Believe me, the "I thought about it and it just makes sense" defense doesn't work here.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can build an instrument that detects the point at which God created the universe while we can not solve the aids epidemic. Think about it.

Well, other than there's no proof of a deity, it's a lot easier to deal with physics than it is with human behavior. Epidemic patterns depend on the behavior of living creatures, and none of them (or us) is as predictable as the path of a photon.

Originally posted by DarkSide

It is not, if there were an infinite amount of stars, radiating an infinite amount of light, then an infinite amount of light would be reaching the earth from every angle, and the sky would be permanently lit up like a 1000 suns, and i'm not speaking about the heat

Cease thinking of light as only "bright". Light comes in many degrees and forms, even the shadow is a lesser degree of light, only existing because light casts it, and we know the brightness of light because of its lesser degree, the shadow, and we know the shadow because of its lesser degree, the light. But they are not 2 separate entities. There is no division, all is interconnected. If you want a so called "unified" field theory then you have to accept it and stop dividing it and telling every one who comes here to open you up to it, that it is wrong. Don't turn science in to a religion. Einstein wasn't Jesus, neither is Stephen, nor is Kaku. Nothing is ever stagnant, every thing is always changing, nothing is untouchable, and nothing is touchable, thus everything is touchable (because we now know what nothing is), eternity is an interconnection of every thing with no space of "Nothingness" Existing to ever separate it or end it. Nothing can not Exist, it is Nothing.

Existence is an immeasurable interconnection. Things of the Existence can be measured, but there are no isolated systems, so stop isolating the Earth consciousness from the eternal.

Aslo if the universe was infinite with an infinite amount of stars, and if gravity is always attractive why aren't stars torn apart?

Gravity is eternal (in space and "time), and in differing degrees, all this caused by relative points of reference, that are infinite, too. Gravity is and is not always attractive. Everything is and is not, so is Nothing.

No, we can know. To propose the balloon is to propose the creator.

No it isn't. The fact that we don't know what was before the big bang, apart from hypothesis, doesn't mean god did it.

The thought that there needs to be a big bang comes from the mind set of creationism.

Nothing ceases Existing, and Nothing Exists

[edit on 12-4-2007 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]