Office conversation

Actually, everyone's ignoring the Pingster today so no biggy.





Edit: Its in the rules, you must always reply to Ping...

Originally Posted by MeridiaNx

That, of course, is assuming that the 'explosion' was similar to those we currently understand...no reason why it couldn't have operated in a different manner though.

I imagine it could work somehow like a giant magnet being turned on, forcing everything apart. Or it always was on, but the forces keeping the mass in such a small space were suddenly removed. Can't quite remember how magnetic forces interact with gravity/mass/energy etc. but I'm sure there's a link somewhere...

Hence the quote marks

Gravity is in effect an objects magnetisim to another object. The strength of pull being defined by mass, and their relative energy to each other (momentum, even heat plays a part in gravity/magnetisim).

Originally Posted by Ping

Actually, everyone's ignoring the Pingster today so no biggy.





Edit: Its in the rules, you must always reply to Ping...

Sorry ma'am.

Originally Posted by Ping

Actually, everyone's ignoring the Pingster today so no biggy.





Edit: Its in the rules, you must always reply to Ping...

/Waves at Ping

This whole thread started making my head hurt around page three, time to derail into something easier

Originally Posted by Baph

I'm not ignoring anything, I agreed with MiniMatt & said that if I wanted to be pedantic I could still pick faults. As your #2 points out, nothing is a state, therefore, it is something.

Oh yea, and I'm still on the first page (settings allow for 40 posts per page )

Aha true, hadn't thought of different page settings. And it wasn't a dig, just checking it hadn't been missed in favour of the more technical responses

And yes, my 2nd point does suggest that a positive negation model suggests that 'nothing' is 'something' but that, to an extent, would be the end of the discussion as it disproves the underlying concept in your original question. If we accept that model to be true then our lay, everyday understanding of 'nothing' is in fact misguided and the concept does not really exist at all. Hence it could *never* be proved.

So going down that route does provide *an* answer, though of course if you/we/I don't accept that view then there is more to say

Originally Posted by MeridiaNx

So going down that route does provide *an* answer, though of course if you/we/I don't accept that view then there is more to say

At which point I would argue that in the search for knowledge, surely we must attempt to find the "correct" answer. Usually by listing possible answers & ruling them out to do as Sherlock Holmes said

Merely "an answer" isn't sufficient

Originally Posted by Baph

Merely "an answer" isn't sufficient

True, though if you believe its line of reasoning then it *is* the correct answer.

Though of course this is approaching the matter from two completely different angles; one being a semantic discussion of meaning and understanding, linguistic and philosophical; the other being concrete and measurable, a scientific answer.

Never the twain shall meet (or not for another few hundred years perhaps!)

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Ping

Edit: Its in the rules, you must always reply to Ping...

Request timed out.....

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Request timed out.....

I was thinking more "destination unreachable" but I didn't want to be that geeky

Originally Posted by Baph

What is nothing?

the amount of proof that religion exists?