Nothingness cannot exist. Just like there is no true infinity. But you can come really close to nothingness and you can come really close to what for our lives seems infinity.
I never said mass is eternal. Nor do I believe that there is infinite mass. At time 0 of the big bang, everything (including "nothing") existed as a singularity. That you think there was something somehow outside this, even if that something is nothing (but it's something!), is one of those things that comes across as idiotic.
Absolutely! I don't understand where you are going with this. Does this have anything to do with disproving my faith or something?
Um news flash Denny. If you believed the universe always existed (the singularity you suggest); then you believe mass is eternal. Because if it isn't eternal; then it debunks the Big Bang. And nothingness isn't something; it's nothing. It's a void that is without matter, space and time. The singularity concept can't explain this. The expansion needs an area to expand to. Lmao!!!
it has been explained to you quite a few times that physicists don't think the big bang was something from nothing in the sense you mean, few if any think it's likely that our local observable big bang universe constitutes all of what exists, and few think the big bang even necessarily originated from a singularity. yet you chose to ignore those facts and continually rehash the same 'something from nothing singularity' straw men like you just did in the post prior to the one i'm responding to.
I don't believe the universe always existed. What the heck are you arguing? Time didn't exist before the big bang. So there was no "before" - you make absolutely no sense at all. To be eternal, something would have to be older than the universe, which is impossible.
Omg dude listen to yourself. How can matter always exist? That would mean its eternal; not effected by matter, space and time. You figure this out and you just proved Einstein was wrong.
See this is where it contradicts. There is atoms inside you that were part of this singularity. The expansion takes place and the start time of the universe exists. If the matter was there before the start time; then that matter is eternal. So even though the universe started 13 billion years ago; the matter and void in the universe must exist before there was a universe; meaning older than the universe. Hahaha
if you could prove that you'd win a nobel prize. whether actual infinities exist is absolutely an open question. there is currently no logical/mathematical reason they can't or observational evidence to suggest they can't, only bad philosophical arguments used by apologists.
I don't see how it couldn't exist. If you count from 1,2,3 and go on forever; do you reach back to zero?
There was no "before" but you insist on arguing there was. How could there be a "before" when time itself didn't exist (yet)? There is no void in the universe. The matter, time, etc., all started being at the time of the big bang. The singularity concept may be confusing you. You probably picture a tiny dot with "something" that is "nothing" around it, and somehow sitting there for some amount of time, infinite or not. There was no time yet, so it couldn't have been sitting there prior to time 0. If you were inside the singularity at the time of the big bang, it would appear to be expanding from everywhere around you, not from some tiny point.
If you stand at the edge of infinity and stretch out your arm, your arm is now at the edge of infinity.
there can be different sizes of infinity. infinity is not a number - it doesn't behave like one. mathematicians generally deal with the concept using advanced set theory.
You just explained there was a "before". You just explained that the universe had a start time. You said the universe always existed, then you said it's 13+ billion years old in previous posts. Total contradiction. I've read your links and they do not explain it like that one bit. They explain that all matter was in a condensed singularity. The moment expansion took place, it began the "Matter, Space and Time" concept. Also, it explains that the universe is still expanding and eventually will expand enough to a nothingness. Meaning, the polar connection of matter will be so far apart that eventually there will be nothing of any true consistency.
You can count from 0 to infinity: 1, 2, 3, 4 ... You can count from 0 to infinity by 2: 2, 4, 6, 8 ... The first infinity has more numbers in it, eh? If you consider them both to be sets.
there might not have been a "before" relative to our local spacetime, but that doesn't mean there couldn't have been something external to the big bang that caused it.
You just aren't getting it. I never said there was a before. I said there is no concept of "before" because there was no "time" at all. The universe is indeed 13.7 billion years old (certainly no younger). There was no "before" 13.7B years ago. Nobody knows the end of the universe. The theory you describe is the big rip, and is one of many suggested. However you describe "nothing" as being something of no "true consistency" though there would still be scattered photons and particles produced by quantum fluctuation.
your point is valid but the wording of your example is bad - infinity is not a number, you can't count to it. yes there can be infinite subsets of infinite sets. the set containing 'all natural numbers' is an infinite set. the set containing 'all natural numbers that are even' is an infinite subset of the infinite set of natural numbers.
Counting to infinity means you keep counting forever. You obviously never get there since infinity isn't a number.
