Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
I developed “FTOE “after reading Prof. Stephen Hawking's “A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME ". FTOE is Fundamental Theory Of
Existence.
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
1. Zero cannot exist as denominator.
2. Anything cannot be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything cannot be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
4. Existence of anything cannot be infinite.
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
6. There are finite absolute laws.
7. Velocity of light is relative.
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
9.Time Travel is impossible.
10.Tan 90 cannot exist.
11. God(s) cannot exist.
Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
What is infinite? Infinite = Not finite. If any number is finite then Infinite cannot be a number and, use of INFINITE as
a number in LIMITS/Mathematics is one of the biggest mistake ever. Mathematicians and students all over the World use
INFINITE as a number and draw conclusions such as “It is Not Definted/Undefined "... Sadly this is wrong. Numbers being
infinite is a property of number and, no number can ever equal INFINITY... INFINITY is not a number. Any number, however
large or small is always finite. So, no number is ever infinite. Numbers are infinite. Numbers being infinite is one of
the properties of the numbers. Numbers don't have physical existence. Undefined or Not defined means it has no definite
solution. When you divide any number with zero it can never be said as Undefined. When you place an Apple on the table and
eat it then you can say there is no Apple on the table. That is... There is nothing on the table! Zero = Nothing. If Zero
is Mathematics and, Nothing is English and, Nothingness is Physics then how can I say... THEY ARE CONNECTED! Mathematics
is some form of Truth or Law. Also English and Physics are some forms of Truth and Laws. The M, E and, P words are
different names but they are all truths or laws governing the World or Universe. So “nothing” is not just an M or E or P
word, it is all! When you say (Apple/Zero) then you mean Apple destroyed into Zero. How? 1/2 means 1 cut into 2. So, 1/0
means 1 cut into 0. If 1 Apple can be cut into 0 or if 0 can give birth to 1 Apple then 1/0 has an answer but, it is not
possible. The answer to 1/0 is not Undefined, it is Impossible. So, 1/0 is impossible. It is said that 0/0 is
indeterminate... Is it so? How? Why not? No, it is not indeterminate. And, why is it so? Because, when you divide with
anything then the denominator is given the first preference... it is not just preference, it is the truth or common sense
or logic. Anything divided by 0 is said to be 0. And, it is true because 0 in the numerator means you have nothing to
divide. So, you are not given the Apple in the first place. How can you eat an Apple if you don't have any? So, what is
0/0 then? When you are dividing some number with another number then the number that acts as the denominator is the first
thing that is important, not the other way around. So, when you are asked to divide an Apple into two parts you don't
say... here... take this two Apples! It is, two halves of the 1 Apple. So, division of an Apple into zero parts is
impossible. And, 0/0 doesn't mean you have nothing to divide, it means you can't divide anything (even 0) into 0 parts.
When you say 0/0, there are no two things such as... First thing: 0 in the numerator meaning “Nothing to divide "...
Second thing: 0 in the denominator meaning “Divide the numerator into nothing ". The “Second thing “is the correct answer.
Why? Because, 1/2 doesn't mean 1/2 = 1! It means 1/2 = 0.5. So, the denominator is the first thing that is to be used.
Therefore...
1. Zero cannot exist as denominator.
The fact that the numerator cannot be divided into zero parts means anything that exists cannot be destroyed into
nothingness. And the fact that sum of zeroes gives us zero alone means anything that does not exist cannot be given
existence out of nothingness.
Therefore...
2. Anything cannot be created out of nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
3. Anything cannot be destroyed into nothingness, only change of form is possible and change is everywhere.
Once again we need to know what infinite means. What does infinite mean? Infinite means not finite and not finite means
Unlimited. By now we know that creation and destruction are Impossible. If creation is impossible then there is no other way new things can add up to the World that already exists. If new things can not add up to the World then there is no way anything that exists in this World can be infinite. Space cannot be infinite. Anything that has physical existence can't be infinite. Space has physical existence. Numbers don't have physical existence. The word Apple doesn't have physical existence but the edible Apple in your hand has physical existence and the edible Apples in your hands can't be infinite. Also, Time is never Absolute, it is always Relative and, it has no physical existence. Time is a measure of Change and sometimes Change is a turn of events, events can be numbered to an extent and, existence of more than one event of the same part of World or Universe is impossible. So, Time can never be infinite.
Therefore...
4. Existence of anything cannot be infinite.
Numbers are infinite but number of apples (existence) cannot be infinite. Now, we know that creation and destruction are impossible and we also know that the existence of anything cannot be infinite. We are part of the world we live in. In our world existence of anything cannot be infinite. That is Space, Mass, Energy, Density, Gravity, Force, etc.; cannot be infinite. Also, in our World creation and destruction are impossible. Creation is impossible means no new things can add up to the World that already exists and it also means what already exists cannot come out of creation. Creation is impossible, creation is completely ruled out. We also know that destruction of the World is impossible. Space is timeless.
Therefore...
5. There is no beginning and an end to the existence of the World.
According to the fourth postulate space cannot be infinite and according to the fifth postulate space is timeless. We know what an equation means. An equation is a law of equity. If creation and destruction are possible then all laws have to fail. In a World where creation and destruction are possible laws cannot exist, only Chaos exists. We know what infinity means. Infinity means not finite and it means infinity is something that is unlimited, something that is ever increasing. Positive infinity is ever increasing and negative infinity is ever decreasing. Infinity means unlimited and it can not be used in equations. If creation is possible, equations will fail.
Therefore...
6. There are finite absolute laws.
There is a small problem with the sixth postulate and it is... If you take F=ma or E=mc2(c square) or such similar equations then these type of Absolute laws are finite indeed. But if you consider that a single couple, Mother and Father who can live forever and can give birth to unlimited/infinite children and if you consider each child's Individuality/brain-pattern as a different Absolute law then Absolute laws are infinite. It is clear that every child from same Parents is different/never-the-same and different parents from Different races, species, families too can give birth to unique offsprings and life is unlimited when it comes to small variations. It is true that unlimited life has something in common/same, something similar and something different but it is true that Life comes in unlimited variations.
Where Albert Einstein went wrong... Proof of Velocity of Light being Relative to Gravity.
Albert Einstein: Special Relativity Theory
1. The laws of physics are the same in all inertial (=non-
accelerating) reference frames, and
2. The speed of light in free space is constant.
General Theory of Relativity
Clocks which are far from massive bodies (or at higher gravitational
potentials) run faster, and clocks close to massive bodies (or at
lower gravitational potentials) run slower. This is because
gravitational time dilation is manifested in accelerated frames of
reference or, by virtue of the equivalence principle, in the
gravitational field of massive objects.
Albert Einstein in his Special Theory of Relativity said that Velocity of Light is Constant in Free Space. That is, Velocity of Light is Constant on the Surface of the Earth or on the Surface of the Moon. But, it's not so. I beg to differ on it and here is my explanation. Ordinary body is measured in terms of MASS. Total Energy is equal to the Sum of Kinetic Energy and Potential Energy. For ordinary body-Gravity is Directly Proportional to Change in Velocity per Time. Velocity of Light is constant when it is measured on the surface of the Earth i.e.; it's Constant where ever there is No Considerable Change in Gravity. What happens when the Velocity of the Same Light (Same Source, Same Conditions - Except Gravity) is measured on the Surface of the Earth and on the Surface of the Moon? According to Albert Einstein it must be
Constant. But, I beg to differ. It's not constant and here is why?!
For ordinary body we have “MASS " but when it comes to LIGHT we have “ENERGY/MASS” since Energy = Product of Mass and
Velocity Square. E=m c (square).
P.E=mgh
P.E is Directly Proportional to mgh
m mass
g gravity
h height or distance
P.E/m is proportional to gh
where h=vt
P.E/mvt proportional to g
For ordinary body
g is proportional to v/t
For Light
g is proportional to E/mvt, since Light is a form of energy with mass
Let's take t (Time) as constant?! On different places such as
Surface of the Earth and, Surface of the Moon... Gravity is
different... If Gravity is different Changes are different and Change
is a measure of Time. So, Time is not constant or same on different
places such as Earth and Moon. But, it doesn't differ by much.
So when it's ordinary body...
Gravity is directly proportional to Change in Velocity.
But, when we take Light into account...
1. Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity [ Gravity is
proportional to E/mv i.e.; Change in Gravity leads to Change in
Velocity of Light]. As gravity increases velocity of light decreases
and when gravity is lesser then the velocity of light is more when
compared to a location where gravity is more...
So, Velocity of Light on Earth is lesser than Velocity of Light on
Moon.
For ordinary body
Acceleration is directly proportional to Velocity (When Gravity
increases Velocity of a free falling object increases... and, when it
comes to Light
Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity... So, as Gravity
increases Velocity of Light decreases. Why? Because, Light is a
product of both Energy and Mass unlike an ordinary body which is
a product of Mass alone.
So, as Gravity increases Velocity of Light decreases.
So velocity of Light is more in space (where there is little gravity)
and on the Moon (where the Gravity is lesser than that on the
Earth) when compared to Velocity of Light on Earth.
Also in Space
P.E = Gm1m2/r
and
g = Gm/r square
And, this results in
So when it's ordinary body...
Gravity is directly proportional to Change in Velocity.
But, when we take Light into account...
1. Gravity is inversely proportional to Velocity [ Gravity is
proportional to E/mv i.e.; Change in Gravity leads to Change in
Velocity of Light].
When we take E/m into consideration...
g is inversely proportional to v.
Here is a better explanation...
E = m c square
So, for light
g t = E/mc
g t is inversely proportional to c
and, for ordinary body (ordinary body in a sense mass is taken into
consideration unlike mass and energy for light)
For a Body of mass m
g t = v
g t is directly proportional to v
For any body with Energy/Mass
g t = E/mv
g t is inversely proportional to v
According to Albert Einstein's
Special Theory Of Relativity... Velocity of light is constant in free
space
and, According to General Theory Of Relativity... it is relative
when there is difference in gravity.
That is... When Clocks run slower (When Time is relatively lower)
i.e.; when Gravity is more Velocity of light is lesser... similarly it is
more when gravity is lesser.
g t = E/mc
That is... gt inversely proportional to c. According to Albert
Einstein Velocity of light depends upon Gravity-Time but not
Relativistic Mass. Therefore, it is same/constant on a moving Train
and on Land. Where as it varies where there is change in Gravity-
Time.
Actually Light has RELATIVISTIC MASS... And, that is why I say
it varies with Gravity.
For a Body of mass m
g t = v
g t is directly proportional to v
Light...
E = m c square
So, for light
g t = E/mc
g t is inversely proportional to c
Therefore, velocity of light is relative not just because of General
Theory Of Relativity but also due to the fact that light has
relativistic mass and anything with greater E/m value than light can
travel faster than light. Velocity of light is relative because of
Gravity-Time (Clocks running faster or slower) and also because
Gravity attracts light (Relativistic mass).
Why is it that the velocity of light is same on both the Train and on
Land?
The reason is...
When you carry an Apple with you on a moving train then the
Apple has the train's velocity and it has no velocity on land.
And, when you carry light!
Carry light?
When you have a source of light on a train and on land velocity of
light is observed to be one and the same and, it is because we don't
carry light, we don't get hold of light, we carry light source but not
light. Light is generated at the source and it travels on its own.
Therefore velocity of light is observed to be constant in free space.
But, Light can't escape the Train called Gravity.
When Light travels through the Train called Gravity it has a (both
because of General Theory Of Relativity and due to Gravity
attraction of Relativistic Mass) relative velocity. In light's case
gravity is inversely proportional to its velocity. Velocity of light is
constant in free space and is relative with respect to change in
gravity both due to General Theory Of Relativity and also due to its
Relativistic Mass.
Gravity bending Space is something I don't know and don't
understand too. If Space is something, emptiness that can be
occupied what does Space occupy? How can it be bent if it doesn't
occupy anything? If Space=Emptiness then how can it be bent?
There are equations quoting Space is bent also there are some
cosmic observations that are said to prove this bending
phenomenon but, I don't understand it. I think Gravity bends light
and everything that has physical existence (but not space???), also
time has no physical existence but it is a result of something that
has physical existence so time too is dependent on gravity.
Everything is connected! Gravity connects everything! Gravity
controls velocities...
If gravity lensing is true, why do planets deviate from circular
orbits?
I have nothing against Gravity lensing... I don't even know the
theory and mathematics behind it... I only think Gravity bends light
and that is what makes me think that gravity bending light is a one
of the facts and gravity lensing is a different factor... According to
Gravity Lensing light travels in a straight line and looks like it is
bent due to bent space... According to me... Gravity lensing can be
true but gravity bending light is definitely true. Gravity bends light.
Space or Emptiness or anything that has existence can't be infinite
according to Fundamental Theory Of Existence and it is also true
that anything that has physical existence or anything that is
influenced by anything that has physical existence is in turn
influenced by gravity. Therefore emptiness or space too is
influenced by gravity and has physical properties and therefore
gravity lensing can be true? Is gravity lensing true?
There is no doubt Space and or Emptiness has properties and it is
so because it has existence and can't
be infinite. So, gravity lensing has a point to prove... Is it gravity
bending everything else except
emptiness or it is the finite emptiness that can be bent?
Space/Emptiness has physical properties and is finite.
Maxwell's equations state that "C" velocity of all EM waves is constant or is same in free
space... If it is not same then we will get to see different positions of stars in the sky with
varying spectra. So C in free space is constant but, it can't escape a train called gravity. So, C
is not constant when there is change in gravity. Gravity controls velocity of everything,
absolutely. Velocity of light on Earth's surface is lesser than velocity of light in free space.
All EM waves travel with same speed in free space and their velocity varies with medium...
also their velocity is controlled by gravity.
Velocity of light or any EM wave varies with varying gravity and it is so, because of two
reasons...
Reason 1: Time varies with Gravity so C is different.
Reason 2: C is inversely proportional to Gravity so with decrease in gravity c increases.
According to reason 1... Time is faster when gravity is low and C is more and, according to
reason 2... Gravity is low means gravity effect on mass E/m is lower so C is more.
For an ordinary body as gravity increases the velocity of the body increases...
If you drop an object from sky then the velocity of the object increases as it approaches the
earth and that is because velocity is directly proportional to gravity and, if you measure the
velocity of light focused from moon to earth its velocity is greater on moon, even greater
where there is lesser gravity is slower on earth than that on the moon and that is so because
EM waves are E/m waves and their velocity is inversely proportional to gravity.
Therefore...
7. Velocity of light is relative.
Theory Of Everything?
Theory Of Everything
What does this video contain?
Here it is...
[1.] Theory of Everything?
Is String Theory really a theory of everything?
Why not?
[2.] According to different string theories there are 10 or 11 spatial
dimensions.
[3.] The truth is there are three and three dimensions only.
Refer to:
[4.] Time = Change
Time is a measure of change.
[5.] It is said that time is the 4th dimension.
[6.] Time has no physical existence.
[7.] There are 3 length and 1 time dimensions.
[8.] What about more than 3 length/spatial dimensions? 10
length/spatial dimensions? 11 length/spatial dimensions?
[9.] We sometimes study different parameters in 1 dimension and
sometimes in 2 dimensions and also in 3 and 4 dimensions.
[10.] Let us not talk about the time dimension.
So here is what we have...
3 length/spatial dimensions.
[11.] Is there anything in this World/Universe that is 1 dimensional?
1D? Really?
[12.] The moment of truth...
[13.] There is no such thing as 1D and 1D only...
We simply neglect the other 2 length/spatial Ds.
[14.] So...
There is no such thing as1D only or 2D only...
[15.] It is always 3D and 3D only.
We simply neglect other Ds for our convenience.
[16.] What about 10Ds and 11Ds???
[17.] The 3 Ds are mutually perpendicular to each other.
[18.] If there are 10Ds or 11Ds... Wait! Let us talk about 4Ds
only... Just for now!
[19.] If 4th D does not exist, that leaves us with the answer: No 10
or 11 Ds.
[20.] Now, to prove that 4th D does not exist.
[21.] Here is the proof...
[22.] The 3Ds are mutually perpendicular. If there is another D, 4th
D then it will be mutually perpendicular to the measurable 3Ds?
[23.] No way.
[24.] So, There is no 4th D.
[25.] If there is a 4th D then what?
[26.] Let us take a look at the World if there is a 4th D.
[27.] Density= (Mass/Volume)
[28.] The formula for Volume is different for different 3D
objects... Basically the formula is...
[29.] Basically... Volume=Length x Breadth x Height
Volume = 1st D x 2nd D x 3rd D.
[30.] We know that Earth revolves around the Sun in 3Ds and if
there is a 4th D then...
[31.] If there is a 4th D then Density, Mass, Volume, Energy, Space
and everything else change!!! Yes, EVERYTHING changes!!!
[32.] So the 4th D... 1. Cannot be mutually perpendicular? 2. It can
not be measured? 3. It cannot have a visual effect on Earth -- Sun
relationship?
[33.] There is no 4th D Or More...
[34.] We know that Energy, Mass, and others have 1. Units and 2.
Dimensions
[35.] If String Theory says... There are more than 3 length/spatial
Ds then it is wrong.
[36.] If 3Ds are length/spatial, 4th D is time and other Ds (10 or 11
) are Energy or Mass or something else then String Theory is really
the Theory Of Everything. TOE.
[37.] Therefore... There are 3 and 3 only length/spatial Ds.
[38. LAST] Thanks for your valuable time, patience and undivided
attention. Thanks again. Have a nice day/night! Goodbye.
Song:
Love Connects.mp3
Download it from mediafire:
Size:
428.57 KB
My Theory:
My E-mail:
nimzosagar@yahoo.co.uk
Everything is well defined in three dimensions. Space too is three
dimensional. String Theory claims more than three dimensions.
Time is an imaginary dimension. Time is a measure of Change.
There are three and only three Length/Spatial dimensions and one
Time dimension. Existence of anything short of three dimensions is
impossible since anything that exists cannot be destroyed into
nothingness. If more than three dimensions can exist, they have to
exist everywhere and always. Since anything cannot be created out
of nothingness more than three dimensions cannot be given
existence out of nothingness. Therefore String Theory cannot be
true. Therefore anything short of three dimensions and more than
three dimensions is impossible. Therefore...
8. There are three dimensions and three dimensions only.
Time travel! How do you define it? Can we go to past? If
Past=Memory then we can possibly go to past. If going to past is
like travelling from a city to a village then time travel is possible!
May be going to past is possible depending upon how you define
PAST. If Past is a physical World/Universe that is the precursor of
the Present World/Universe then Time Travel is impossible. It is not
only impossible but also meaningless. Why? Because, the so called
Past World/Universe has changed into Present World/Universe and
it is not two or more copies of The World... Thus, Time Travel is
only a story or just another day dream! What about Future? Also
Future is not another copy! So, it is also not possible. Wait! Is that
all? Didn't I tell you... Time is a measure of Change. So more
Gravity means slower changes and two places with different gravity
will have different time or clock... Is that you call Time Travel?
Really? Think twice! If so, Time Travel is indeed a reality and it is
something that all Life has always experienced. How? Gravity is
not the same everywhere... So, we have gone to places with varying
gravity and thus we have made that amazing trip... The TRIP, The
so called Time Travel Trip. There are no infinite parallel Worlds
with infinite parallel changes and we cannot Time Travel. Time
Travel is meaningless. Therefore...
9. Time Travel is impossible.
It is said that... --> [At π/2 radians, or 90° (and -π/2, 3π/2, etc.)
the function is officially undefined, because it could be positive
Infinity or negative Infinity. ]
Infinity is not a number and it can't replace an unknown number in
Mathematics and it is erroneous to say the result as undefined.
When we are in High School we are taught that two parallel lines
never meet and a line with slope next to a straight line eventually
meets the straight line at some point. This is not completely true.
There are two cases.
Case 1 is...
1) The line with slope never meets the straight line next to it. The
line with slope never meets X axis or Y axis.
and Case 2 is...
2) The line with slope intersects the straight line at some point.
Case 1 example is XY=1
If X=0 we get 1=0
and
If Y=0 we get 1=0
Therefore the line with slope never meets X-axis or Y-axis.
The reason is...
There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2 (or) 0.001 and 0.002
(or) any two different numbers.
So in XY=1, X and Y can have smaller values but never zero, also
they can have bigger values but never infinite... Let me remind you
again... Infinite is not a number and the answer is never undefined.
Case 2 example is X+Y=1.
If X=0 the line with slope meets Y-axis.
So there are three cases.
Case-I
Two parallel lines never meet.
Case-II
A line with slope never meets the X-axis or Y-axis.
Case-III
A line with slope meets the straight line next to it
Tan 90 graph gives a line with slope and this line with slope never
meets a straight line next to it. Why?
There are three cases and they are...
Case 1: Two parallel lines never meet.
Case 2: A line with slope never meets a straight line next to it.
Example is XY=1.
Case 3: A line with slope does intersect X-axis and or Y-axis.
Example is x+y=1.
The “CASE -II “is the reason for first and tenth postulates. There
are infinite numbers between 0.001 and 0.002.
Tan 90 is same as 1/0. The first and the tenth postulates are one and
the same! Therefore...
10. Tan 90 cannot exist.
God(s) cannot create and God(s) can not destroy and God(s) can
not change laws.
God(s) cannot create laws and also can not destroy laws...
Therefore God(s) cannot exist. Therefore...
11. God(s) cannot exist.

What?

(1). Does Mathematics have bearing on reality?

(A). If you have a single Apple and you want to give two equal parts of it to your children then you cut it into two halves or to say, you divide it into two halves or we can say ½=0.5 and that is how Mathematics has a bearing on reality.

(2). What is division?

(A). Division is cutting into

(3). What is division with 1?

(A). Cutting into 100% or not cutting or keeping it the way it is, same thing as not dividing or not cutting at all.

(4). What is division with 0?

(A). Division with zero is cutting the numerator into zero parts or we can say making it disappear or destroying it into zero parts or into nothingness which doesn’t make sense and is impossible. 1/0 doesn’t lead to any satisfactory answer because if it equals to any answer we get 1=0 which is impossible. Division with zero is not meaningful and is impossible.

(5). What is division with 0.1?

(A). Division with 0.1 is possible in virtual reality or virtual existence and is impossible in physical reality or physical existence since you can’t cut a single Apple with 0.1 and make it into 10 Apples. You can say 1/0.1 as 10/1 as 10units is a single apple. So single apple divided by 1 so 1/0.1 is 10/1 where 10=single apple. In physical reality division is possible if the divider is 1 or greater than 1.

(6). What is the meaning of infinite?

(A). Infinite means ever increasing or unlimited.

(7). What is the opposite of infinite?

(A). The opposite of infinite is finite and is limited and is rounded and is static.

(8). Is there any number that is not finite?

(A). Numbers are unlimited, one of the properties of numbers is, there are unlimited numbers and, any number is always finite and there is no such number that is not finite.

(9). Is infinity a number?

(A). Infinity is never a number.

(10). What does positive infinity mean?

(A). Positive infinity means an ever increasing positive what ever it is, positive infinite space means positive ever increasing space but, space can’t be infinite. Infinity has its place in virtual reality but makes little or no sense in physical reality.

(11). What does negative infinity mean?

(A). Ever decreasing.

(12). What does creation mean?

(A). Creation means 1 can pop out of 0, it means 1=0=2=3=4=anything. Creation is impossible.

(13). What does destruction mean?

(A). Destruction means 1 can become 0, it means 1=0=2=3=4=anything. Destruction is impossible.

(14). Is creation possible?

(A). Creation is impossible and if possible why is it not happening now, why is it not happening everywhere and, why is it not happening in all sizes or proportions? Can a Sun be created on the surface of the Earth or can something new be created in our Brain from zero and hamper its functionality?

(15). Is destruction possible?

(A). Destruction is impossible.

(16). If destruction is impossible how can our World or Universe cease to exist?

(A). There is no end for existence. Change related end is possible but existence itself can never be zero. Change of form is possible giving birth or death to new things but it’s not possible for 1 to become 0 or 0 to become 1.

(17). If creation is impossible how did our World or Universe come to existence?

(A). Time has existence if World or Universe or Everything has existence and our World has never been created and no new Worlds will ever be created since creation is impossible.

(18). If our World or Universe was created what happened before creation?

(A). Creation is impossible.

(19).Is nothingness or non existence of Everything (World/Universe) possible?

(A). No, never. Finite World or 100% of this World is Everything. World=Universe=Everything which is 100% and is finite.

(20). If Everything or World or Universe was not created what is the first chain of events?

(A). There is no such thing as first or start for existence.

(21). If creation is not possible does it mean that there is no such thing as “First” or “Starting point” or “First chain of events”?

(A). Yes.

(22). Do laws depend upon equations?

(A). Yes. Since creation and destruction are impossible laws are possible. In a World where creation is possible balance will fail and equations and laws are impossible.

(23). Is everything connected or related?

(A). When you put some sand into a vessel, the particle that lies below is the foundation for what lies above that is, the position of one sand particle is responsible for the position of the other sand particles and that is how everything is connected. Everything is connected doesn’t mean anything is connected to anything else in every way. It means something is connected to something else in some possible way.

(24). How is everything connected or related?

(A). Everything is connected doesn’t mean anything is connected to anything else in every way. It means something is connected to something else in some possible way.

(25). Are equations necessary for relations to be established?

(A). Without equations how can anything be related?

(26). If creation is possible, will the balance or equations fail?

(A). If creation is possible, all laws fail. Let’s say you are buying 1kg tomatoes so the seller puts a 1kg stone on one side and 1kg tomatoes on the other side and tomatoes keep getting created on the tomato’s side… what happens? Balance is lost!!!

(27). Can more than a single copy of our World or Universe possible?

(A). No. No because creation is not possible and change is not decided. Free will exists and we have some percentage of ability to make decisions and change our Life/World.

(28). What is time travel?

(A). If moving from one place to another place where gravity is different is considered as time travel then it’s possible otherwise it’s impossible.

(29). Is time travel possible?

(A). If moving from one place to another place where gravity is different is considered as time travel then it’s possible otherwise it’s impossible.

(30). What is tan90?

(A). It is same as 1/0 which is not possible.

(31). What is rectangular or equilateral hyperbola?

(A). This is an equation such as XY=1 where X and Y can have any values other than zero. This equation suggests that division with zero is impossible and it also suggests that creation and destruction are impossible.

(32). If there is a curved line in a graph sheet with four quadrants does it touch x-axis and/or y-axis?

(A). It doesn’t follow a single rule. Sometimes it touches and in some cases it can’t touch.

(33). Do parallel lines meet?

(A). No.

(34). Does a curved line or a line with slope meet x-axis and/or y-axis?

(A). If you take XY=1 then this curve never touches x-axis and/or y-axis. Why? Because there are unlimited numbers between any two different numbers.

(35). What is the volume of our World or Universe if there is a fourth Spatial dimension or more?

(A). If there are more than 3 Spatial dimensions then volume changes and that means Earth doesn’t revolve around Sun the way we see it.

(36). Did God create himself/herself?

(A). No. Creation is impossible and that means creator can’t exist.

(37). Why do all Gods have Human form?

(A). Imaginations that are our creations…

(38). Do Humans have a beginning?

(A). Evolution.

(39). Does God have a beginning?

(A). God doesn’t even exist.

(40). Is it meaningful to say that “There is no beginning or an end to the existence of God”?

(A). It is, if god exists but, it is not because gods can’t exist and it is 100% meaningful and 100% true to say existence itself has no beginning and no end.

(41). Did God create our World such that 1/0 suggesting creation and destruction are impossible yet God has freewill and can create and destroy anything, anytime, anywhere and anyhow?

(A). Creation and creator, both are impossible.

(42). If God created our World or Universe where does God stand?

(A). Our World, World=Universe=Everything is 100% there is and is finite. Beyond this finite World… there is no such thing as beyond this finite World because when we say World we are taking everything into consideration and there is nothing beyond this 100% finite World.

(43). Can we call our finite World or Universe as Everything? Does it imply that Everything=World=Universe?

(A). Yes.

(44). If Space is emptiness what does it occupy?

(A). It doesn’t occupy anything and I have no proof. I believe World=Universe=Everything= Space + Everything else inside space.

(45). Is Gravity lensing true?

(A). I don’t understand Gravity lensing and it looks as if it makes a good story.

(46). Does Space have properties?

(A). Anything that has physical existence has properties and space does.

(47). Does Space have edge or boundary?

(A). Space is finite.

(48). If our finite World or Universe is 100% or is Everything, what does reside on its edge or boundary or outside of it?

(A). 100% means nothing else so there is no meaning in saying “outside”.

(49). What is virtual existence?

(A). The word A.P.P.L.E is virtual… numbers are virtual but the Apple, the edible Apple you hold in your hand is what we can call as real or physical existence.

(50). What is physical existence?

(A). Something that can be perceived as physical thing has physical existence. Magnetic lines of force have physical existence but Aladdin’s Genie has virtual existence.

(51). Is Existence always positive?

(A). Existence is never zero and is always positive. Change related existence can be zero.

(52). Does Nothing mean non existence?

(A). Yes.

(53). Does negative Apple exist?

(A). No.

(54). Is time absolute or relative?

(A). Always relative.

(55). What is Calendar Time?

(A). Calendar Time is different from Relative time. Calendar time is like numbering of different events. What is the first event? Human evolved, Earth evolved, Big Bang happened, what came first? Time has existence only when the World itself has existence also creation is not possible so the possibility of first event is zero. There is no such thing as first or last event. Existence is a Circle which has no beginning and no end, it’s a never ending line without any beginning. If you say everything has a beginning than the same question arises, what happened before that particular beginning event?

(56). How does Calendar Time differ from Time which is Distance travelled divided by Velocity?

(A). Time is relative and Calendar time is numbering of events.

(57). Can we carry light?

(A). No.

(58). Why is velocity of light same on a moving train and on the surface/ground?

(A). We don’t and can’t carry light. Only Gravity can carry light. Light can’t escape the train called Gravity.

(59). Does velocity of light depend upon gravity?

(A). Yes.

(60). Can light escape the train called gravity?

(A). Gravity has its influence on light’s velocity.

(61). Is velocity of light constant in free space where there is difference in gravity? That is, if gravity varies in free space and light travelling in this free space has a constant velocity?

(A). No. Velocity of light is relative.

(62). How many dimensions do we have?

(A). Three Spatial and one Temporal.

(63). If everything such as Energy, Force, Pressure,… have units and dimensions can they be incorporated into String theory and does it lead to Theory Of Everything?

(A). I don’t know String Theory. May be such integration will lead to TOE.

(64). Does light have mass?

(A). Relativistic mass.

(65). You state that everything is 3D and that there is nothing that is 1D or 2D only. What is a shadow if not 2D?

(A). Shadow has no physical existence, it has virtual existence. Can a 2d object have a shadow in 2d that is if there is no 3d??? Impossible. The smallest thing that exists is itself has three dimensions... even a shadow is cast on a 3d surface...

(66). A shadow certainly does have a physical existence. It can be observed empirically and manipulated predictably. It has a length and a width but lacks depth making it 2D. I think you are confusing its lack of mass for lack of existence. Now you could argue that a shadow is nothing more that a lack of light and be accurate. A shadow is nothing more than a projection of a 3D object into 2D space. Similarly, a cross section of that shadow would be a projection of of a 2D object into 1D space. A dimension is only perceived from the level above it. The 3rd dimension is only perceivable because the light takes a fraction of a second longer to reach our retina from the back of a cube than it does from the front. That is the 4th dimension that makes the 3D world real the same way 3D makes a 2D "virtual existence" real. Only in a 2D world would a 1D virtual existence be observable. The 4th dimension can be measured but because we are unable to perceive it from the next level up, its spacial dimension is incomprehensible to us. We call the 4th dimension time but that is a human label and no one fully understands its constructs. We live in a 3D world because that is what we understand. Whatever you want to call it, there is no doubt that the 4D (or change) influences our perception of 3D. There is no benefit to clinging to what we know now and imagine that we know it all. It is great minds like Einstein and Hawking that allows our human understanding to grow the same way that Galileo and Newton led us from the ignorance of our ancestors?????

(A). You are absolutely right. Shadow is a projection but existence of anything in itself is 3 and 3 dimensional only... we simply ignore other dimensions... virtual existence allows 1D and 2D and more Ds but physical existence is always 3D and 3D only. Virtual numbers are infinite but physical existence is finite... Virtual 2D is possible physical 2D is impossible, we simply ignore 3rd D. Why do I keep saying 2D is impossible in physical reality? Because, the smallest fundamental particle itself has 3Ds. That is why...

(67). Advice?

(A).BRAIN ON PAPER

(68). If creation is possible and if our World or Universe was created then where is this time? What about Calendar Time?

(A). Creation is impossible.

(69). How is light’s velocity connected to gravity?

(A). v=gt

E=mcgt

For ordinary body [ g proportional to v ]

Velocity is directly proportional to g

For light [ g proportional to E/mc ]

velocity is inversely proportional to g

(70). How is velocity of a rocket connected to gravity?

(A). For ordinary body [ g proportional to v ]

Velocity is directly proportional to g

For light [ g proportional to E/mc ]

velocity is inversely proportional to g

More questions from viewers please.

Thank you.

New Question...

(71). What's new in this theory? Don't I already know this stuff? Isn't this stuff familiar? Isn't it stated elsewhere or in some other form?

(A). When I developed this theory I was under an illusion that this theory is no where else but here. Later I realized that an old man would say he already knows everything in the self help book after reading it... Isn't it true that someone has to put it in there and compile it as a self help book? I just did that... Let's say 10 out of 11 postulates are old and everyone knows them but, what about the 7th (11th odd postulate - it's odd because it doesn't depend upon Numerator/zero...)... 7th postulate? 7th postulate is new and goes against the great Albert Einstein's findings.

So "Velocity of light is relative" is something new in FTOE. So Prof.Stephen Hawking's and my efforts don't go in vain... Thanks for your time, patience, effort and undivided attention. Thanks again. Have a good day and all the best...best of luck... luck? We all need luck as it is something that is a variation that happens in our favour even though we did little to get there... World War I & II are wrong but we are born after... whatever. Thanks.

New Question...

(72). How can you use 1/0 and describe Apple or anything similar?

(A). When I say 1/0 suggests 1 can't be created or 1 Apple can't be created, it is what it looks like. Let me explain... 1cm or 1m is a measurement and we used 1 in both the cases... what happens is... A.S.S.O.C.I.A.T.I.O.N, Yes "association" is the magic word or truth. When we say Water-English or Paani-Hindi or Neeru-Telugu or Tannir-Tamil we are using the same physical thing but language or association is different... we are associating different symbols or sounds to the same thing and 1/0 can be used to describe existence of any real physical thing and 1 can mean anything real, we associate any number, for example 1 to Apple or Plate or Table and we can say 1 of anything can't pop out of any space and it is so because 1/0 doesn't yield any physical answer.

v=gt

v is directly proportional to g

E=mcc

c is m/sec

c is m/sec.sec X sec

g is m/sec.sec

t is sec

c is gt but c is energy with intrinsic mass so c is not directly proportional to g, in case of ordinary bodies v=gt but in case of light c=E/mc that is c=E/mgt. How can we take c=gt? E/m is directly proportional to c.c and c is mt/sec so c is mt/sec.sec X sec so c=E/mgt

Velocity =gt makes sense but c is not equal to gt. We replace one c with gt using its units and dimensions and another c is inversely proportional to g. Velocity is directly proportional to g when we don't consider its E/m and velocity is inversely proportional to g when we consider its E/m. So two cases...

Case 1: Velocity is directly proportional to g. v=gt

Case 2: Velocity is inversely proportional to g when E/m of the body/light is considered. That is

c=E/mgt.

E=mcgt

E/mc=gt

c is inversely proportional to g

light is a form of energy E with intrinsic mass m and velocity c (another definition for E=mcc)

Velocity is directly proportional to Gravity when its Energy/Mass is not taken into consideration and when the velocity of a body or light which has E/m is taken into consideration then its velocity is inversely proportional to gravity.

(73). What is the meaning of EVERYTHING?

(A). Absolutely: EVERYTHING=UNIVERSE=WORLD=100% EXISTENCE.

Relatively: Relatively speaking there are so many meanings for "everything". If a tablet/drug can save your life then that tablet/drug is relatively everything. We can say everything=decision making, everything=thinking, everything=variation, everything=life and so on... Now, I pick this relative meaning for EVERYTHING and it is CHANGE.

Change is everything. Our World/Universe changes and at any instance of this change if we consider taking a snapshot of our World/Universe then it is always a different snapshot and there are infinite such snapshots. Everything is a variation and there are infinite such variations. Our World/Universe is ever changing and that is why Everything is a variation and it is change/difference that makes it a unique snapshot/variation. So, CHANGE yourself and your World/Life. Simply CHANGE.

So,

CHANGE=EVERYTHING.

New Question…

(74). Sorry.. What is it Mr. Sagar Gorijala? No. 4 and 5 don't match. And no. 8?? we live in four dimentional space-time! Mr. Hawking said no. 9?? that's impossible! and no. 10? what does it mean? tan90=infinite.

(A). 4 and 5 don't match? According to postulate 4... At any instance of time physical existence of Apples is finite and according postulate 5 Numbers which are examples of virtual existence are infinite. 4 is Physical existence can't be infinite. 5 is virtual existence can be infinite. Time has no physical existence. Time is a measure of change. time=change and calender time can be infinite but time/change is relative and can never be infinite. Time is temporal dimension... What I mean is... there are 3 and 3 only spatial dimensions.

tan90 is never infinite... infinity is not a number

http://www.weburbia.com/physics/light_mass.html

Does light have mass?

The short answer is "no", but it is a qualified "no" because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer "yes".

Light is composed of photons so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely "no": The photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass and this is confirmed by experiment to within strict limits. Even before it was known that light is composed of photons it was known that light carries momentum and will exert a pressure on a surface. This is not evidence that it has mass since momentum can exist without mass. [ For details see the Physics FAQ articleWhat is the mass of the photon?].

Sometimes people like to say that the photon does have mass because a photon has energy E = hf where h is Planck's constant and f is the frequency of the photon. Energy, they say, is equivalent to mass according to Einstein's famous formula E = mc2. They also say that a photon has momentum and momentum is related to mass p = mv. What they are talking about is "relativistic mass", an outdated concept which is best avoided [ See Relativity FAQ article Does mass change with velocity? ] Relativistic mass is a measure of the energy E of a particle which changes with velocity. By convention relativistic mass is not usually called the mass of a particle in contemporary physics so it is wrong to say the photon has mass in this way. but you can say that the photon hasrelativistic mass if you really want to. In modern terminology the mass of an object is its invariant mass which is zero for a photon.

If we now return to the question "Does light have mass?" this can be taken to mean different things if the light is moving freely or trapped in a container. The definition of the invariant mass of an object is m = sqrt{E2/c4 - p2/c2}. By this definition a beam of light, is massless like the photons it is composed of. However, if light is trapped in a box with perfect mirrors so the photons are continually reflected back and forth in the box, then the total momentum is zero in the boxes frame of reference but the energy is not. Therefore the light adds a small contribution to the mass of the box. This could be measured - in principle at least - either by an increase in inertia when the box is slowly accelerated or by an increase in its gravitational pull. You might say that the light in the box has mass but it would be more correct to say that the light contributes to the total mass of the box of light. You should not use this to justify the statement that light has mass in general.

It might be thought that it would be better to regard the relativistic mass as the actual mass of photons and light, instead of invariant mass. We could then consistently talk about the light having mass independently of whether or not it is contained. If relativistic mass is used for all objects then mass is conserved and the mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its part. However, modern usage defines mass as the invariant mass of an object mainly because the invariant mass is more useful when doing any kind of calculation. In this case mass is not conserved and the mass of an object is not the sum of the masses of its parts. For example the mass of a box of light is more than the mass of the box and the sum of the masses of the photons (the latter being zero). Relativistic mass is equivalent to energy so it is a redundant concept. In the modern view mass is not equivalent to energy. It is just that part of the energy of a body which is not kinetic energy. Mass is independent of velocity whereas energy is not.

Let's try to phrase this another way. What is the meaning of the equationE=mc2? You can interpret it to mean that energy is the same thing as mass except for a conversion factor equal to the square of the speed of light. Then wherever there is mass there is energy and wherever there is energy there is mass. In that case photons have mass but we call it relativistic mass. Another way to use Einstein's equation would be to keep mass and energy as separate and use it as an equation which applies when mass is converted in energy or energy is converted to mass as in nuclear reactions. The mass is then independent of velocity and is closer to the old Newtonian concept. In that case only total of energy and mass would be conserved but it seems better to try to keep conservation of energy. The interpretation most widely used is a compromise in which mass is invariant and always has energy so that total energy is conserved but kinetic energy and radiation does not have mass. The distinction is purely a matter of semantic convention.

Sometimes people ask "If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?" One answer is that any particles such as photons of light, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass. The deflection of star-light by the sun was first measured by Arthur Eddington in 1919. The result was consistent with the predictions of general relativity and inconsistent with the Newtonian theory. Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity. The energy-momentum 4-vector of a particle, rather than its mass, is the gravitational analogue of electric charge. The corresponding analogue of electric current is the energy-momentum stress tensor which appears in the gravitational field equations of general relativity. A massless particle can have energy Eand momentumpbecause mass is related to these by the equation m2 = E2/c4 - p2/c2 which is zero for a photon because E = pc for massless radiation. The energy and momentum of light also generates curvature of space-time so according to theory it can attract objects gravitationally. This effect is far too weak to have been measured. The gravitational effect of photons does not have any cosmological effects either (except perhaps in the first instant after the big bang). There are far too few with too little energy to make up any noticeable proportion of dark matter.

Division with zero is impossible in Mathematics and Existence. Division with less than 100% is possible in Mathematics but, is impossible in reality or physical existence. You can divide 1 with 0.1 in Mathematics but in reality you can’t divide 1 Apple into 0.1 parts and make it into 10 Apples.Physical Existence:

In mathematics division with zero is not possible. In mathematics division with 0-1 zero to one is possible

1/0.1=10

In physical existence or existence division of one apple with 0.1 is not possible.

1/10 is one apple cut into ten parts and each part is 0.1 but in existence 1 apple can’t be cut into 0.1 parts. Existence of anything is 1 or more than 1 or 100% is 1. 1 means 1 full/complete thing 100% thing. You can’t create 10 apples by cutting 1 apple into 0.1 parts. 0.1 is not a 100% part. You can only divide with 1 or more than 1 in terms of existence. If 0.1 is not allowed for division how is 1.1 allowed? 1.1 is 11/10 that is you are cutting 10 into 11 parts. That is one apple, considered as a single unit which represents 10 (single apple) is cut into 11 parts.

Existence: Zero means nothing.

Existence is never negative. Negative numbers have virtual existence but not physical existence.

You can place 4 apples on a table and eat 1 apple and you can say 4-1=3 but, you can’t say there are zero apples on the table and you ate 1 apple and there are negative apples on the table. -1 apple is not possible. 0 is nothing and -1 is negative to existence. And, existence is always positive, it is never negative. If you say -1+1=0 creation and destruction = zero then there is this problem...

-1 apple is positive to existence

-1 apple exists so it is positive to existence

+1 apple is positive to existence

+1 apple exists so it is positive to existence

How can two positives become zero?

If you say mathematics is wrong then you can say god exists. If you say mathematics is not wrong then gods can’t exist. Or you can say god has mysterious ways of creating a world or universe where there are contradictions such as mathematics (1/0 division by zero not possible) suggesting creation and destruction are not possible yet god can create and god can destroy. What came first? God came first? Can god have a beginning? Gods can’t be created? Who or what created god? Can god create anything yet god has no beginning? God has no beginning and god has no ending and god manipulated mathematics and existence in a way that there is a beginning and an ending to the world or universe but not to god itself? If god exists then the only truth, the only option is god has no beginning and god has no ending.

Negative numbers have virtual existence. Positive numbers have virtual existence and positive apples have physical existence and there is no such thing as negative apple. So negative apples have no physical existence. You can say negative apples like 4 apples -1 apple = 3 apples. You can’t say negative single apple exists because negative is not possible to existence or physical existence. Existence/Physical existence is always positive. Physical existence is always positive and virtual existence is like a dream, it has no limits, no boundaries and no restrictions. Let’s just say there are limits to everything, so virtual existence too has limits but it can be infinite for the name sake. There are infinite numbers in virtual existence but you can’t write infinite numbers without erasing any written numbers and infinity is not possible or not positive to physical existence.

There is no starting point?

If creation is possible why is creation not happening now? And, why is not happening everywhere and, in all proportions? Can an Apple or a Brain be created without evolution? If there is no beginning, what about evolution? If there is a beginning, what about evolution? What came first? According to XY=1 1/0 is not possible and it means there is no creation and no destruction and it means the World or Universe was not created and can't be destroyed. If creation is possible, what happened before creation? If creation is not possible what came first? Existence is a never ending line, just like a circle that existed, exists and will exist without any beginning or an ending. Our Calender-Time suggests that there is a beginning for every event. How did the circle come to existence? Who or what started the circle? According to Mathematics where is no creation or destruction so there is no beginning and no ending to physical existence of our World or Universe. Let's face three logical questions:

(1). If there is a beginning, what happened before that beginning?

(2). If there is no beginning, what came first? No beginning means no first occurrence. If it is so, how do you explain evolution? Man came out of evolution so there is a beginning for man and Earth too has a beginning. Mathematics suggests that there is no beginning and there is no ending to physical existence of our World or Universe. We have no problem understanding the -no end- part. But, what about -no beginning-...?

(3). If there is a beginning, why do we need evolution or why do we need male-female or why do we need Apple trees? Why can't they be created out of nowhere on an empty plate?

There are two alternatives:

(1). There is a beginning. What happened before that beginning?

(2). There is no beginning. What is the first chain of events if there is no beginning? No beginning means no first chain of events. But, we have calender-time and there is a beginning to every event in the calender-time. If you say there is a beginning then the questions are:

(1). What happened before that beginning?

(2). Can Apples have a beginning without evolution?

(3). Why is creation not happening now and, why is it not happening everywhere and, why is it not happening in all proportions and why can't just about anything be created?

(4). Why do we have laws when creation is possible? If creation is possible then laws can't exist, equations are impossible. If you say there is no beginning then the only question is what is first chain of events. But, no beginning means no first chain of events. We have no trouble understanding -no end- part but, we have trouble understanding -no beginning- part. But, 1 is not equal to 0 and 1/0 is not possible so, creation is impossible. So, according to Mathematics there is no beginning and no ending to the existence of our World or Universe. If creation is possible then equations will fail because creation means 1=0 or anything=anything else One kg stone on one side and 1+ something kg tomatoes on the other side if tomatoes get created equations fail. According to xy=1 neither x nor y can be zero so division of 1 with 0 is impossible and creation and destruction are impossible. What came first? First? First-what does it mean?

If creation is possible then equations fail. Why? Can our Sun double in size due to creation? Can our Brain disappear due to destruction? Nope. If creation and or destruction are possible then balance fails and, if balance is lost equations fail and if equations fail all laws fail. Therefore if creation and or destruction are possible then all laws fail. If 1=0 then creation and destruction are possible. If 1 can't be divided into 0 parts then creation and or destruction are not possible. Let's take rectangular hyperbola or equilateral hyperbola then we have xy=1 and according to this xy=1 equation if creation and destruction are possible then x and or y can be zero and if x and or y can be zero then we get 1=0 that is anything=anything else. But x and y can never be zero so 1 is never equal to 0 so creation and destruction are impossible. Also division of 1 with 0 is impossible because x and or y can never be zero. If x and or y can be zero then we get 1=0 and division of 1 with zero is possible and creation and destruction are possible. But, x and or y can never be zero so division of 1 with 0 is impossible and creation and or destruction are impossible. If creation is not possible our World or Universe was never created and can never be destroyed. First? What is First? What came first? If there is a fourth spatial dimension then volume of the World or Universe as we see it changes so there is no 4th spatial dimension.

New Question...

(75). Heidegger held the most important question to be "why is there something rather than nothing?"

(A). My previous answer... There is something rather than nothing because... Number 1. Creation is impossible so physical existence is not infinite.

Number 2. Destruction of physical existence is impossible so Nothing or Non physical existence is impossible and therefore there is something rather than nothing.

Existence can't be zero or nothing because creation and destruction are impossible.

New answer... So some finite World/Everything/Universe exists and it can't increase or decrease or cease to exist so there is something rather than nothing... this means someting(everything/world/universe) exists and it can't cease to exist and therefore there is something rather than nothing... But in the first place why is it existing? Why does it exist in the first place? Why is there something rather than nothing? From the above conclusions it is easy to say "Nothing/Non physical existence is impossible" but why is there something rather than nothing? Why do I explain the answer saying something(everything/world/universe) already exists and it can't be created or destroyed so there is something rather than nothing? Isn't there a more fundamental answer to it? Yes, there is. The answer is... Nothing means zero and zero is change related so zero is only possible when there exists something that can change and when something exists it changes and therefore zero or nothingness or nonexistence is impossible. You can only think of nothingness when you with your intellect do exist! Isn't it? Therefore there is something rather than nothing because Nothing(Zero/nothingness) is impossible. You can say something is absent or zero when it changes into something else or you can say something is zero only when there is a possibility of its existence. You can't say nothing when nothing has no meaning. Nothing is the opposite of something and or everything so the possibility of nothing is possible if and only if something or everything can exist.

Views: 49

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service