: : I can comprehend the (nothingness) of the universe, : : it is necissary for matter to (exist) within, and if : : it does (exist) how can we define it with our terminology : : which is based upon (being) or (sensed) by our organs, : : but the brain is an organ and we (sense) the makeup of : : atoms, but the problem with nothingness is not only that : : we cannot sense it, but that it is not there to sense, : : although it is very much a part of our universe and its : : workings. : : Absolute zero, a limitless viod, actually, could this : : nothingness be infinite? After all, matter exists and : : tackes up some (very little) of that space, so I guess : : it is'nt a perfect infinite, but close enough so that : : matter has no chance of overcoming its (existance). : : Anyone want to help me out with TERMS? Or even disscuss : : this undiscussable subject? : : BILLY :)

: I don't really know why I'm responding to this one, but I'll give it a shot. I believe that everything is made of points of force. You can call it energy or waves, doesn't matter. Now because all these points have distance between them, that means that the ratio of nothingness to matter is 1 / 0. : The nothingless is only a messure of the distance between different substances and all it ever will be is a number. All these points move at light speed, but most of them rotate others to form subatomic particals.

YES, I AGREE THAT SPACE IS NOTHING, AND THAT IT IS ONLY A NUMBER MAN HAS IMAGINED, BUT THEN HOW CAN WE ACCEPT THE WHOLE BIG BANG THEORY AND THEORY OF RELETIVITY IF IT IS BASED UPON CURVED SPACE (WHICH IS NOTHING?) OR HAVE I BEEN HUNG UP ON TERMS AND MISSING THE POINT THAT THEY USE THIS ONLY TO EXPLAIN OR PREDICT WHAT HAPPENS TO MATTER IN RELATION TO OTHER MATTER AT CERTAIN SPEEDS?

• Re: BUT THEN THERE CANNOT BE AN ENDEDGE! - BILLY - September 30, 1998 - 17:07 UTC
• Re: BUT THEN THERE CANNOT BE AN ENDEDGE! - BILLY - September 30, 1998 - 17:09 UTC