You are going to be surprised of my answer,I'm sure.When I say nothing I mean the real nothing-the non-existence.My theory about the nothing is quite simple-it's based on one definition and one postulate.The definition is the definition of rule.You know what rule means-it's in every dictionary.The laws of physics for example are the rules of our universe.The postulate:every form of existence must be described by some kind of rules.That means that just the nothing is described by no rules at all.When I say form of existrnce I mean every system that could possibly exist-the universe is a system and it is described by the laws of physics-its rules,mathematics exist-we see its applications and it is described by rules,economics is a working system-we see this every day and it is described by some rules,society is a system,too and the law is comprised of its rules.We don't see any system that is described by no rules at all and after all it's working.If you find such you've proven me wrong.But can you?That's the PROVE for the theory of the nothing.So,what happens to the laws of physics-our set of rules that describe our universe in the singularity-they all break down at infinity,don't they?So what we have-a "place" described by no rules at all-a nothing.Can S.S.T. provide a mechanism stopping the reaching of infinity because when the curvature of spacetime reaches infinity,as far as I know all the laws of physics flaw including S.S.T.,QM,GR and so on???!!!

• Infinity is a mathematical being - wandaqueen - June 1, 2004 - 14:16 UTC
  • The concept of rules - qazws - June 1, 2004 - 19:55 UTC
    • The most fundamental rule of physics - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 14:11 UTC
      • What?!! - qazws - June 2, 2004 - 16:00 UTC
        • GR is limited to cases of spherical symmetry - yanniru - June 2, 2004 - 19:04 UTC
          • The GR theory - qazws - June 3, 2004 - 13:45 UTC
            • I agree with Richard - secretary - June 3, 2004 - 19:18 UTC
              • The right question - qazws - June 3, 2004 - 20:42 UTC
                • Because infinity cannot happen - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 01:22 UTC
                  • Congratulations - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 09:05 UTC
                    • All theories are incomplete - secretary - June 4, 2004 - 16:16 UTC
                      • Singularities can exist - qazws - June 4, 2004 - 19:08 UTC
                        • The infinite part of GR has never been tested - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 01:44 UTC
                          • WHY? - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 09:22 UTC
                            • Several reasons why - secretary - June 5, 2004 - 12:41 UTC
                              • My reply-the complete concept - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 18:11 UTC
                                • You might read up on the work of Fred Hoyle - wandaqueen - June 5, 2004 - 19:52 UTC
                                  • A few questions - qazws - June 5, 2004 - 21:38 UTC
                                    • I never have heard of it - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 01:30 UTC
                                      • I don't know - qazws - June 6, 2004 - 08:43 UTC
                                        • Google search for singularity, nothing and rules - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 11:36 UTC
                                        • A quote from Kurtzweil's article - wandaqueen - June 6, 2004 - 11:39 UTC
                                          • I'm still waiting... - qazws - June 6, 2004 - 16:47 UTC
• A singularity or a nothing - any difference? - peterw - September 22, 2004 - 12:58 UTC
  • It does a lot - qazws - October 31, 2004 - 09:58 UTC