It doesn't. That's actually a popular misconception.

The mathematics of General Relativity shows that the fabric of space-time, as we know it and experience it, came into being at the big bang.

This does not in any way suggest that there was "nothing" before the Big Bang.

Time, as we perceive it on a macro level, (in other words, time as the arrow of entropy) could not exist before macro objects were created, because without macro objects 'time' as we perceive it in terms of changes in entropy could not exist.

So what is being said by scientists, and General Relativity, is that the Macro fabric of space-time did not exist prior to the Big Bang. But this does not mean that other forms of space and time that are completely independent of each other could not have existed. In other words, they hadn't yet been connected together via macro objects and entropy. But they could have still existed as completely independent properties of the original source.

^ this. There are also expirements showing virtual particles that pop in and out of existence all the time.

There is no such thingiemajigger as nothing

hope that helps

No such thing as nothing. That is my story and I am sticking to it.

Helps, helps, but can you prove that?

Until proof to your thesis exists, anyone is allowed to beleive that nothing does exist.

You don't make sense in my estimation with that question.

You need to fill in some gaps in the logical steps that proved to you that when I said "energy and matter are not the same, water is different from ice, too", it boiled down to the equivalent, as you say, that I said "I don't believe in the Big Bang's having happened."

You may be perfectly right, but I don't see the link, the logical causation of my thoughs to the conclusion you drew from my description of my thoughts.

Please fill in the gaps, and right now let it suffice I don't know if I said that, but my intention was not to say that. Only you can tell, and only you can enlighten me how I said, if I did, "the big bang did not happen". As far as I know I did not say that, but please do tell us if you see my statements as equivalent to that. And show the steps of deriving the conclusion from your observation of my statement.

(Shakes his head.)

"no such thing" = not anything
Not anything = nothing

therefore you say
Nothing is nothing.

That's a tautology, and proves nothing.

Since you proved nothing, faultlessly, you proved the existence of nothing.

The theorized singularity that caused the "Big Bang" was just pure energy. As it expanded, the energy cooled to the point that it became subatomic particles, which then combined to create matter. So if you are saying that matter isn't frozen energy, you are saying the Big Bang didn't happen the way scientists say it did.

not quite so. the molecular properties of a substance like h20 always remains the same. what you describe with your 'poke in the eye' analogy are the changes in state of h20. yes, the state of water is dependent on it's environment, heat and pressure, but it's properties remain the same. so a SUBSTANCE in it's liquid stat, such as water, indeed can be transformed into a solid, ice, or a gas, steam, but it cannot be transformed into energy. to do that you'd have to reduce water to it's individual atoms, hydrogen and oxygen and then work with one of those to create energy. E=MC2. matter is indeed much different from energy.

The water-ice thing was an analogy, not an equivalence.

I admit, you guys are tiring me out. I would like to, but don't have the energy to further argue why energy is not the same as matter, and I don't have the energy to further argue that I never said things that others say I said, and I don't have the energy to argue that what you conclude from my statements are inevitable conclusions.

I simply pooped out. I don't see the point of arguing this, I feel I am in a quagmire.

If you guys want the satisfaction, yes, you won the argument.

That said, I still maintain that energy is not the same as matter, and I still maintaint that none of my statements can be used to say I deny the Big Bang.

You win the argument by default, by my simply withdrawing from it, but you still win.

I, on the other hand, maintain my opinions. I withdraw because if my analogies are misinterpreted, and my statements are not handled by understanding and logic but by sheer jibberish, then I see no point in continuing.

wux

well that would not be making something out of nothing


while I immediately thought of "the nothing" from Everlasting Story

correct

nothing = construct

like chairness

one of my favorite quotes:

"Once you can accept the universe as being something expanding into an infinite nothing which is something, wearing stripes with plaid is easy." - Albert Einstein

I totally agree with this.

It is very simple and logical.

Nothing does not exist.

Therefore, there can only be 'something.'

All things vibrate. All things have frequency.

Therefore, everything vibrates.

(Nothing cannot vibrate because it does not exist.)

Nothing is not something.