Hipster_Nebula wrote:
I think I'm right in saying it was Laurence Kraus who has suggested that "nothing" in space terms isn't what you would generally think of as "nothing"
I don't know who said it, it may have been the person you mention but they are correct.
There was a clip on an Horizon programme I watched once on this very point.
Nothing actually doesn't mean absolutely nothing at all.
Take for instance a vacuum which space is, light can travel through it, gravity can pass through it, a space probe can - so even nothing is greater than nothing if you see what I mean.
Einstein also says time is the fourth dimension - spacetime he calls it, so time can exist in 'nothing' too.
In fact 'nothing' as we 'know it' exists at all!
To be honest we are just playing, we actually know precious little about how things work - Einstein's come up with his ideas of how the big things work - but we know it doesn't have an answer to everything.
We also have developed quantum physics to deal with how very small things work but again we don't understand it all - and the most intriguing bit at the moment is that Einstein's theory and Quantum do not match - they don't go together - something big is still missing in our understanding of even basic stuff.
There are wonderful discovery's still to be made.
That's why any civilisation that has figured them out will never get caught coming to Earth in their little spaceships - they don't need to they are so far advanced of us we could never comprehend them, nor they find anything remotely of interest in us.
Similarly it is why God could not exist in my opinion. To be in all places at all times means that he would have to be everywhere throughout the history of time, stretched over unimaginable distances, dealing with countless stars, planets, beings and things throughout the universe to worry whether you me or the dog next door will be going to heaven or not.
That's the way I see it anyway.
Home
