Space is NOT NOTHING this is space in Cantorial Set Theory:

S = {(x, y, z) | r² = x² + y² + z² }

But NOTHING in set theory has a special symbol and it is written like this:

Ø = { }

Those two sets are not the same !!!

S ≠ Ø

It is space itself that is expanding; if matter was expanding in space there would be a large void from where matter expanded from and an opposite larger void where matter was expand to.

They are looking for a Quantum Trigger better known as a Quantum Genesis Theory this is when you apply The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to the whole universe you get this:

Δp Δx ≥ ħ /2 -----> (∆p = ∞, ∆x = 0)

ΔE Δt ≥ ħ /2 -----> (∆E = ∞, ∆t = 0)

With a Quantum Trigger I could only tell you that the universe popped into existence like a virtual particle and that's it. I couldn't tell you why it didn't immediately pop out of existence, or why the universe would be real rather than virtual because I would have no unified theory that detailed the differences & similarities between virtual & real particles. I would not be able to give you any mechanism for The Big Bang because of Quantum Randomness.

However Quantum Theory may be just a minor player with a convergence to a Nothing Singularity making the mechanism unrecognizable as a Quantum Event even if Virtual Particle exist or do not exist:


There's very little choice left to us for what the structure of space is:


Meet a space I call The Spherical Knot Manifold:

(x, y, z) = τ(θ, φ, ψ, t)(θ, φ, ψ) = (τ(θ, φ, ψ, t)θ, τ(θ, φ, ψ, t)φ, τ(θ, φ, ψ, t)ψ)

where τ(θ, φ, ψ, t) = ∫ v dt

τ is a temporally derived unknown function which converts time-units into space-units, found by integrating the velocity v with respect to the differential of time dt; this idea is standard in Newtonian Mechanics " x = ∫ v dt". τ essentially functions like a spatial radius in a universe which has only a radius of time; τ is also a function of time allowing it to change with time as well as along any spatial angle θ, φ, and ψ.

(θ, φ, ψ) is a generic point of Spherical Coordinates more or less and (x, y, z) is the more familiar generic point of Cartesian Coordinates.

This leads to the conclusion that Nothing is The Complete Destructive Interference of everything (including Space & Time) with itself !!! (The directionality vectors for space & time cancel not to The Null Vector because there is no Ground Space to find a point value to take any more so by default they simply collapse to NOTHING.)

Space & Time begins with a value of :

x =



t =


With the first tic of time (since it still exists albeit in a canceled out state) all the vectors for the directivity of space & time break out of cancellation of NOTHING and pop you get The Bang of The Big Bang !!!

Time cannot have an infinite past because time would never be able to tic down to the present time from an infinite past. The finite rate of time itself prevents a transition across an infinite time interval. But here Space & Time has painted themselves into a corner and has been knotted out of existence by interference with itself.

This would mean that any straight line in a Spherical Knot Manifold would be a circle if you were to show a direction (by an arrow) within a circle you would notice that the same direction was going the opposite way on the opposite side of the circle. If that circle were to shrink to a point then the same directional arrows would point in opposite directions. Time would be directed outward from the center so at the center the direction of time would oppose itself also. These arrows are vectors and you can see that at the center they all go in opposite directions. This state sets up a Ground Space Violation that results in a collapse to NOTHING. With the first tic in time everything setting up The Ground Space Violation breaks apart turning NOTHING into SPACE & TIME. With all that hyper time-based curvature of space you would have a lot of tension that would act like a spring. When space had gotten to just the right tension matter would vortex into existence. Are you starting to get the picture here ?

Nothing (as you would find in The Empty Set) is Mutually Exclusive with Something (see The algebra of Cantorial Set Theory) :

Ø ∩ A = Ø ; Ø = { }

Ø U A = A ; A ≠ Ø


This seems interesting but I can't find any source to substantiate this thus I am not sure if this is legit or not. Besides it says spacetime is created from nothing with the first tic of time but I couldn't really get it cause isn't there no time before the Big Bang?


closed as off-topic by CuriousOne, John Rennie, Kyle Kanos, ACuriousMind, dmckee Mar 24 '16 at 13:54

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – CuriousOne, Kyle Kanos, ACuriousMind, dmckee
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ The quoted text is mostly nonsense--literally meaningless. Just the random capitalized words set off crackpot alarms in my head. $\endgroup$ – Mark H Mar 24 '16 at 4:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So what predictions does your model make that differ from existing theories and can be tested? $\endgroup$ – user56903 Mar 24 '16 at 9:19

There are models that bear some similarities, and other models that don't. And some of it is just words without meaning.

And some of it is so bad it's silly, such as:

Time cannot have an infinite past because time would never be able to tic down to the present time from an infinite past.

You can make models with an infinite past, and you can make models with a finite past. And what matters most is whether the model makes predictions that agree with observation. That's science. Science isn't about pretending that other models can't exist. And the passage you quote pretends (wrongly) that models don't exist that do exist.

That's seriously seriously messed up. You are supposed to judge models based on whether they agree with observations, not close your eyes and pretend they don't exist.

So you could make a model where spacetime is $\mathbb R^4=\{(w,x,y,z)\}$ and put a metric on it where time measures $w/c$ and as it gets close to zero, Einstein's Equation is no longer even approximately accurate. Or you could have that matter is in a finite region of that infinite space and we happen to be fairly close to the center of the universe. It's unpersuasive, but it's possible. And claiming it isn't possible is not legitimate.

You could make a different model where spacetime is $\mathbb R^4=\{(a,b,d,f)\}$ and put a metric on it where time measures $\left(\sqrt{a^2+b^2+d^2+f^2}\right)/c$ and as it gets close to zero, Einstein's Equation is fine except right at $t=0$ (the origin) and then there is no earlier than $t=0$ for the same reason there isn't a point deeper than the center of the earth.

But both models should be judged on their predictions. And sure, a model that requires we have to be at a special place should be less convincing. And one that requires the laws to change would have to compete with many theories that change in different ways.

And that's science: lots of theories making lots of models that compete to make predictions.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.