Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Natural Phenomena For Conservation And Invariance


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 URAIN

URAIN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 15 September 2011 - 06:08 PM

Dear members

I have published a theory named "Prem Parvathi principle theory". This theory says that '"nothing" has not existed' in this universe. Only existence is existed.

( may be you have confused. I will clear this. for example assume a person has dead. Then we say he is "not" more. Saying like "not" more is wrong. As per this principle.
ww.baseforreincarnation.wordpress.com, I request to go with subject not with grammer.)

Therefore any new entity will not be created. From this theory we can perfectly say that unknown universe which may contain unknown galaxies, also always conserved and will be invariant always.

(please refer Physics forum topic "does law of conservation energy has limitations ?")

If you have any doubts please let me know and please express your opinion.

#2 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 16 September 2011 - 09:35 PM

Found your theory online:

http://baseforreinca...incarnation.pdf

There is much to discuss.

I agree with you that "nothing has not existed", that only "existence exists". Did you know this is the first axiom of the philosophy of Ayn Rand ?

But, "nothing" can be a cause and have effect on existence. One example: suppose your love tells you they will meet you for lunch at 12:00 noon. You wait, and wait, they do not arrive. You begin to worry, are they OK, your heart begins to beat faster, etc. Clearly, you that exist, are being influenced by nothing, with nothing here defined as expectation not realized.

Because nothing can be a cause on what exists, it also can be a cause for what exists. That is, existence can be the effect of nothing as a cause, the universe being one example of the process.

#3 URAIN

URAIN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 17 September 2011 - 02:48 AM

Found your theory online:

http://baseforreinca...incarnation.pdf

There is much to discuss.

I agree with you that "nothing has not existed", that only "existence exists". Did you know this is the first axiom of the philosophy of Ayn Rand ?

But, "nothing" can be a cause and have effect on existence. One example: suppose your love tells you they will meet you for lunch at 12:00 noon. You wait, and wait, they do not arrive. You begin to worry, are they OK, your heart begins to beat faster, etc. Clearly, you that exist, are being influenced by nothing, with nothing here defined as expectation not realized.

Because nothing can be a cause on what exists, it also can be a cause for what exists. That is, existence can be the effect of nothing as a cause, the universe being one example of the process.


Dear Rade,

Your are considering "unknowingness" as a nothing. My theory tells that unknowing is also a part of existence. Prem Parvathi principle says Only existence has existed and it has two states one is "known state" another is "unknown state".

Suppose your (or my) love make call to your mobile and had told you the reason, why they will be late, then do you worry about them? You (or I) will worry only when we don't know their condition. If by any means we know their condition is well then we will not worry about them.

(By giving example and considering that as nothing, you are again saying that nothing also has existed)

#4 URAIN

URAIN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 22 September 2011 - 08:31 AM

Dear members I have waited for sometimes, in thinking that posting my view is better if any one asks questions. But not one asking questions. Therefore I will continue to say about my theory.

You may noticed that theory tells the 'nothing has not existed in this universe' Only existence has existed.

In the view of principle 'nothing' or 'not existence' is only that which had not existed at past, which has not existed at present and which will have not existed in future also. That is the real 'nothing' or 'not existence'. About this, we have not able know anything. Therefore real nothing or not existence is that which has not existed at all times.

Apart of this 'not existence' or 'nothing' all are the existences. (Because if you will consider anything nothing, then it indirectly says that which you are calling as nothing that also not existed at past, at present and future. But it is contradiction)

Apart of this not existence vacuum or space also comes.

In present science this vacuum or space is considering as nothing or not existed.

But I would like use this science forum to announce that space or vacuum also a existence, which has existed. Therefore I would like to say this space is not nothing but some thing.

All this I am saying on the base of Prem Parvathi principle. Before commenting on my announcement, I request you to check the correctness of the principle.

The extension of this principle says, we can not able to go outside of universe, because this universe is unlimited and infinite. Indirectly I would like to say real nothing or not existence has not existed outside of universe and this universe has not any beginning and has not any end.

Which has existed, that will exist always. Only we know something, a huge, a large things are left from not knowing.

Therefore by this principle with perfection we can say with perfection that this universe always conserved and invariant.

By verbally, by words we cannot able to say this principle. Because as a logic you have to notice that this 'nothing' or 'not existence' words also has existed. This is also a existence. Hence the real nothing has not existed at any where and at anytime. This principle can be understandable. If we say it by verbally it creates confusions. It is very difficult to say about real not existence or real nothing, from the existences, which have existed.

I am saying that 'nothing' word is a existence by this existence we are trying to explain about not existence, which has really not existed. )

#5 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 22 September 2011 - 05:53 PM

(By giving example and considering that as nothing, you are again saying that nothing also has existed)

Correct, I made the claim with my example that "nothing also has existed", with the key word being "has", not "is" existing. And, this is opposite what you claimed is true via your theory. What you claimed is that "..."Prem Parvathi principle theory". This theory says that '"nothing" has not existed' in this universe.". So, you see, if my example is correct and it is possible for "nothing also has existed" to be true in this universe, then logically your Prem Parvathi theory that "nothing has not existed" is falsified. You cannot have it both ways, first to say it is impossible for nothing to exist, then to claim that nothing as expectation not realized has existed. So, I conclude that that the basic premise of your Theory is falsified by my example.

#6 Rade

Rade

    Understanding

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 22 September 2011 - 06:15 PM

In the view of principle 'nothing' or 'not existence' is only that which had not existed at past, which has not existed at present and which will have not existed in future also. That is the real 'nothing' or 'not existence'. About this, we have not able know anything. Therefore real nothing or not existence is that which has not existed at all times.

OK, back to my example. Suppose the person you wait for (1) never existed in the past at the place (space) to meet, (2) does not exist at the present in the same place (3) will not exist in the future at the place. Thus, the person you wait for meets all three of your criteria of being "nothing" for the place in question, and thus your concept of "real nothing" can exist as a "something", as an expectation not realized.

To make your concept of "real nothing" valid, you would have to say "real nothing" has NEVER existed in the past, does not exist at present, and can NEVER exist in future. But, as my example shows, there is a type of "nothing" (not sure what name you want to give it in your theory-unreal ?) that does exist in the past, but not at present and not in the future. So, for this reason, you cannot conclude that "nothing has not existed" at best you can conclude that "real nothing has not existed in this universe, but unreal nothing has existed in this universe".

#7 URAIN

URAIN

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 72 posts

Posted 23 September 2011 - 01:38 PM

Rade quote

I agree with you that "nothing has not existed", that only "existence exists".
But, "nothing" can be a cause and have effect on existence.

Response of URAIN : I don’t know, you are discussing about which nothing. You have to clear in your view. Now I am only able to give suggestion that you have to think,

Does unknowingness will not cause and unknowingness has not effect on existence?





Rade quote
logically your Prem Parvathi theory that "nothing has not existed" is falsified.

Response of URAIN : The readers and world will make decision about your quote.




Rade quote
To make your concept of "real nothing" valid, you would have to say "real nothing" has NEVER existed in the past, does not exist at present, and can NEVER exist in future.

Response of URAIN : Rade I know, I am not good in English, as you are. My readers also noticed this when they read the theory’s first page (at bottom, below index). I have said about it.

I will take advice of English scholars.




Rade quote
Suppose the person you wait for (1) never existed in the past at the place (space) to meet, (2) does not exist at the present in the same place (3) will not exist in the future at the place. Thus, the person you wait for meets all three of your criteria of being "nothing" for the place in question, and thus your concept of "real nothing" can exist as a "something", as an expectation not realized.

Response of URAIN : In theory, where you had noticed that I have said about ‘nothing’ for a finite, or particular place.

I have said about nothing keeping in mind this vast and infinite universe.


Rade quote
You cannot have it both ways, first to say it is impossible for nothing to exist, then to claim that nothing as expectation not realized has existed.


Response of URAIN: How can I realize you? It is ( nothingness) only possible to understand and it is not possible to explain by words. For logic ‘Not existence’ or ‘nothing’ words are existed, from this existence we are trying to know about not existence .




Rade quote
best you can conclude that "real nothing has not existed in this universe, but unreal nothing has existed in this universe".

Response of URAIN : I have already said that nothing has not existed, at any place or at any time. Only existence has existed. And this existence has two states.

1) Knowing state.
2) Unknowing state.


If you call the second state, the Unknowing state as unreal nothing, then I have no objection.

(For me, saying truth is secondary as compared to Good intention. At the topic http://scienceforums...581#entry309581 “Do you think law conservation has limitation” also I have not said truth to hurt anybody. Now also I have no intention to hurt any one. If I have unknowingly hurted anyone, I ask excuse, to them.)