A Universe from Nothing?

[Thief]

Spirit first

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, let's see. Physics professors did almost exactly that about 100 years ago. With the discovery of quantum physics and of relativity, the old books were shown to be wrong. When the background radiation was discovered, those books that discussed the Steady State theory had to be discarded or re-written. In cosmology, the discovery of accelerated expansion showed that the cosmological constant couldn't be ignored, requiring more re-writes.

In biology, the work of Gould on punctuated equilibrium required some of the books on evolution to be re-written. When the links between birds and theopod dinosaurs was discovered, that required a number of books to be re-written.

So, yes, the old editions are thrown out and the new editions with the new material take their place.

Were you unaware this has happened?

Oh c'mon, you are being as childish as Christine, you know I was speaking generally about the inertia of academia, about the tendency to stick to the confines of orthodoxy wrt course content. Showing specific examples where books were rewritten does not change that.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

A quote from a book on general relativity: "time is defined so that motion looks simple."

Precisely, that is my point, the reality of the concept of time is actually to do with movement of aspects within the universe, not that it exists as a discrete entity. The universe as a whole is not in time, it just exists on and on unceasingly regardless of the movement of internal aspects, or lack of it.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh c'mon, you are being as childish as Christine, you know I was speaking generally about the inertia of academia, about the tendency to stick to the confines of orthodoxy wrt course content. Showing specific examples where books were rewritten does not change that.

Well, once you have a working theory, it isn't unreasonable to discard it unless something better comes along. I have shown that this happens. It actually happens quite frequently, but on smaller issues. And that is to be expected. Once you have the overall picture, it is the smaller pieces that will change.

 

[Polymath257]

Precisely, that is my point, the reality of the concept of time is actually to do with movement of aspects within the universe, not that it exists as a discrete entity. The universe as a whole is not in time, it just exists on and on unceasingly regardless of the movement of internal aspects, or lack of it.

In that respect, time is no different than mass, or charge, or momentum, or energy, or any number of very useful aspects of the universe required for understanding.

 

[Thief]

In that respect, time is no different than mass, or charge, or momentum, or energy, or any number of very useful aspects of the universe required for understanding.

except that time is not substance or force

 

[Polymath257]

except that time is not substance or force

What, exactly, do you mean by the terms 'substance' and 'force'?

Why is time not a substance or a force? Are neutrinos a substance or a force? How about light?

Are the only real things substances and forces? Can you prove that?

Wait, you also like to throw around the word 'spirit'. Can you define that one also? Maybe give examples?

 

[Thief]

What, exactly, do you mean by the terms 'substance' and 'force'?

Why is time not a substance or a force? Are neutrinos a substance or a force? How about light?

Are the only real things substances and forces? Can you prove that?

Wait, you also like to throw around the word 'spirit'. Can you define that one also? Maybe give examples?

instead of asking me......show it for yourself

demonstrate time as something OTHER than a quotient

 

[Polymath257]

instead of asking me......show it for yourself

demonstrate time as something OTHER than a quotient

I am still asking you to define these concepts. Why is being a quotient a relevant aspect? Charge density is certainly a real thing, but it is the quotient of charge and volume.

 

[Repox]

Based on science, the universe did come from nothing. Because no one can quantify God, a supernatural being, there will never be a scientific explanation for the universe.

 

[ChristineM]

So what does any of that have to do with the reality represented by the concept of time. If you are not are able to explain clearly what the reality represented by the name 'time' is , then you are merely repeating things you have read, monkey knowledge!

You mean I'm banging my head on a brick wall, i have told you of somev of its effects, you deny i even told you, i repeated them, you mocked. If you don't understand the concept then i cant learn it for you

 

[ChristineM]

So please, in your own words, explain what time is?

See above.

 

[ChristineM]

So, that doesn't change anything, how often are professors going to throw out the books they have written to make way for their new ones..haha?

Well it seems your professors didn't.

 

[ChristineM]

if you want to call the Will of God...magic...ok

If you want to call myth and magic the will of god then that is your prerogative.

Of course if you could provide any evidence for the *will of god* then feel free, i am always wiling to learn

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, once you have a working theory, it isn't unreasonable to discard it unless something better comes along. I have shown that this happens. It actually happens quite frequently, but on smaller issues. And that is to be expected. Once you have the overall picture, it is the smaller pieces that will change.

Yes, but the first small changes do not mean change to the whole, only when 'critical mass' has been reached does that happen, there is natural inertia against change in most older people, and even more so in organizations of older people.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

In that respect, time is no different than mass, or charge, or momentum, or energy, or any number of very useful aspects of the universe required for understanding.

Not at all, mass, momentum, and energy, represents a quality of something tangibly present in the here and now, show me where to find time in the eternal now?

 

[ChristineM]

I suspect God had a plan
Let there be light......was step one

Also nonsense, at the beginning of the universe photons did not exist therefore no light, there were 7 distinct stages of evolution before expansion reduced pressure enough for quantum particles to bind thus enabling the formation of photons. So first light was at step 7

But if you believe biblical god magic stories, then ok.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well it seems your professors didn't.

That's below the belt Christine..

 

[ChristineM]

That's below the belt Christine..

You are the one who keeps insisting that professors don't use new material, i assumed you spoke from experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You mean I'm banging my head on a brick wall, i have told you of somev of its effects, you deny i even told you, i repeated them, you mocked. If you don't understand the concept then i cant learn it for you

You keep saying in your responses that entropy tends to increase with time as a part of your answer, but that does not explain time, you could also say the distance traveled by a comet increases with time, or the number of grey hairs on your head. But what is time itself in the here and now?