A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

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?

Time is the direction of entropy

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Which is as it should be. We should not hastily change viewpoints until the evidence has been reviewed thoroughly. As it is, and if it really requires a change, then a critical mass will arise. yes, even among the elders.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Really? Exactly how is energy tangible? Or momentum?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Time is the direction of entropy

But I am not asking about entropy, nor direction, just time. What is time as an entity, and where do we find it in the here and now?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Really? Exactly how is energy tangible? Or momentum?

How about explosions, electric shock, heat of the sun, etc...

 

[Polymath257]

How about explosions, electric shock, heat of the sun, etc...

None of those are energy, per se. Explosions are matter moving. Electric shock is electrons moving. Heat is photons (or matter) moving.

So energy isn't 'tangible' without matter. It is measured through the effects on matter. The same is true for time: it is measured through the way that matter behaves.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

None of those are energy, per se. Explosions are matter moving. Electric shock is electrons moving. Heat is photons (or matter) moving.

So energy isn't 'tangible' without matter. It is measured through the effects on matter. The same is true for time: it is measured through the way that matter behaves.

I am afraid I do not understand how you can be so ignorant of simple physics, your head must be so involved with the abstract that you do not understand that what is real is forever on the other side of symbolic representation, be it mathematical or verbal.

An electric shock in the here and now is a tangible proof for the energy produced by electrons flowing!

There is no such tangible proof in the here and now for time!

 

[Thief]

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.

so the first step had to gel....before you can call it....first

I see no problem

 

[Thief]

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.

you're not good at being evasive....

 

[ChristineM]

But I am not asking about entropy, nor direction, just time. What is time as an entity, and where do we find it in the here and now?

Then you are omitting the properties of time.

I will repeat, time is the direction taken by entropy. It travels from past to future through the now. It is responsible for the universe being what it is and what it will ultimately become.

You are still trying to give time humanistic properties which is limiting your understanding to that small box

 

[ChristineM]

I will repeat, time is the direction taken by entropy. It travels from past to future through the now. It is responsible for the universe being what it is and what it will ultimately become.

You are still trying to give time humanistic properties which is limiting your understanding to that small box

so the first step had to gel....before you can call it....first

I see no problem

You see no problem that your claim of god making light first is thoroughly debunked, interesting

 

[Thief]

You see no problem that your claim of god making light first is thoroughly debunked, interesting

no...no....no...
and a play on words doesn't win for you

try quoting me a bit more to point
then rebuttal

 

[ChristineM]

no...no....no...
and a play on words doesn't win for you

try quoting me a bit more to point
then rebuttal

Quote

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

Is that good enough?

 

[gnostic]

How about explosions, electric shock, heat of the sun, etc...

None of those are energy, per se. Explosions are matter moving. Electric shock is electrons moving. Heat is photons (or matter) moving.

So energy isn't 'tangible' without matter. It is measured through the effects on matter. The same is true for time: it is measured through the way that matter behaves.

I am afraid I do not understand how you can be so ignorant of simple physics, your head must be so involved with the abstract that you do not understand that what is real is forever on the other side of symbolic representation, be it mathematical or verbal.

An electric shock in the here and now is a tangible proof for the energy produced by electrons flowing!

There is no such tangible proof in the here and now for time!

Actually, Ben, polymath is right about the physics.

Energy is not tangible without matters, whether that matters be physical objects (eg elements, molecules or compounds of atoms) or smaller matters such as particles (eg electrons, protons, photons).

In physics, energy is defined as object (matter or particle) "doing work"; energy is a "property" of matter, it cannot exist without matter. Energy can only be calculated due to the present of matter.

The thing about energy is that it is property of object that is transferable, due to interactions of objects.

Do you understand what I mean by "property" of object, matter or particle?

Energy is a property of object, because it has the potential to do work. Another property of object that you should know and understand is mass.

The only reason you can calculate energy is to the mass of the object (be they matters or particles).

To use one of your example - electric shock.

The problem here, you are the one who misunderstanding the physics of energy, Ben, not polymath.

Electric shock is the result of not energy, but of electric current being passed through the body. You can only calculate energy, only if you can measure the current or voltage.

To understand electric current, you need to understand about atoms and its particles, electrons. Each electron has a negative charge, and each proton has a positive charge. Electric charge, like magnetic field, is demonstrable that opposites attract, but like charges would repulse each other.

When atom loses one or more electrons, the atom becomes ionised, or it become positive charged. The ionised atom then will become primed to receive free electrons from another atom.

When object like a wire is live with electricity, that due to the flow (or "movement", the word used by polymath) of electrons, and that flow caused electric current to flow, in the opposite direction of flow of electrons.

What you call "electric shock" is tangible result of (electric) "current" flow, not electric "energy".

The electric energy in electricity is mainly calculated as property of current.

I think your problem (in the example of electric shock) is that you are confusing "energy" with "current". It is the current and flow of electrons that are tangible, not the energy itself.

Energy is closely related to the mass of the object. (I am no longer referring to just energy relating to electricity, here, but energy of any kind.) Every object have mass, and when the matters have mass, they have potential to do work, hence the objects have potential energy.

Ask yourself this, Ben. Why is it that whenever you do calculations of energy, that it most often required knowing the presence of mass of object?

If you understand this question, then perhaps you will understand what is tangible, and what isn't.

Here, let me give you a clue. You go to the shop, you look at the package of food, where it break down the food into various components, like sugar, sodium, protein, fat, etc. Why is for each of these components that it contained the measurements of "mass" (measured in milligrams) and calculations of "energy" (in joules)???

Once you have answer to that question here, then you would see the connection between mass and energy, both properties of object or matter.

Sorry, Ben, if anyone is confused about energy, it is you.

And now I see you are doing the same thing with Christine over the argument on the matter of entropy and time. Your understanding of physics is very limited.

 

[gnostic]

You see no problem that your claim of god making light first is thoroughly debunked, interesting

The problem is that thief has very basic, but very flawed understanding of physics.

His physics required the superstitious belief of "being" (god, spirit, creator or designer) doing supernatural magic and poofing.

He doesn't understand physics or even science, because he has already buried his head, ten feet deep, believing that wishful thinking or fantasies to be true.

People have been trying to teaching him science for the last 7 to 8 years, but you cannot teach someone who is not willing to learn and understand science.

 

[Thief]

Quote


Is that good enough?

no
let there be light......would be the first creation
that substance had to gel before it took hold......

doesn't mean you got it right

 

[Thief]

The problem is that thief has very basic, but very flawed understanding of physics.

His physics required the superstitious belief of "being" (god, spirit, creator or designer) doing supernatural magic and poofing.

He doesn't understand physics or even science, because he has already buried his head, ten feet deep, believing that wishful thinking or fantasies to be true.

People have been trying to teaching him science for the last 7 to 8 years, but you cannot teach someone who is not willing to learn and understand science.

likewise to you

there is a God...
science would have you believe it
just look behind the black board

 

[gnostic]

likewise to you

there is a God...
science would have you believe it
just look behind the black board

Behind the black board is the wall: some plaster...wood and nails...wall cavity...bricks and mortar...

...Look, Thief! No, God!

Any other smart-alec comments that you want me to address?

 

[Thief]

Behind the black board is the wall: some plaster...wood and nails...wall cavity...bricks and mortar...

...Look, Thief! No, God!

Any other smart-alec comments that you want me to address?

and I knew you would respond as posted

you are sooooo predictable

now go bang your head on that wall until it knocks some sense into you

 

[Thief]

anybody else?