A Universe from Nothing?

[ChristineM]

I'm not guessing
and I will not be allowed a plea of ignorance.....as I stand before God and heaven

So you have evidence?


Thought not

 

[ChristineM]

didn't miss it

And i should believe that?

 

[Thief]

So you have evidence?


Thought not

rotation of the universe
all the spins spirals and orbits

 

[ChristineM]

rotation of the universe
all the spins spirals and orbits

That is evidence of gravity, where is your evidence of this god magic you claim

 

[Polymath257]

and if you quote them well enough....I'm sure they won't mind

so .....substance first?
as if substance could be 'SELF' creating?........on a universal scale?
and the elements understand how each one is to behave?......all by themselves?
and substance can 'SELF' motivate?......without CAUSE?!!!!!!!

go for it
show me your equation

F=ma. Even better G_{uv}=8(pi)T_{uv}.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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

So what are the properties of time that are tangible in the here and now like all other tangible things are real in the here and now?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Yes, it just is the way it is! But it is also true that those who believe they have some new ideas that question the old, must 'push' to have themselves heard if their idea is ever to be accepted and become a part of the next generation of orthodoxy.

 

[gnostic]

choose your def as you please.....state that def....and then decide

How about the official and the relevant scientific definition?

"Relevant" as in if you are talking about astronomy, all your definitions will meet the requirements of astronomy definitions. If you are referring to biology, then all your definitions must meet with the biology requirements.

Because that's how things work. Lawyers and law courts have different terms and vocabulary to that of those who work in science or in trades or businesses.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

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.

Tsk tsk, you try gnostic I'll give you that.

Electromagnetic energy is tangible in an of itself....

electromagnetic energy
noun

a form of energy that is reflected or emitted from objects in the form of electrical and magnetic waves that can travel through space

Examples
There are many forms of electromagnetic energy including gamma rays, x rays, ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves and radio waves.

the definition of electromagnetic energy

 

[gnostic]

Tsk tsk, you try gnostic I'll give you that.

Electromagnetic energy is tangible in an of itself....

electromagnetic energy
noun

a form of energy that is reflected or emitted from objects in the form of electrical and magnetic waves that can travel through space

Examples
There are many forms of electromagnetic energy including gamma rays, x rays, ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves and radio waves.

the definition of electromagnetic energy

Try and study physics, ben, instead of using a dictionary.

Those examples you gave:

...including gamma rays, x rays, ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, microwaves and radio waves.

the definition of electromagnetic energy

They are all electromagnetic radiation, not energy. They are oscillating fields, that possess several properties common to all forms of EM radiations:

1. wavelength
2. frequency
   
3. and energy.

And each one are in essence - photons.

Usually, photons are referred to as visible light, but if you have study physics before, you would know that photons can also referred to ultraviolet light, infrared x-ray, and microwave. In astronomy, they are all photons, just they are in different wavelengths and frequencies.

Did you ever study electromagnetism before, ben?

If you have, you would know that a photon has dual properties, it is both a wave and a particle.

If it is a particle, it is tangible. Those fields, waves or radiation do have energy, just as they do frequency and wavelength.

And again, if you have ever study physics before, each of those EM radiations or waves, required some physical sources, where they emitted from. None of them come from nothing.

For instance, visible light can come from various sources, such as the chemical combustion of fuel and oxygen (fire), the classic light globes (electricity passing through live coiled wire and gas causing the globe to glow), fusion of the hydrogen into helium atoms (a process known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis) within the Sun's core to heat or incandescent the gases on the outer layer.

And you still don't understand what is "tangible" evidence and what is "intangible".

Tangible evidence is anything that you can (or instrument or device can) observe, detect OR measure it.

You may not be able to observe EM waves, radiations or fields with your own eyes, but you can certainly detect and measure them with devices. So radiations are tangible in that sense.

You are such a ignorant person. You should go back to school or get a textbook, and learn physics (again, if you have already), because clearly you weren't reading the books or listening to your teachers or lecturers.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Try and study physics, ben, instead of using a dictionary.

Those examples you gave:


They are all electromagnetic radiation, not energy. They are oscillating fields, that possess several properties common to all forms of EM radiations:

1. wavelength
2. frequency
   
3. and energy.

And each one are in essence - photons.

Usually, photons are referred to as visible light, but if you have study physics before, you would know that photons can also referred to ultraviolet light, infrared x-ray, and microwave. In astronomy, they are all photons, just they are in different wavelengths and frequencies.

Did you ever study electromagnetism before, ben?

If you have, you would know that a photon has dual properties, it is both a wave and a particle.

If it is a particle, it is tangible. Those fields, waves or radiation do have energy, just as they do frequency and wavelength.

And again, if you have ever study physics before, each of those EM radiations or waves, required some physical sources, where they emitted from. None of them come from nothing.

For instance, visible light can come from various sources, such as the chemical combustion of fuel and oxygen (fire), the classic light globes (electricity passing through live coiled wire and gas causing the globe to glow), fusion of the hydrogen into helium atoms (a process known as Stellar Nucleosynthesis) within the Sun's core to heat or incandescent the gases on the outer layer.

And you still don't understand what is "tangible" evidence and what is "intangible".

Tangible evidence is anything that you can (or instrument or device can) observe, detect OR measure it.

You may not be able to observe EM waves, radiations or fields with your own eyes, but you can certainly detect and measure them with devices. So radiations are tangible in that sense.

You are such a ignorant person. You should go back to school or get a textbook, and learn physics (again, if you have already), because clearly you weren't reading the books or listening to your teachers or lecturers.

Haha....gnostic mate, as a person to whom English is not your first language, you should have used your dictionary to look up the definition of radiation before you typed. Radiation is energy. I refer you of my earlier suggestion to you that you keep a good dictionary hand at all times and never pass word you do not understand without looking it up.
-------------------------
radiation
reɪdɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

Physics.

1. the process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves.
2. the complete process in which energy is emitted by one body, transmitted through an intervening medium or space, and absorbed by another body.
3. the energy transferred by these processes.

---------------
You ask me if I've ever studied electromagnetism before, you surely must know this as I've explained it many times over time on RF, I spent my whole working life in radio, radar, sat comms, sat remote sensing/imaging, sat tracking, command, and control, etc.

 

[gnostic]

You ask me if I've ever studied electromagnetism before, you surely must know this as I've explained it many times over time on RF, I spent my whole working life in radio, radar, sat comms, sat remote sensing/imaging, sat tracking, command, and control, etc.

You have worked with radio all your life. You don't say much about your background and experiences, so I didn't know that.

If that the case, which mean you really didn't need to quote from dictionary, because having work in that areas for so long, you should know it by heart about electromagnetism...then you should be able to answer some basic physics questions.

What you gave me was a definition of electromagnetic energy (EME), not electromagnetic wave. I am fine with this definition; it is not complete, but it is adequate enough...for now.

Can you define for me what is Electromagnetic "Wave" (EM Radiation)?

And what formula would you use for the (EM) basic wave model?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You have worked with radio all your life. You don't say much about your background and experiences, so I didn't know that.

If that the case, which mean you really didn't need to quote from dictionary, because having work in that areas for so long, you should know it by heart about electromagnetism...then you should be able to answer some basic physics questions.

What you gave me was a definition of electromagnetic energy (EME), not electromagnetic wave. I am fine with this definition; it is not complete, but it is adequate enough...for now.

Can you define for me what is Electromagnetic "Wave" (EM Radiation)?

And what formula would you use for the (EM) basic wave model?

That's fine.

From experience, it saves time to give a definition which can be referenced directly by the reader, else many the debater will play semantics and deliberately play dumb so it takes a number of exchanges to finally make the point.

Em energy radiates at speed of light as waves. The frequency of the waves is equal to C divided by the wavelength.

I understand why you may have difficulty understanding the nuance between different terms. For example, in general discussion in the field, one can use the expressions...em radiated energy, em radiated waves, em radiation, em energy waves, em energy radiation, em radio waves, pretty much interchangeably to mean the radiation of em energy.

 

[gnostic]

That's fine.

From experience, it saves time to give a definition which can be referenced directly by the reader, else many the debater will play semantics and deliberately play dumb so it takes a number of exchanges to finally make the point.

Em energy radiates at speed of light as waves. The frequency of the waves is equal to C divided by the wavelength.

I understand why you may have difficulty understanding the nuance between different terms. For example, in general discussion in the field, one can use the expressions...em radiated energy, em radiated waves, em radiation, em energy waves, em energy radiation, em radio waves, pretty much interchangeably to mean the radiation of em energy.

I agreed that I have problem with my English, with grammars and typos.

But I do understand what I read.

And I preferred to rely on physics textbook, then on dictionary, which never give enough detail or a complete picture of what science is.

Here is the introduction to EM from my old physics book, by Serway:

By definition, the propagation of mechanical disturbances—such as sound waves, water waves, and waves on a string—requires the presence of a medium. This chapter is concerned with the properties of electromagnetic waves, which (unlike mechanical waves) can propagate through empty space.

(Page 983).

This is followed by Maxwell's contribution to EM theory:

These equations predict the existence of electromagnetic waves that propagate through space at the speed of light c.

(Page 983).

So far that describing EM "Waves", not EM "Energy".

When it does talk about energy in the introduction, it say:

Next, we learn how electromagnetic waves are generated by oscillating electric charges. The waves radiated from the oscillating charges can be detected at great distances. Furthermore, because electromagnetic waves carry energy and momentum, they can exert pressure on a surface.

(Page 983).

Here, I will stress out the important part of EM waves descriptions: "electromagnetic waves carry energy and momentum..."

Here, it is my understanding that energy is a property of EM waves, not the waves being a property of EM energy, which is what you and your definition are claiming.

Those EM examples you gave me the types of waves - gamma rays, x-rays, ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwaves and radio waves. They are waves, not energy.

Yes, these waves give out specific range of energy, but each of these waves, are actually define by their wavelengths and frequencies. Wavelength, frequency and wavelength are properties of the waves.

(Source:

Raymond A Serway and John W Jewett, Jr, chapter 34, page 983, Electromagnetic Waves, Physics for Scientists and Engineer with Model Physics (8 edition), Cengage Learning, Los Angles)​

I am not sure I am getting to you about the what is a wave and what is a property of wave.

So let me give you a different example, unrelated to EM waves.

I am sure you understand what a Periodic Table is, in chemistry.

Each atom will have a number of properties assigned to it:

1. the atom name,
   
2. symbol,
   
3. atomic number,
   
4. atomic weight (total number or mass of protons and neutrons)
   
5. period number
6. group number
   
7. type (transitional metal, alkaline, halogen, noble gas, etc)
8. electrons
9. physical state (at room temperature, eg solid, liquid, gas)
10. etc

All these properties are what define each atom.

In EM wave spectrum, the properties are

1. type or name of EM wave (eg microwave, infrared, etc)
   
2. wavelength
3. frequency
4. energy

Do you now understand what I am saying? Energy is just one of properties of EM wave.

Maybe I am picky, Ben, but I rather to refer gamma ray, x-ray, microwave by their proper field (EM) name as "wave" or "radiation", instead of "energy".

You open up any physics textbooks, I have yet to see a chapter title being called "Electromagnetic Energy"; most of them would call it EM "Wave" or "Radiation".

In Wikipedia, the page title is Electromagnetic Radiation, but here is the opening paragraph.

In physics, electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) refers to the waves (or their quanta, photons) of the electromagnetic field, propagating (radiating) through space carrying electromagnetic radiant energy. It includes radio waves, microwaves, infrared, (visible) light, ultraviolet, X-, and gamma radiation.

Here it identified EM radiation as "waves", and waves that carry EM "radiant energy".

Why is microwave not called "micro-energy"? And why not "radio energy" instead of "radio wave"?

To me, it would seem that radiation and wave are synonymous to each other.

 

[ChristineM]

So what are the properties of time that are tangible in the here and now like all other tangible things are real in the here and now?

Already given you examples, I'm not repeating myself because you refuse to acknowledge fact

 

[Polymath257]

So what are the properties of time that are tangible in the here and now like all other tangible things are real in the here and now?

How about an experiment? Suppose in stage one of the experiment you are pressed lightly on your forearm by something, with the touches a tenth of a second apart. In stage two, you are touched in the same way by with the interval one fifth of a second apart. I would bet that you would be able to distinguish easily which case had a longer time interval of separation.

There, you have time as a tangible thing.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, it just is the way it is! But it is also true that those who believe they have some new ideas that question the old, must 'push' to have themselves heard if their idea is ever to be accepted and become a part of the next generation of orthodoxy.

Yes, they have to push. They have to present the evidence and convince others that their viewpoint is correct.

Do you see something wrong with this requirement?

 

[Polymath257]

Haha....gnostic mate, as a person to whom English is not your first language, you should have used your dictionary to look up the definition of radiation before you typed. Radiation is energy. I refer you of my earlier suggestion to you that you keep a good dictionary hand at all times and never pass word you do not understand without looking it up.
-------------------------
radiation
reɪdɪˈeɪʃ(ə)n/

noun

Physics.

1. the process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves.
2. the complete process in which energy is emitted by one body, transmitted through an intervening medium or space, and absorbed by another body.
3. the energy transferred by these processes.

---------------
You ask me if I've ever studied electromagnetism before, you surely must know this as I've explained it many times over time on RF, I spent my whole working life in radio, radar, sat comms, sat remote sensing/imaging, sat tracking, command, and control, etc.

Again, you should not rely on a dictionary for technical terms.

Radiation is the *process* whereby energy is emitted. It is not the energy itself. In fact, radiation is typically a radiation of particle: neutron radiation is, in particular, a radiation of neutrons, which are matter, not energy. Light is the emission of photons, which are NOT pure energy.

You are simply wrong here.

 

[Polymath257]

That's fine.

From experience, it saves time to give a definition which can be referenced directly by the reader, else many the debater will play semantics and deliberately play dumb so it takes a number of exchanges to finally make the point.

Em energy radiates at speed of light as waves. The frequency of the waves is equal to C divided by the wavelength.

I understand why you may have difficulty understanding the nuance between different terms. For example, in general discussion in the field, one can use the expressions...em radiated energy, em radiated waves, em radiation, em energy waves, em energy radiation, em radio waves, pretty much interchangeably to mean the radiation of em energy.

Yes, radio is an electromagnetic radiation. Like all radiation, it *carries* energy, but is not itself just energy. As with all electromagnetic radiation, it consists of photons. Those photons are NOT pure energy. They also, for example, have polarization (spin), momentum,etc.

You may well be interested in the direction of release of the electromagnetic energy because that is the direction of the photons and hence, the direction in which it can be picked up by receivers.
But, unless you are picking up the heat generated when the radio waves hit your material, you are not picking up the energy per se; you are picking up the photons.

 

[Polymath257]

That's fine.

From experience, it saves time to give a definition which can be referenced directly by the reader, else many the debater will play semantics and deliberately play dumb so it takes a number of exchanges to finally make the point.

Em energy radiates at speed of light as waves. The frequency of the waves is equal to C divided by the wavelength.

I understand why you may have difficulty understanding the nuance between different terms. For example, in general discussion in the field, one can use the expressions...em radiated energy, em radiated waves, em radiation, em energy waves, em energy radiation, em radio waves, pretty much interchangeably to mean the radiation of em energy.

Yes, but that E&M wave is precisely that: a wave of electric and magnetic fields. In free space, the electric field vector is always perpendicular to the magnetic field vector. Both are perpendicular to the direction of the wave motion. Depending on polarization, the electric field can vibrate back and forth in one plane (linear polarization) or spin around the axis of motion (circular or elliptical polarization).

The energy is determined by the electric and magnetic fields. The energy is propagated in the direction perpendicular to both of those fields (the Poynting vector).

This is the classical description, by the way. It is the one you get by solving Maxwell's equations. It is also possible to do a quantum description using photons where the E&M potential is used to represent the photon probability wave and the energy, momentum, and polarization are carried by the photons.