19 replies to this topic

[yoktar]

Can time be the ultimate energy that created the universe? Before any type of material formed, the time was static. Can there be a definition as static time? It can be speculated that this static time had enormous energy which actually lead to explosion. Thus, static time started to turn into moving time as it started to lose energy. The energy dissipated turned into the energy of material and light

Edited by yoktar, 27 May 2005 - 06:55 PM.

[Infernity]

I believe time is just a major, and way of things to happen, definitely not an energy of itself.

It is no element, and since every piece of energy gets time differently, and every living thing analyses it differently- it cannot be termed as an energy.

~Infernity

[jonathan2111]

T

[Infernity]

T

[huh]


Ahh, were the words got stuck in your mouth or what? [glasses]


~Infernity

[yoktar]

infernity,
what is the best explanation that you can give to the question "how is space formed?"?

[jonathan2111]

(Sorry pressed wromg button and can't go back in time)

The fact that you can do one experiment on one day and get the same result if you do precisely the same experiment the next day is time symmetry.

That is exactly the same as the conservation of energy via something known as Noether's Theorem (that can be checked on the web).

So the two are linked but in a strange way.

What gives time it's arrow is a matter of great philosophical and scientific debate. However, the best way of thinking about it is to say that mass (or, more accurately, mass-energy) is like a sheet of drawing paper. As time moves forward, the description of that piece of paper gets more complicated. We observe that as simple systems slowly breaking down and becoming more complex to describe - usually ending up as low grade heat.

It would help to use an example to illustrate. Wind energy is a synchronised movement of air molecules and thus the bulk movement is easy to describe. If it turns a turbine, it can be converted to electricity. That is inefficient, in that a few tens of percent are turned into heat due to inefficiencies in the mechanics (bearings etc.) and magnetic losses near the conductors. Eventually, it will be used to heat a room or turn a motor. Whatever, the end result is heat that leaks away iinto the environment. When it is thoroughly diluted in the environment, not only is it useless, but the extra information required to describe the added complexity of the motion of the air molecules in that environment is vastly greater than the simple numbers required to describe the bulk wind movement.

That is only an example but serves to illustrate the point. Matter kind of rusts away as random numbers are added to it's description. The emergent property is the arrow of time. The emergent structure in macroscopic form is known as Minkowski geometry (i.e. Minkowski space) or Space-Time.

Weird, eh?

Jonathan [bl:)]

[Infernity]

infernity,
what is the best explanation that you can give to the question "how is space formed?"?

Hmm, well I can tell you that EVERYTHING including EVERYTHING is built out of energy in the end.
Rather if it is simply an energy whom cannot be gathered and remains energy and rather if it can gather itself to turn quarks, and then become a part of some atom's element and build itself etcetera...

Since I do not believe energy can be created nor destroyed, but simply change press on other energy piece and exist - I don't think space can be formed.

But, I think that the fact some energy remains energy of itself and some gather to become bigger elements is pointing on energy not necessarily being the same as other energy pieces (different moulds).
Which brings me back to here: http://www.imminst.o...php?act...08
The devision of the elements.
I believe it can divide with no end. Maybe, into other tiny multi-verses and mega-verses and so on... Even if it does end somewhere- the energy of the smallest uni- can be mathematically divided with no end...
Unless it is in some point being circulatory. In such case everything is more than arranged through the unifying theory, but determined might have already happen. See my discussion with antilithium...:
http://www.imminst.o....=little miss

(Sorry pressed wromg button and can't go back in time)

No, you can't take back time Jonathan, but what you can do is to delete this post, simply by clicking on the 'X' button next to the 'EDIT' button that lies above your post in the right...

Yours
~Infernity

Edited by infernity, 27 May 2005 - 10:01 PM.

[Infernity]

Damn it Lazarus, I try to edit and it's mixing it all up!!!

Can you switch the first link I put there to this one: http://www.imminst.o...x.php?act...

And the second link to this one:
http://www.imminst.o...hp?act...126

Be careful!

Thanks a lot,

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

P.s. you guys should really work on the quotes problem, it is now worst!

[knite]

i dont think you can consider time energy any more than you can consider space energy.

[Infernity]

i dont think you can consider time energy any more than you can consider space energy.

Knite,
Heh well if you read your sentence deeply- you are correct. But you didn't mean what you said.
Space IS energy, made out of energy- every piece does. Time isn't.
Hence: You can't consider time as energy *more* than you can consider space as energy...



Yours truthfully
~Infernity

[knite]

Matter is energy, true. There is always background energy in space, true again. BUT there is no material that makes up space as it pertains to the dimensions x,y, or z, as we understand it and as time can be thought of as another dimension, it follows that it would not be energy either. No material means no energy.

[Infernity]

Matter is energy, true. There is always background energy in space, true again. BUT there is no material that makes up space as it pertains to the dimensions x,y, or z, as we understand it and as time can be thought of as another dimension, it follows that it would not be energy either. No material means no energy.

And how is this contrasting any of what I said?

Or wasn't suppose to...?

Yours
~Infernity

[el_excellencicc]

i, suppose time is quantitatively an extra dimension in Man's-life...some would say qualitatively improving it, e.g. socially. it enables us to convene, with one another; remove Man, and 'time' ceases to exist. the universe would continue its course [..existing\un-existing:] at the level of molecular-Physics, et cetera. [- time [ relative to us; ] starting - vis-a-vis incisively!

adios,

el_excellencicc

[EverlastingLife]

If energy effects it, then more than likely it has some aspects of being 'energy'. If it effects it and it isn't not the same or contains aspects of it, then wherein or what lies in their connection?

[mikelorrey]

Time cannot be energy any more than length can. It is merely a metric.

[Infernity]

Time space is the 4th dimension, it is no energy, but the tool to be an element of funnel of possibility.

-Infernity

[knite]

ive actually begun to question that the actual dimensions are made of nothing. I am beginning to wonder if space is, in fact, made up of energy and if gravity (which is a curvature of space-time) is simply an effect caused by the interaction of matter and this background of energy, being as how we are having such difficulty finding a graviton. besides, the more I think about gravitons, the less sense they make.

[mikelorrey]

You are speaking of the zero point field, which is well established. I agree that gravity is a topological effect of the surface of the ZPF being distorted by mass, and gravity waves are merely waves of the ZPF, like waves in the ocean. However, outside or harnessing wave action and gravity well potential energy, I highly doubt that work can be done with the ground state energy of the ZPF.

A better question to study is why the ocean of energy that makes up the ZPF doesn't flow down gravity wells...

[Infernity]

the more I think about gravitons, the less sense they make.

The more you think of something, the more complicated it gets hehe.


-Infernity

[knite]

well, what i meant by that was that, gravity propogates at the speed of light, if it were some kind of particle or something, it would have to get to somehow reach the other particle it was attracting AND BACK in the time it would take light just to reach the other particle. Plus, it would have to reach every possible particle in the entire universe to attract them (however mildly), and yes, I was speaking of ZPE. Man I wish I had a physics degree right now so I could do more than just ponder about this crap, well, 3 more years, heres to patience.