Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[Roidecoeur78]

Are you sure that conservation of energy applies "beyond" the universe?

If the universe consists of all the matter/energy and space/time that has ever existed, and will ever exist, including throughout an infinite amount of permutations of it, then the only thing "beyond" it is He in whom it exists.

 

[durangodawood]

If the universe consists of all the matter/energy and space/time that has ever existed, and will ever exist, including throughout an infinite amount of permutations of it, then the only thing "beyond" it is He in whom it exists.

Its entirely possible that there are other universes (with their own time, space, and stuff) besides ours.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Its entirely possible that there are other universes (with their own time, space, and stuff) besides ours.

That would pretty much defeat the purpose of the prefix "uni". If you mean by appealing to Hugh Everett's Many Worlds theory, the math of which was investigated and verified back in the 50's, there allows for the possibility of infinite worlds within the endless permutations of the Universe, then I'd agree that the possibility exists for endless variations of space/time, matter/energy, gravity, dark matter, dark energy, etc. Along with a whole countless host of things a temporary consciousness can never aspire to know. Because there is just way more that has existed, does exist, and will ever exist than a finite mind can conceive of, comprehend, or even perceive. No matter how much information any individual consciousness may become aware of, that amount will always be extremely limited compared to the whole, and there will always be an infinite amount which it will never perceive, conceive, comprehend, or come to know in any way.

But anything conceivable, discoverable and intelligible cannot be said to be separate from wherein we exist. Any additional "verse" people wish to hypothesize about, whether they call it a "multi", "poly", "endo", "morpho", "meta" , or "et cetera verse" will necessarily be part of the one and whole Uni-verse; outside of which there is no finite state of being, nor can there be.

 

[SelfSim]

... But anything conceivable, discoverable and intelligible cannot be said to be separate from wherein we exist. Any additional "verse" people wish to hypothesize about, whether they call it a "multi", "poly", "endo", "morpho", "meta" , or "et cetera verse" will necessarily be part of the one and whole Uni-verse; outside of which there is no finite state of being, nor can there be.

Therefore nothing can be said about it .. in spite of the fact you just did (underlined bits).

Falsified by your own 'logic'.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

You said

Therefore nothing can be said about it .. in

I said

anything conceivable, discoverable and intelligible cannot be said to be separate from wherein we exist.

If you cannot tell the difference, there is no helping you. Because the Being outside is inconceivable, eternal, unchanging, and beyond the comprehension of a finite consciousness. That is why it is said all finite beings that exist, live, breathe, and have their existence, in His image. The tangible, intelligible universe is that image, outside of which is not an option. Yes, there can be things said about that, because your very statement "

Therefore nothing can be said about it .. in

false as it is, can, and was, said about that.

 

[SelfSim]

... If you cannot tell the difference, there is no helping you.

That's ok .. (I'm not asking for 'help').

Because the Being outside is inconceivable, eternal, unchanging, and beyond the comprehension of a finite consciousness ...

.. and it is you (or someone else) who is saying that.
How else would we know anything 'outside' what is conceivable by us, if it weren't being said by some other human?

 

[SelfSim]

... That is why it is said all finite beings that exist, live, breathe, and have their existence, in His image.

Umm .. who said that?

Because whoever it was, was clearly setting up a circular argument (see emboldenments above).

 

[sjastro]

It doesn’t contradict it in the least....

As stated it’s simply your misunderstanding of what happens.

It doesn't go anywhere, energy is a relative concept. So Energy seen in one reference frame need not be the same as energy seen in another.

Example, if I ask you what is your kinetic energy ? It is zero relative to earth. But relative to moon it is non zero. right?

So have you lost or gained energy?

But there you go again, treating this frame as an absolute frame.......

Learn....

Did I not state the conversation laws do not apply across frames?
Try sticking to the subject involving Doppler shift because it gives a clear insight into what is going on.
By its very nature Doppler shift is an increase or decrease in energy depending on the whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer.
Using Noether’s theorem however one cannot define the dynamical system of the observer by a Lagrangian which is invariant under a time translation, hence energy is not conserved since the conservation law is not applicable.
Gobbledygook to you but textbook stuff since the early 20th century and known well before an expanding Universe was even envisaged.
Since you now admit energy can have a different value in each frame, the observer measures a Doppler shift resulting in an energy loss or gain relative to the moving frame and cannot claim the conservation law is violated, but instead energy is not conserved across frames. This is a simple example of Noether’s theorem at work.

For someone who boasted about understanding conservation laws by stating every system has a conservation law you have contradicted yourself by showing the opposite is in fact correct.

Why? You just can’t understand the potential energy is converted into kinetic energy. No energy has been lost or gained.....

No, pink unicorns and tooth fairies is your story for non tested physics outside of our fishbowl.... and for imaginary matter.....

How the goalposts have changed considerably over so few posts.
Let me remind you of its original content.
"Why, do you have a problem with the scientific claim that energy is not subject to time?????"
This statement seems to change meaning from post to post.
So now we have gone from falling balls to bouncing balls; and now bouncing balls with energy conservation, fishbowls and imaginary matter.
The fact that your original statement was comprehensively wrong as illustrated using a falling ball as an example; it doesn’t make it right with your subsequent spin stories.
Are we going to get yet another version next time?

You failed to pause and think..... every orbit is an acceleration, yet your accelerometer reads as zero.....

You mean where you quoted various values for orbits such as 1000 mph, 67000 mph or 514000 mph blissfully unaware you were quoting velocity not acceleration!!!
Do you understand if these values are constant the acceleration is zero?
For the rest of us even with a minimal knowledge of orbits; the stationary accelerometer reads zero tangential acceleration because the Earth is not accelerating through space.
I even gave you the explanation for circular and near circular orbits where the tangential acceleration is for all intents and purposes zero including a calculation based on the Earth’s perihelion and aphelion velocities leads to a negligibly small acceleration.

You chose to ignore the accelerometer evidence and the explanations given because your patently absurd ideas are based on a pet theory where the evidence and science can be damned.

I asked if you wanted me to explain it if you thought yourself capable of comprehension. Apparently you doubt your comprehension skills...

Insulting tone? lol, says the guy that does nothing but insult people. Look into the mirror and see yourself reflected in your own words....

But then that’s why you have attempted no defense of your Fairie Dust, because all you would have is garbage and never observed in any laboratory claims of physics not detectable in our little fishbowl.

Frustrating isn’t it, to only have claims that can’t ever be supported in any laboratory.....

But it’s ok, your insults do nothing as it’s all just an attempt to bait so you can get the thread closed as you can’t defend Fairie Dust....

I understand and forgive you....

Who exactly is piling on the insults here particularly when it is at its most prevalent when you find yourself on the losing end of a discussion?
The truth hurts when it is pointed out via the testimony of your posts as to why you are way out of your depth and your predictable response to resort to arrogance and rudeness as a form of compensation.

But it’s ok, your insults do nothing as it’s all just an attempt to bait so you can get the thread closed as you can’t defend Fairie Dust....

Your insult has well and truly backfired as it has been inadvertently directed at the moderators with this impressive conspiracy theory that I can get threads shut down by baiting posters given it is the moderators who have the final decision.
The moderators must be in on the scheme it as well.

Ironically the moderators have been most helpful in providing advice on how to avoid being baited as you have attempted to do with your responses as well as spelling out the forum rules some of which I was not aware of.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Umm .. who said that?

Because whoever it was, was clearly setting up a circular argument (see emboldenments above).

If you do not know yet, perhaps you should look into it. Depending on how aged you are, and if you really wanted to know, shouldn't you have begun researching this by now?

"You are reading this on a device that would have filled a skyscraper had it been built in 1956. You have terabytes of the world’s accumulated wisdom at your fingertips via the Internet. You probably have a college education in your pocket. Plato, Schopenhauer, Einstein, Feynman, Gödel, Jung, Kierkegaard, Turing, Fermi, Crick and Watson, and countless others, have preceded you and have all blazed an intellectual trail for you to follow."

With all this going for you, your contribution to society seems to be perfecting your anonymous contrarianism and posting smiley face emojis. What excuse will you have for yourself when your body returns to the dirt, and you must step into eternity with nothing to say for yourself except you liked trying to bait people on internet forums?

 

[SelfSim]

If you do not know yet, perhaps you should look into it. Depending on how aged you are, and if you really wanted to know, shouldn't you have begun researching this by now?

I was unsure of where you were coming from. It now appears you were expressing your beliefs .. which is all fine by me.

... With all this going for you, your contribution to society seems to be perfecting your anonymous contrarianism and posting smiley face emojis.

My smiley was intended to convey friendliness. It saddens me to see that you took it another way.

What excuse will you have for yourself when your body returns to the dirt, and you must step into eternity with nothing to say for yourself except you liked trying to bait people on internet forums?

Umm .. I was following your logic .. it contains a circular argument .. and is it is now clear to me that it was based on your beliefs ... which is all fine by me .. I'm not committed to criticising anyone's beliefs .. (I have my own).

However, when you speak on behalf of the scientific process and science's operational definitions, (time, the universe, etc), in a science discussion forum, in future, I recommend that make you it clear when you are expressing those beliefs.

Cheers & Rgds

 

[Roidecoeur78]

I'm not committed to criticising anyone's beliefs .. (I have my own).

Oh, do you believe in science too?

 

[SelfSim]

Oh, do you believe in science too?

Not for a second! ... Because I don't have to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh, I'm sorry, I was under the impression that "authority" and "source" were implying those that both governed, and were the purveyors of, the space/time, matter/energy we were speaking of. Did you think those self-proclaimed authoritative sources you found were that? Or do you just have an endorsement deal with them?

No.

No one has to take the word of anyone else for anything, and I would suggest no one do so unless their trust is well founded. And I'm glad that someone existing these days is familiar with Newtonian principles, and even relativity(whether general and special). I'm sure, after much meditation, you saw what relativity meant in regards to time and the general human conception of it being not entirely comprehensive, and that the current understanding of quantum mechanics has not changed that? Or are you just taking other people's words for something, rather than using the personal capacity and abilities that were given to you, to seek out the truth? If where somebody "got something" was only from some other talking ape, then I would sincerely urge that person to be methodically skeptical. Because walking around with other people's concepts in one's head would be just lazy erudition, monkey hear monkey say, and not personal knowledge. I'm sure what does not make sense to some, is only that which is, as yet, beyond their capacity. But don't feel bad, no one gets to choose who and what they are, at any given time. That's why if you acknowledge and admit your limitations and imperfections, and forgive others theirs, who and what you are won't be held against you.

OK, I take that to be a verbose justification for making it up.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...But anything conceivable, discoverable and intelligible cannot be said to be separate from wherein we exist. Any additional "verse" people wish to hypothesize about, whether they call it a "multi", "poly", "endo", "morpho", "meta" , or "et cetera verse" will necessarily be part of the one and whole Uni-verse; outside of which there is no finite state of being, nor can there be.

The etymologically-derived meaning tends to be superseded over time by changing usage and definitions; the Milky Way was once considered to be the universe, but when distant galaxies were discovered, they were called 'island universes'. When the full observable universe was revealed, it became 'the universe' and the 'island universes' were 'demoted' to galaxies. Now it has become apparent that our universe could be one of many causally isolated spacetime volumes, they're called universes and the ensemble is called the multiverse, and if they're the product of some greater bulk, it becomes a 'metaverse'.

I suspect this convention is likely to remain for a considerable time, as other possible 'universes', being causally isolated, are not accessible to us, so not part of our experiential reality - but who knows, perhaps the powers-that-be will decide to meet up to formalize the jargon some other way.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

OK, I take that to be a verbose justification for making it up.

No one need "make it up", if they have a connection to the actual authority and source, from Whom they will know the truth. As for any talking ape that must rely on sense perceptions, they are utterly reliant on belief (whether it be a belief in scientific theory or not); seeing as they must deal entirely in possibility and probability, along with trusting the limited capacity and accuracy of their perceptions even while measuring and recording the data with their instruments (instruments which are also limited in capacity and accuracy).

But here is a blurb from one of your own, for what it's worth (to you), a Mr Brian Cox:
"We say that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but actually all we "know" really was that the universe was very hot and very dense at that time. And we have some theories that the universe was in existence before that, and perhaps some circumstantial evidence. And that means that, actually, the universe could've always been there- eternal."

Found here:

at the 5:37 - 5:56 mark.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

but who knows

The answer is: Only God knows, the rest must deal entirely in possibility and probability; and then believe according to the ability granted to them.

And when in eternity, your own ability to comprehend time is constrained by countless factors beyond your own authority to remove yourself from. You cannot choose your comprehension level. So if someone were to try to "walk you through" the understanding of anyone else, when you were never given the capacity for that understanding, which person would be practicing an exercise in futility?

If one is to have peace that surpasses all understanding, one must come to accept his or her limitations, ignorance and all.

 

[Steve Petersen]

I also acknowledge that 'real world' is what many of us call 'what we detect by our senses' (incorporating the usual meanings associated with it). However, the process they follow in arriving at those meanings can be retraced (tracked) and is almost always not the scientific process. Whilst the scientific process can be used to do it, the meanings in so doing, are fundamentally different.

Reality encompasses things we CAN'T detect with our senses. But we have created tools to convert that information into things we CAN detect with our senses.

 

[Roidecoeur78]

Reality encompasses things we CAN'T detect with our senses. But we have created tools to convert that information into things we CAN detect with our senses.

As for the fallibility of science, due to the fallibility of machines, due to the fallibility of humans:

Machine learning 'causing science crisis'

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... here is a blurb from one of your own, for what it's worth (to you), a Mr Brian Cox:
"We say that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago, but actually all we "know" really was that the universe was very hot and very dense at that time. And we have some theories that the universe was in existence before that, and perhaps some circumstantial evidence. And that means that, actually, the universe could've always been there- eternal."

Found here:

at the 5:37 - 5:56 mark.

That's an uncontroversial statement of what our observations suggest.

What is your point?

 

[Roidecoeur78]

That's an uncontroversial statement of what our observations suggest.

What is your point?

To paraphrase a Louis Armstrong, "If you have to ask, you'll never know"