2
   

THE FORWARD DIRECTION OF TIME

 
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 09:37 pm
@north,
north wrote:
think of a super-nova explosion

Okay

north wrote:
it is caused by the imblance of matter within the star

No it isn't.

north wrote:
which in a sense is the samething as the moon situation I mentioned before

Could you be more precise

north wrote:
except that the mass is recycled in a faster way

Exactly how? Forgive my paranoia, but you sound as if you're just making stuff up.




[/quote]
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 09:39 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

north wrote:
balance

for example sooner or later the moon will be turned into energy

either by collision from travelling matter or by us

Maybe, but that's the easy part. The hard part is, how do you convert the energy back into the moon? If time loops back, and if in three gazillion years time would come back to this very moment---now---there would have to be a time somewhere in the loop where the energy produces the moon again. It is this part that would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics.


let me put it differently , first its not about time

its about how much potential energy an atom has

why ?

this is the question , can you drain any atom completely of energy , so that this atom becomes non-existent ?
0 Replies
 
north
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 09:45 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

north wrote:
think of a super-nova explosion

Okay

north wrote:
it is caused by the imblance of matter within the star

Quote:
No it isn't.


then why does a super -nova happen ?

so an explosion is not caused by an imblance between energy and the inability to confine this energy ?

Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2010 10:17 pm
@north,
north wrote:
then why does a super -nova happen ?

There are several possible causes---Wikipedia has a pretty good overview. None of them is remotely similar to the Moon scenario you hinted at, and from which your thing about "balance" spun off.

north wrote:
so an explosion is not caused by an imblance between energy and the inability to confine this energy ?

If you strain words enough---the word "balance" for example---everything can mean anything. Or nothing.

north wrote:
first its not about time

Then why did you title your thread "the forward direction of time"?

north wrote:
this is the question , can you drain any atom completely of energy , so that this atom becomes non-existent ?

Please define what you mean by "potential energy", as it applies to atoms. Evidently you are using the term to mean something different than it does in standard physics usage. But what?
Sentience
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Sep, 2010 10:13 am
Eleven dimension/ten dimensions theory, as well as Einstein's Relativity Theory, state that time does NOT move forward and we only perceive it as such. In fact, time is simultaneous and there is no 'present' and each moment is as real as the next. The same way we see only one side of a cube at a time and yet do not believe the object two-dimensional, we should not see one moment at a time and assume time is moving forward.


Edit: On second thought, I realize this has nothing to do with the exact topic. The OP is just spouting 'physics' (read as crap) that are completely vague, unreliable, and unfocused to the topic at hand.

How does saying 'balance' destroy the law of entropy?
north
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Nov, 2010 02:21 pm

Quote:
north wrote:
this is the question , can you drain any atom completely of energy , so that this atom becomes non-existent ?


Quote:
Please define what you mean by "potential energy", as it applies to atoms. Evidently you are using the term to mean something different than it does in standard physics usage. But what?


first can you drain an atom completely of energy ?
0 Replies
 
Bracewell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 06:04 pm
I supose that what is being said is that time is a series of events and the direction, either forward or back, is pretty irrelevent. Is the big bamg really over and if not then at what point is it considered that entropy starts or does entropy influence the course of the big bang? I am not at all sure that the big bang and entropy are happy bedfellows.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 08:22 pm
@Sentience,
Instead of balance how about probability eh ?
I guess Balance makes sense after all...
(worse then to not know is to correct someone and pretend to know..."BULLSHIT" is the name of the book is n´t it?)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 08:27 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
north wrote:

it is caused by the imblance of matter within the star



Quote:
No it isn't.

...Guess he meant an unbalance between gravity pulling inwards and the needed critical mass of matter to sustain the strength of the fusion pulling outwards...(don´t be so peaky...)
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Thu 16 Dec, 2010 08:32 pm
@Thomas,
Kinetic/Potential energy conversion is well know to high school students...are you that old that you forgot ?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
DOES NOTHING EXIST??? - Question by mark noble
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/25/2020 at 09:34:47