I thought you were a better thinker. And I thought I felt youd didn't had much truth because you were most of a philosopher than physicist (and philosophers are never sayiong the truth)... But I've realised that it's not only that you have no truth, but also that you have no reason, and the mixture of these two negation is: Religion. That's what you are. Nothing else, nothing better.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion I can think of one. Untill we offer a better explanation for the big bang we cannot rule out what seems to be the case that all matter was created at the moment of the big bang. Now I'm not saying this is the case, just saying that it seems to disprove the idea that matter can not be created. The big point though is that whether matter was truely created is irrelevant for our universe because obviously for our universe matter suddenly came into appearance and this is what is important. Now I think there is a better explanation which I am still keeping a secret, but the fact is that all the laws of thermodynamics are irrelevant when you consider the universe and time as a whole. For example the universe as a whole IS a perpetual motion machine, therefore that law of thermo is irrelevant. Also at the end of time time it could very well be that time will reverse and thus the law that the arrow of time always goes in one direction is incorrect or at least irrelevant. Thus I have just shown that the laws of thermodynamics are either incorrect or irrelevant or both when you consider the universe and time as a whole, and we can take this from first principles of the Law of Laws. |
Aham, aham... Niether is th law of laws a physical law, or can it change anything in physics. You say the three laws of thermodynamics are wrong as they state what cannot be done, not what can. You are wrong. Not only because by stating what can't be done, directly it is stated what can be done, but also because the do state what can be done, jusy by yourself a text book. I could discuss the rest you say but it's all so wrong nothing can be done.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion a finite amount of energy is irrelevant when you consider everything. There is enough energy in the universe to do as much work as you want, therefore the statement that it is not possible to do work without energy is an irrelevant statement because it assumes that the universe does not have plenty of energy. So the statement of yours may be correct, but it is irrelevant when considering the universe as a whole because it speaks of "without energy" which is not a possibility for the universe as a whole |
And it is YOU the one talking about irrelevancy? What? You! Who do nothing but talk about a theory that is not there, and that has no holes, of course, you say, there is no failure in your TOE... That's because it is neither a TOE or it
is at all anything, apart from a ghost for that matter. YOU talk! But you do nothing but believe you have the great law of laws... We all knew that really retarded law ages ago! And anyway it's not even really correct... YOU talk! Lot's of time, you talk... And yet, one can see how after so many words, you have said nothing.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by subversion Is this what dleviwing has taught you? How can we differentiate between rest mass and relativistic mass (without an absolute frame of reference)? According to gravity there is no difference and gravity is what defines mass. Speaking about the rest mass of a photon is irrelevant because photons are never at rest. Well, I enjoyed putting my two cents in. |
And this is too much! You've misinterpreted completely what I said... I talked about the rest mass, not the rest state in spacetime... I talked about the mass of matter, not of light/photons... And by the way, energy does not have mass, who says that is either very stupid, I would say under Forest Gump, or lying, lying more than Jesus or Mahoma, and that's hard even trying...