Thread 16734118

Energy can obviously be created from nothing, or else we would not be able to observe energy.

It’s a really simple argument, you could never encounter something without a creation mechanism.

>>16734118 (OP)
Go to mount everest, or nearby. Look at mount everest
Then run towards mount everest
Congrats, from your frame of reference you created a gigantic amount of kinetic energy in mount everest, as it zooms towards you (in your frame of reference)

>>16734118 (OP)

Obviously complete bullshit for any closed system. Correct question would be: could you borrow from nothing and pay it back later? That would be something useful!

>>16734151
You straight up observe [Thing] and you say with a straight face:
>[Thing] can not be created :)
You see nothing wrong with this? And energy can be destroyed and is in fact not conserved, but never created?

>>16734154

>You see nothing wrong with this?

Uhm, nope. Unless we throw thermodynamics outa the window ... and then we can throw everything right out with it. Assumption that the universe does not give free meals is just too grounded to disregard. Would have seen effects to the contrary otherwise by now, even if miniscule. Now energy cannot really be "destroyed" either, just put out of good use. Now even if we assume wild shit like a false vacuum we´d still not be "creating" anything, just running below the common gradient threshold. Now borrowing howevs ... why not? Could be in temporal or spatial terms. Could be impossible but nothing I can think about that does categorically not permit it.

>>16734163
Energy can be destroyed, when a photon redshifts the energy is destroyed.

>>16734163
Anon thermodynamics isn’t observed in the universe. It’s only observed on earth due to opposite forces acting on each other.

Earth, the planets and the sun will spin forever. No forces acting on the planetary motion. Gravity must not be real it must be centripetal force.


Also the language you’re using doesn’t clarify what energy is. To be fair no human can create from scratch any periodic element or life or the sun or earth itself.

So duh we cannot create energy. We just capture some of the suns energy and earth or makes from natural chemical synthesis

>implies "nothing" is something that can exist in the first place
its all so tiresome. the energy wasn't "created" the energy is all there ever was, the energy IS the reality, everything else is a mirage

>>16734118 (OP)
Actually energy changes, so your argument is garbage. This is pretty straightforward.

>>16734163
>Unless we throw thermodynamics outa the window
You don't have to throw it out the window, you just have to open it up and stop assuming the universe is a closed system.

>Would have seen effects to the contrary
Like a constant universal expansion where new space constantly seems to keep coming from nowhere and everywhere at the same time?

>>16734118 (OP)
Then what created God?

>>16734302
Universe came from nothing - nothing exists.
Universe or something else has always been there - infinity exists.

>>16735706
God and the universe are the same thing. It is a giant macro organism in which we are a part in.

>>16734118 (OP)
Energy is difference between two states...
If you can produce bigger difference, than it takes to produce it, you have infinite energy.

>>16735725
Nothing is just the smallest part of infinity.

I fucking love science!

>>16735725
>Universe comes from nothing
Bold claim, no evidence to support it
>Literally just presented a belief pointlessly in a science discussion.

>>16735741
Then it is also just a "belief" to assume that energy "always" just has been there

>>16735741
Math is the evidence to support it, math starts with 0 and calls it the origin and there is plenty of other evidence too, you just haven't bothered to examine it.

Anon wasn't even seeming to claim that was necessarily true, they were just presenting the possibilities and the varying consequences they though would result.

>>16735745
it isnt a "belief" my scientifically illiterate amigo. it is simple logic CONFIRMED by the laws of thermodynamics

>>16735746
Meds...

>>16735752
>the laws of thermodynamics
they only apply in a closed system.

>>16735753
Yes the default meds initially prescribed to people is nothing just like the default initial state of a universe is nothing.

>>16735754
what system is outside of this reality dingus?

>>16735757
Other branes in the multiverse.

>>16735754
even if there was a system outside of this reality what point are you even trying to make? Do you think they are linked through some kind of gate? If they are how are you proposing energy is made in that system? What a dumb fucking response

>>16735758
>m-theorist

>>16735756
Mathematics was invented with one as first number, and zero only came after that...

Your claims are bullshit... Nothing is sole component of empty set, and dude, that thing is just modeling helper, and it doesn't exist. There's always something...

>>16735757
that is currently not known to us

>>16735759
holy shit are you crying right now?

>>16735762
>Mathematics was invented with one as first number, and zero only came after that...
So, the theory of reality was first about earth, then they added the rest of the universe when they realized it was incomplete without considering all the things outside of earth.

>>16735763
so you ...... believe it ..... and have nothing to corroborate it but wishful thinking?

>>16735764
yes, got a tissue?

>>16735765
Maybe yours, not every shit in universe happens on this planet, and it was like that since earths begining, but I am trying to say, you can't begin with nothing...

>>16735766
The question is where energy comes from

>>16735765
>So, the theory of reality was first about earth
source? ..... No, the heavens have always been included man's conception of reality. I lost IQ points reading this. STOP SIPHONING MY IQ

>>16735769
But I am telling you that math does begin with nothing even if they didn't realize it at first just like they didn't realize stuff was outside of earth at first.

>>16735772
How it can begin with nothing, if there's no beginning?

>>16735771
No, the heavens used to just be the waters above, more atmosphere instead of something completely different.

>>16735776
>the waters above
They were referring to the aether, not liquid water mong

>>16735776
Do you think they looked into the sky and couldnt tell the difference between it and the sea. wtf is wrong is wrong with you?

>>16735778
I want to see "nothing" the dude is talking about?

Is the "nothing" anywhere in room with us now?

what you retards do not get is that science is not capable of answering existential questions. it descriptive and therefore only describes the world in which we live. So even if we perfected the science, we would just had a perfect description of the system we live in but we still not know what built it.
You could know every nail used in your house, understand every construction element but you will still not know what built your house and why.
If you ask me the question is not answerable and simply cannot be known to use via science. It is and will always be a philosophical/religious question

>>16735775
Nothing is the beginning, its why every video and sound file begins at 0:00.

>>16735780
You can see it with your own two feet.

>>16735780
he graduated from 9th grade so he is obviously well beyond Plato, Aristotle, Pathogras etc in intelligence dude. He can use a fucking smart phone and sheeeeit

>>16735776
>the waters above
btw using bible references as a reference for what the ancients did nor didnt know ..... is ... well it is on levels of stupid that surpass my capabilities to cope with. I mean do you think it was biblical schozlrs who devised the laws of thermodynamics? Again, I fail to understand your point. It seems to me like you just reach for whatever you can grab when you are confronted with how dumb the things you are saying are.

>>16735782
No, as far as I know, video start with camera or file header, depends on perspective...

>>16735782
0:00 is something, reference to concept called time, that always been there.

>>16735785
I can only see with eyes, I'm not some person who sees people talking and get information from that like deaf people or idiots, that does see, when they realize.

>>16735786
I don't know, maybe technological advances in connectivity will lead to destruction of civilization.

>>#:
So somebody assumes from less than human lifespan of observation, that universe is billion years old, and from that little observation of such old thing he assumes he knows how it did begin...

Probabilities he's right are quite none.

>>16735787
When it comes to thermodynamics, people think that exactly specified device that sucks heat from sea water, and it works in a way, that in goes: warm sea water and out goes cold water + separate things that aren't water. That this device can't exist and tap the sign that says something about closed systems... People are retarded, I did drugs to cope for a long time... Now I am quite adjusted to feel the pain.

>>16735791
>People are retarded, I did drugs to cope for a long time... Now I am quite adjusted to feel the pain.
Well I cant argue with that. Ok I support your theory then.

>>16735790
>0:00 is something, reference to concept called time, that always been there.
Ok and the first point of time is 0 time, so logically the first point of space would be 0 space.

>I can only see with eyes
Which means you see nothing with your feet, so you don't have to ask someone else to see nothing for you, you can do it with your own two feet.

>>16735795
You tell us what was frist as counter point to the fact that there was no beginning. With something with no beginning, literally the last thing we care about is first thing...

And when it comes to seeing with feet, I don't "see nothing with my feet", I don't even see with my feet, how the fuck could I see nothing with object I don't see with at all?

>>16735791
btw I am not totally against what you are saying. I too believe there is something outside this reality pumping energy into it via spinning magnetism and the second law of thermodynamics is certainly breakable. However I do not think it is another "reality" I just think it is God, but what god is outside of the reality itself? That is the question. The vedas describe the multiverses springing forth from Vishnus pores, but they are obviously just being poetic about some mechanical process. So what did they know that we dont? I have been searching for this answer for over 20 years

>>16735797
Yes, they did know something we don't: "Extrapolate under heavy influence of drugs."

Now we can't do that because drugs are illegal.

>>16735800
laws dont stop men of action

>>16735802
When it comes to controlled substances, it kinda is. I can't buy reactants, because they're regulated, therefore I can't produce substance. If I start from scratch, it's much harder to do...

>>16735800
this is from an article I wrote many years ago

This is the second part, you will have to read the first part for context. If you are interested that is, It will at least point you in the right direction

https://esotericawakening.com/what-is-reality-part-2

for more context

I will now just watch as everyone else fights. Continue on good chaps

>>16735817
btw this is from BEFORE big crunch theory obviously. The Universe breathes, like everything else

>>16735817
One last post.

"multiverses spring forth from his pores"

sounds remarkably a lot like m-theory no?

>Appeal to old age
>Hinduism
>Mysticism
>Drug induced hallucination will teach you hidden physics bro :)
>Bible talk
>God
Nice ”science” board

>>16735848
>no applicable knowledge to add to the discussion
>I know I will just screech like an ass
>reeeeee
Nice "science" board indeed. Go back to the race and IQ threads pleb

>>16735852
Those threads are science based, yes. Discussing hindpooism is not, Rashit.

>>16735853
You need to raise your IQ by 20 points before you even attempt to address me NPD pseud, run along now

>>16735855
So true saar, hinduism high IQ saar

>>16735857
>hinduism
silence yourself jester

>>16735848
Why do you think people that are correct otherwise would be hallucinating on drugs? Drugs only give people courage to describe their anyway incorrect opinion. If you seen somebody right drugged up, you'd only notice midriasis, nothing else.

Good thread OP. When I was giving you shit I was just shit testing you to make you flesh your ideas out rather than pulling nonsense out your ass.

This is the only decent thread on this board in a long time. Unfortunately there arent many people here who can actually discuss it because it was never in a textbook telling them what to think about it.

Cheerrs

>>16735796
You can try to pretend you don't understand synonyms and how definitions work, but you are still describing 0 beginning, and I think you know that not seeing anything is the exact definition of seeing nothing.

>>16736419
Total set of things I need to know for my job includes fact that { (typeof null) = "object" } and there's also undefined... And thing that most represents nothing seems like "void" or [] <- there's nothing in it, but it represents something like set. Also I'm paid to know that 0.1 + 0.2 != 0.3 .

You won't convince me to your bullshit, like starting with 0. Array indexes start with zero, that's true. But 0 is not nothing, but first element. Nothing is void, all that empty set contains, and I can't fucking see nothing in with my feet, because I don't see with my feed.

>>16735786
*bong rip*
Bros, wht if... photons aren't emitted unless tey're destined to hit something, otherwise their timeline wont make sense since time doesn't pass during their flight.

>>16736432
>But 0 is not nothing, but first element.
So if I go through a state change that starts with 1 what is the difference between adding 0 and adding nothing to the next state?

> I don't see with my feed.
Which by definition means you can see nothing with your feet unless you can point out something else you see with them.

>>16736436
0 is additive identity
1 is multiplicative identity

Identity means same after performing operation, adding nothing at all means you don't perform operation. Checksum of all operation done by calculator is different with this two things.

>>16736447
>Identity means same
Exactly because it is defined as nothing, it behaves just like nothing.

>adding nothing at all means you don't perform operation.
Which has the exact same end result as adding 0 because they are the same thing.

>Checksum of all operation done by calculator is different with this two things.
That just means by your logic adding 0 isn't the same as adding 0 since there might be a different timestamp from when 0 was added.

>>16736451
Well, but how the heck, if it begun by nothing, how the hell, something came into existence? If this world we exist in isn't eternal, but temporary... How does that happened like really? Exploding singularity, even if we're descent of this exact singularity does mean, the emergence was from singularity, not nothing.

>>16736454
0! = 100%, a singularity is an inevitable function of nothing, nothing is still creeping into the universe because it is constantly expanding into nothing.

>>16736456
Well, I think you need to study singularity in black holes, it's interesting subject, maybe our universe begun is some collapse of things beyond event horizon.

But definitely singularity is something.

>>16736460
>black holes
Are you saying that ironically or you don't realize that words like dark and black are stand ins for nothing in terms of nothing generating light and hole means a void as in a big area of nothing?

>But definitely singularity is something.
Yes it is something that arises from nothing in the way I just mathematically showed you with 0!=100%.

>>16736465
So if it begin with nothing...

The fuct that it never begun sounds better, it combines the voidness far much more pleasingly.

>>16736591
>So if it begin with nothing...
You can expand it to an infinite field of nothing which will inevitably have enough perturbations to yield a unit of something which can itself be divided into an infinite field that appears directly adjacent to the infinite field of nothing which can continue infinitely as long as the new unitary fields don't annihilistically interact with old unitary field.

>>16737265
>infinite field of nothing which will inevitably have enough perturbations to yield a unit of something
Nothing, by very definition has no properties. Something with no properties cannot perturbate

>>16738855
So you actually think its logical to assert that the one property of nothing is that it has no properties?

>>16738855
A definition specifically means that the thing being defined at least has all the properties associated with the definition.

>>16738902
>>16738950
if something has properties, then it isnt "nothing"

>>16738993
No, definitions are a list of properties, the fact that you can define it, by definition, means it has properties.

>>16738994
Then nothing isn't nothing by your logic since you specifically gave nothing a property and a definition.

>>16734207
Lol.
Lmao.

>>16738996
it isnt MY logic, it is run of the mill not retarded logic. If something has properties then how can it be nothing? If it has properties it is by very definition SOMETHING. Words have meanings