Hi,

That would be strange, since although much is quasistatic, we ourselves have a clock frequency.  If not time, then frequencies need to be fundamental dimensions, but I prefer time. The frequencies could be related to other geometry, depending on how they are created, and that is difficult to handle. 

Thank you Lena J-T Stromberg. Thanks for replying. Most of the viewers would have thought that I have gone crazy. But please take a look at the following:

I believe TIME was BORN after Energy; and Absolute Entropy of the universe came into existence together with TIME (T=0).

Energy is, what existed before the existence of time. The laws like conservation of Energy were imposed on the Eternal Energy by nature/ God. Then some part of it got condensed into mass (thereafter the BIG BANG THEORY comes into picture).

Mass & the energy surrounding it (within the dimensions of space) were then bound by the most fundamental law of the universe(Second Law of Thermodynamics) to give rise to 'CHANGE' that was the birth of TIME. That is why we can't know the absolute entropy, but only the 'change in entropy' (this limitation, I believe, is due to the existence of Time).

Since then all the elements are moving towards randomness, following the Second Law of Thermodynamics..

I believe TIME was BORN after Energy; and Absolute Entropy of the universe came into existence together with TIME (T=0). What you say?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/I_believe_TIME_was_BORN_after_Energy_and_Absolute_Entropy_of_the_universe_came_into_existence_together_with_TIME_T0_What_you_say [accessed Jun 12, 2017].

@Mohd Sadaf

  Your reasoning is far from being crazy ! I, for one, entirely agree on your view-point. Space, time, matter and events came in to existence only after the birth of the Universe ( Big Bang !?)-the energy of creation was primordially present ( in the 'singularity' )..

( Incidentally, the eternal nature of energy, its omnipresence and all-pervading nature-render it as a fit candidate -model for 'God'-which, by definition/postulate possess these attributes-and that necessarily excludes any 'animate-God' as postulated/believed in many religions-but this is another matter!).

      As to the concept of "Entropy", it is intimately associated with "irreversible" processes/changes, while most of the microscopic-laws of interactions may be "time-reversal-invariant"-weak-interactions being exceptional. Thus. entropy can be/has been used to define the "arrow of time"- as you have correctly pointed out but whether '2nd-Law of thermodynamics' is more fundamental than microscopic interaction-laws- is probably an open issue.  

Thank you Bimal Mahapatra Sir for your kind reply. I need to study about microscopic-interaction laws. Any book you could suggest Sir?

I misunderstood your question somewhat. There is plasticity theory, with Karush-Kuhn Tucker conditions, derived from the second law with constraints. Instead of being formulated in time derive,  it is rewritten into differentials, (possible if all depend of the same time parameter and work is quasistatic.)

It is summarized here, but not the thermodynamics 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0045782596009978

It is a few lines about that.

One could extend to interactions between levels such that a mech force becomes a Lorenz force on another scale, but that will invoke rotations and couple stress.

In Newtonian description gravity is attractive, energy density is negative. But in general relativity there is a cosmological constant which prevents gravitational collapse of the universe. So, we can understand that in Einstein's description gravitational energy is not necessarily negative.

There are some less known theories which says that total energy of the universe is exactly zero. Positive energy is in the form of matter and negative energy is in the form of gravitation. What do you think of them?

@ Mohd Sadaf

my dear Mohd Sadaf ya your intuition is correct

https://www.researchgate.net/post/If_there_is_no_Energy_does_time_exist

@Mohd Sadaf,

  In response to your query, I provide below links to the literature which may be appropriate for you. You may, of course, search in the Web yourself for more material satisfactory to you:

https://www.pdf-archive.com/2014/07/24/a-brief-history-of-time/a-brief-history-of-time.pdf,

http://www.physnet.org/modules/pdf_modules/m305.pdf

@Biswajoy Brahmachari ,

The very fact that the Universe is expanding at the current moment is evidence of the fact that the energy-density is positive definite at the moment. The same reasoning can be applied to a time arbitrarily close to the big-bang-event assuming that the expansion originated with the creation of the Universe via the "big bang". Hence, it may not  be unreasonable to infer that energy-density of the Universe has been positive-definite right from the "beginning". Criteria of the Conservation of energy then implies the existence of positive-definiteness of the primordial energy. All this reasoning relies, of course, on the assumption that conservation laws and dynamics of evolution as observed in the current-era can be extrapolated down to a time arbitrary close to the moment of creation of the Universe. 

very much reasonable Sir. Thank you

Thank you Lena J-T Stromberg

@s h s husainsha thank you Sir

@ Biswajoy Brahmchari Thank you Sir. I need to study more on the subject.

@ Bimal Mohapatra,

I often come across the statement that energy density of the gravitational field is a mysterious object. Read for example this para which I have quoted from Robert Low's answer in researchgate;

There is no known way to define the energy density of the gravitational field in GR. You can define the total energy of a sufficiently well-behaved space-time, but it is not obtained by integrating a local density. There have been attempts to define a quasi-local mass (which associates mass with regions of finite extent); and there is a procedure to associate an energy density with gravitational waves (which is coordinate dependent, though the total energy is not). The problem is quite a subtle and mysterious (at least, to me) one.

How can we calculate the energy density of the gravitational field?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_can_we_calculate_the_energy_density_of_the_gravitational_field/1 [accessed Jun 13, 2017].

If you kindly explain it to us, it will be quite helpful.

What means energy, time, space, ... ?

it is only words coming from humanity (all these words have an history)

Cloks exist, the mathematical variable "t" is only a fiction (see fictionnalism) as all mathematical objects (see Kant, Vaihinger, ...); so "Energy before time" = nonsens.

Look at  my papers (in french) on my site.

best regards

Michel Mizony

Michael Mizony sir. Could you explain when 'the change' started. Why don't you know the absolute entropy of a thermodymamic system & whether you disagree with Einstein's Theory of relativity?

And you are talking about 'History'. For your information, History is something related to time.

you say :History is something related to time. Not at all, history is related to clocks, the solar clock for example. A clock is physic, not the time.

As Einstein you could speak about "proper time"; for you, your "proper time" is given by a clock that you have with you.; it is not my "proper time".