Comments on: Human wisdom - The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy explained http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/ Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:11:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: crankypot.com » Blog Archive » Time Does Not Exist http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-7410 crankypot.com » Blog Archive » Time Does Not Exist Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:16:17 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-7410 [...] We all know stories and science fiction novels about traveling back to in time and further into the future. We also know about time travel paradoxes. Most famous being grandfather paradox. It goes like this: If you went back in time and killed your grandfather, you would not exists since he would not be able to have children of his own. He would be dead and you would’ve never been born. But, if you weren’t born you would not be able to go back in time to kill your grandfather in the first place since you didn’t exist, but obviously you do exist and you did go back in time and you did kill your grandfather. This creates a logical paradox and big inconsistency in logical thinking. But we’ll come back to this later in the article. There’s another paradox which physicist don’t talk about, but to me it seams like even stranger paradox than the grandfather one. I’m sure someone else though of this but I’ll just state it. It goes like this: Today is 2008, and let’s suppose you go back to 2006 and meet yourself. Now there’s two of you. How would that be possible without violating Conservation of Energy Law, which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. Obviously since there’s two of you occupying same space and time, one of you was created. Either that or you are leaving copies of yourself on every instance (frame) in time which would violate the law even further. [...] [...] We all know stories and science fiction novels about traveling back to in time and further into the future. We also know about time travel paradoxes. Most famous being grandfather paradox. It goes like this: If you went back in time and killed your grandfather, you would not exists since he would not be able to have children of his own. He would be dead and you would’ve never been born. But, if you weren’t born you would not be able to go back in time to kill your grandfather in the first place since you didn’t exist, but obviously you do exist and you did go back in time and you did kill your grandfather. This creates a logical paradox and big inconsistency in logical thinking. But we’ll come back to this later in the article. There’s another paradox which physicist don’t talk about, but to me it seams like even stranger paradox than the grandfather one. I’m sure someone else though of this but I’ll just state it. It goes like this: Today is 2008, and let’s suppose you go back to 2006 and meet yourself. Now there’s two of you. How would that be possible without violating Conservation of Energy Law, which states that matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms. Obviously since there’s two of you occupying same space and time, one of you was created. Either that or you are leaving copies of yourself on every instance (frame) in time which would violate the law even further. [...]

]]> By: scorch http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5286 scorch Sun, 28 Oct 2007 20:14:26 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5286 O' thought I already did that back on Oct. 10th. "To me, God is the Universe and Everything in it." The below site has Einstein's thoughts on God, you may enjoy it: http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/einsteinsgod/einstein-religionandscience.shtml O’ thought I already did that back on Oct. 10th.

“To me, God is the Universe and Everything in it.”

The below site has Einstein’s thoughts on God, you may enjoy it:
http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/einsteinsgod/einstein-religionandscience.shtml

]]> By: moody http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5281 moody Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:20:27 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5281 All I was trying to do is to see it from your perspective. No need to call me sir, but if you insist :) All I was trying to do is to see it from your perspective.
No need to call me sir, but if you insist :)

]]> By: scorch http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5280 scorch Sun, 28 Oct 2007 17:40:02 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5280 I am not trying to convince you sir, that would be an exercise in futility. The design I see is my own view, nothing more. I am not trying to convince you sir, that would be an exercise in futility.

The design I see is my own view, nothing more.

]]> By: moody http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5258 moody Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:04:39 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5258 What evidence of design you have? Before you answer this, just to let you know that all of the theories of intelligent design have been debunked. In the court or outside. Just don't say "complexity of life" or "fine tuned universe", since these are so childish and easily debunked that it is not even funny. Tell me you got something more. What evidence of design you have? Before you answer this, just to let you know that all of the theories of intelligent design have been debunked. In the court or outside.
Just don’t say “complexity of life” or “fine tuned universe”, since these are so childish and easily debunked that it is not even funny. Tell me you got something more.

]]> By: scorch http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5257 scorch Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:58:10 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5257 my faith is believing in God I have no "facts" to back up this claim. Just what I believe to be evidence of design. And of course my own feelings. my faith is believing in God

I have no “facts” to back up this claim. Just what I believe to be evidence of design. And of course my own feelings.

]]> By: moody http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5240 moody Fri, 26 Oct 2007 19:49:17 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5240 Define "faith" based. What is faith for you? We might be on the same page but using different terms. For example: if you take a ball and drop it. It will fall to the ground. Now, you might say "I have "faith" that next time I drop it ball will fall to the ground again. if that is the faith you are talking about then we are on the same page. That actually is not really a faith but belief based on factual evidence. We have theory of gravity and observational evidence that show us that ball will fall on the ground again and again. Religious faith has nothing to do with it. I am talking strictly about religious faith which is based on no evidence, observational fact and cannot be tested. Define “faith” based. What is faith for you?
We might be on the same page but using different terms.
For example: if you take a ball and drop it. It will fall to the ground. Now, you might say “I have “faith” that next time I drop it ball will fall to the ground again. if that is the faith you are talking about then we are on the same page.
That actually is not really a faith but belief based on factual evidence. We have theory of gravity and observational evidence that show us that ball will fall on the ground again and again. Religious faith has nothing to do with it.

I am talking strictly about religious faith which is based on no evidence, observational fact and cannot be tested.

]]> By: scorch http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5238 scorch Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:33:13 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5238 I like this Chris fella ;) me, I'm a little scientific, and a little faith-based. Moderation seems to be a good path... I like this Chris fella ;)

me, I’m a little scientific, and a little faith-based.

Moderation seems to be a good path…

]]> By: Chris Williams http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5097 Chris Williams Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:41:42 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5097 You have made my point - Take Religion and Science... Both are tools used by men to minipulate, and distort knowledge, and information for self serving personal gain. Both science and religion are inherantly good for society as a whole. My point though - which you made in the above statement, is that both can, and have been used to manipulate TRUTH. Science has justified such things as the hydrogen bomb, slavery, jewish holocaust... and on and on. Though the benefits of science may appear to outweigh the abusses, one single individual could use science to destroy all that we are. Before we know it we will believe those prophetic words of George Orwell -- " Peace is War" You have made my point - Take Religion and Science… Both are tools used by men to minipulate, and distort knowledge, and information for self serving personal gain. Both science and religion are inherantly good for society as a whole. My point though - which you made in the above statement, is that both can, and have been used to manipulate TRUTH. Science has justified such things as the hydrogen bomb, slavery, jewish holocaust… and on and on. Though the benefits of science may appear to outweigh the abusses, one single individual could use science to destroy all that we are. Before we know it we will believe those prophetic words of George Orwell — ” Peace is War”

]]> By: moody http://www.crankypot.com/2007/10/10/human-wisdom-the-law-of-conservation-of-matter-and-energy-explained/#comment-5092 moody Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:41:41 +0000 http://www.crankypot.com/?p=57#comment-5092 Even though you make some interesting points, you're missing the point. Science is not asking anyone to bow to anything. People are the ones that abuse science. Science is not people. Now, you will probably say same thing could be said about religion. That people are abusing religion, but that is only partially true. Fundamentalists are ones who follow religion like it was supposed to be followed. They want to stone gays since it says right in the Bible. They want to convert everyone to Islam since it says right there in Koraan. They read it as it is. Science does not work that way. Science along with (and I agree with you here) our own instincts are probably the best thing we have in this world. Even though you make some interesting points, you’re missing the point. Science is not asking anyone to bow to anything. People are the ones that abuse science. Science is not people.
Now, you will probably say same thing could be said about religion. That people are abusing religion, but that is only partially true.
Fundamentalists are ones who follow religion like it was supposed to be followed. They want to stone gays since it says right in the Bible. They want to convert everyone to Islam since it says right there in Koraan. They read it as it is.
Science does not work that way. Science along with (and I agree with you here) our own instincts are probably the best thing we have in this world.

]]>