Do You Think Law Of Conservation Has Limitations ?

[URAIN]

Do you think law of conservation has limitations ?

 

Science knows that all living organism have the energy/matter but it does not says, living organism will be conserved.

[Rade]

Living organisms are conserved by time.

[URAIN]

Living organisms are conserved by time.

 

Do you give reference from science, for conservation of living organism by time

[Rade]

Do you give reference from science, for conservation of living organism by time

See here for explanation how time translation symmetry gives conservation of energy (hence matter) for living organisms: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/noether.html Where it begins with the following, substitute "a particle" with "a flying bird": Suppose we have a particle [flying bird] moving on a line with Lagrangian L(q,q'), where q is its position and q' = dq/dt is its velocity.

[lawcat]

Of course living organisms are not conserved, they die. Life is not conserved. But when you find out how I can conserve my life, please let me know, post it here. I am very interested.

 

The limit on conservation is the system boundary, which is an arbitrary construct-we decide what the limit is.

[URAIN]

I accept LAWCAT veiw. I know neothers theorems invariance of this universe (this is a assumption for unknown galaxies as per scientific method). From this any one can get idea of "existence of lives conserve". But science does not says in particularly lives will conserve. If it says, then it is saying indirectly that, there is a chance of reincarnation.

[Rade]

Of course living organisms are not conserved, they die.

I disagree. Not all living organisms die, what you claim is not a universal truth about concept of death. Two examples to support my argument:

 

1. The individual hydra does not die of old age, but regenerates itself generation after generation. Therefore, hydra are conserved by time = that which is intermediate between the begin moment and the end moment, with no end moment naturally possible due to aging. Hydra have escaped senescence and are immortal (outside accident), they are conserved by time.

 

 

2. The HeLa cancer cells of Henrietta Lacks never die, they never stop mitosis process. These human cells are immortal and conserved by time same as hydra...see this link about HeLa:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrietta_Lacks

 

Imo, the time will come sooner than we realize when genetics will understand mitosis in HeLa cells and death process for humans. In the future, humans will have the potential to live forever, they will be conserved by time, for the end moment will never be obtained.

[URAIN]

what is your opinion about reincarnation ? Do you seem it as a natural phenomena?

[Rade]

what is your opinion about reincarnation ? Do you seem it as a natural phenomena?

Death does not exist as a physical state with energy and mass, there is nothing to reincarnate.

[URAIN]

Death does not exist as a physical state with energy and mass, there is nothing to reincarnate.

 

Do you not think, as a human being's death is existed? I asked about reincarnation in this view.

[lawcat]

I disagree. Not all living organisms die,

 

You make me laugh Rade. Look, no further than the Lion King movies and listen to the song circle of life. I don't need to be a scientist to know that my kids carry my genes.

 

But when I throw that hydra on my hot bbq, that hydra is no longer. I could not care less that its matter changes form. It ain't conserved in a life sense.

 

Let's keep the system boundaries real.

[CraigD]

You make me laugh Rade. Look, no further than the Lion King movies and listen to the song circle of life. I don't need to be a scientist to know that my kids carry my genes.

 

But when I throw that hydra on my hot bbq, that hydra is no longer. I could not care less that its matter changes form. It ain't conserved in a life sense.

 

Let's keep the system boundaries real.

I think both Rade and lawcat make good points.

 

It’s important to distinguish between the passing of genes between generations of sexually reproducing organisms and ones that perpetuate themselves by cell division, such as Amoeba and Chaos. Genetically, the species Ameoba proteus can be considered many instances of a single individual, for all practical purposes immortal – though by human standards, a very boring individual. :)

 

However, as lawcat notes, these immortal organisms can be killed. It’s practically impossible for us humans to kill A proteus, as this would require sterilizing the entire planet, but in a few billion years, our gradually warming sun is predicted to do just this, ending all but possibly the most extremophile life on Earth, and possibly even disintegrating the Earth. Unless A proteus has hitched a ride elsewhere before then, that will be the end of it. Or disease might kill it long before – A proteus’s genome is amazingly disease resistant, but it is a single genome, so if some pathogen can infect and kill it, it could kill all of it.

 

I think we’ve failed so far to focus on the key peculiarity in this thread: URAIN’s conflation of the idea of immortality of the soul, a non-scientific, religious idea, and the law of conservation of mass-energy, a modern physics extension of the classical physics laws of conservation of mass and energy. “Spiritual life” isn’t defined in the simple mechanical way that physics defines mass-energy, so IMHO it’s not useful to conflate the ideas. Biological life – metabolism, genetics, etc. – is, in principle if not entirely practically, explainable via physics, but likewise is not equitable with spiritual life.

 

So, all due respect to folk like URAIN and Frank Tipler, I don’t think “the physics of immortality” is a very useful scientific subject, though with sufficiently careful scientific circumspection, it’s can be a fascinating philosophical one.

[belovelife]

ru talking about energy, if so, then why does it seem that light only goes a certain distance?

 

if you are talking about life energy, then that is spiritual in nature, and i believe that it flows like dreams

[CraigD]

ru talking about energy, ...

Yes.

 

In my previous post, I mentioned mass, energy, and mass-energy, in the context of the laws of their conservation.

 

Conservations laws such as conservation of mass, energy, and momentum are very important, because without them, we can’t predict how even very simple, idealized physical systems work. More conservation and symmetry laws, such as of mass-energy, also known as mass-energy equivalence, allows us to understand more complicated systems more closely modeling actual physical reality: radiation, atoms, stars, etc.

 

Though the conservation and symmetry laws of physics invite many philosophical metaphors, IMHO it’s important to understand their practical nature as a collection of principles from which one can write mathematical equations that work, allowing us to predict the behavior of the physical universe, from very simple, idealized representations of small subsets of it like the 11 frictionless pucks in my ”Newtonian bowling” game, to complicated explanations of the universe as a whole like the Big Bang model.

 

In the mathematics of physics, energy has a terse, simple definition. In dimensional terms it’s:

 

Mass x Length / Time / Time x Length.

 

ML²T^-2. That’s it – no hundreds of words of philosophical musings, just the arithmetic relationship of three kinds of quantities that for all practical purposes everybody who understands the basic concepts of physics agrees means “energy”.

 

if you are talking about life energy, then that is spiritual in nature, and i believe that it flows like dreams

The concepts denoted by phrases like “Life energy” and “spiritual energy” are, as I understand them to have validity, metaphorical uses of the physics term “energy”. They convey a sort of “feel” of how complicated biological organisms like human beings behave, but don’t have terse definitions that most people can agree upon (or even agree that it’s proper to attempt to define), and can’t practically be used to predict with useful precision how a human being, or a petri dish of microbes, work.

 

IMHO, it’s simply wrong to think of “life energy” as more physically real than a poetic metaphor like “his ankle chafed from the ball and chain of his responsibility to his family”. Centuries ago, before chemical experiments and microsopes allowed us to better understand biological life, a legitimate scientific theory to explain why, for example, a earthworm can move itself, while a rock can’t. Though these “vitalist” theories have a few adherents still (eg: Rupert Sheldrake), who reject the theory that life arises from the physics of what living organism are made of, they’re in a pseudoscientific fringe.

 

...if so, then why does it seem that light only goes a certain distance?

It doesn’t. According to conventional physics, supported by essentially all experimental and observational evidence, light goes on forever, until it strikes something that absorbs or reflects it.

 

This might seem somewhat counter-intuitive, as many objects we know to be very bright, such as distant start, are no longer perceivable to the naked eye. This is not because light from them “only goes a certain distance”, but rather because it becomes so “spread out” at a great distance that not enough of it reaches our eyes for our vision apparatus – our brains and related optical nerves – to “see” the body.

 

This quality arises from simple geometry, and is described neatly and precisely as the inverse-square law [math]I = \frac{P}{2\pi r^2}[/math].

[URAIN]

I think both Rade and lawcat make good points.

 

It’s important to distinguish between the passing of genes between generations of sexually reproducing organisms and ones that perpetuate themselves by cell division, such as Amoeba and Chaos. Genetically, the species Ameoba proteus can be considered many instances of a single individual, for all practical purposes immortal – though by human standards, a very boring individual. :)

 

However, as lawcat notes, these immortal organisms can be killed. It’s practically impossible for us humans to kill A proteus, as this would require sterilizing the entire planet, but in a few billion years, our gradually warming sun is predicted to do just this, ending all but possibly the most extremophile life on Earth, and possibly even disintegrating the Earth. Unless A proteus has hitched a ride elsewhere before then, that will be the end of it. Or disease might kill it long before – A proteus’s genome is amazingly disease resistant, but it is a single genome, so if some pathogen can infect and kill it, it could kill all of it.

 

I think we’ve failed so far to focus on the key peculiarity in this thread: URAIN’s conflation of the idea of immortality of the soul, a non-scientific, religious idea, and the law of conservation of mass-energy, a modern physics extension of the classical physics laws of conservation of mass and energy. “Spiritual life” isn’t defined in the simple mechanical way that physics defines mass-energy, so IMHO it’s not useful to conflate the ideas. Biological life – metabolism, genetics, etc. – is, in principle if not entirely practically, explainable via physics, but likewise is not equitable with spiritual life.

 

So, all due respect to folk like URAIN and Frank Tipler, I don’t think “the physics of immortality” is a very useful scientific subject, though with sufficiently careful scientific circumspection, it’s can be a fascinating philosophical one.

 

Why not, you accept directly the law of conservation energy has some boundaries or limitations?

 

Please look here, Law of conservation energy is a science law. Science is the medium to understanding natural phenomena. Living organism is also a natural entity. Then, what has gone wrong, if science rule applied to a natural entity?

 

Think, this rule says any energy/mass not created. Now you make a list which contains all the astrological entities like planets, galaxies ect… In future if any new cosmological entity found (the entity which never have any links to any present existing entity) then, how can you say this is not a new creation.

(Neother theorems invariance also a assumption for unknown universe (galaxies) as per scientific method to accepting any thing. You well know that accepting anything by scientific method includes

1) assumption

2) checking

3) acceptance if found correct.)

 

By putting strong belief or making assumption on the Law of conservation energy, applies to everywhere, we have to satisfy that there will no new entity will created. Otherwise, from this law how can we confirm new entity will not created?

 

Yes it may deal philosophy. Do you not think metaphysics gives base to science? science and metaphysics have connections ?

[belovelife]

i have a question, in my theory time gives energy to matter that makes gravity, if this is so, then momentum is constantly being added to the universe

 

thus, energy is always being added, where time seems to constanly flow forward, regarless of speed (save speed of light )

 

then energy in the form of momentum always increases

what do you think

[URAIN]

Mr.Rade, Mr.Lawcat, Mr.craigD and Mr. belovelife

 

Thanks to all of you for participating in the discussion.

 

Dear friends now I have posted my theory in blog.

 

From this theory you can perfectly say this world will be invariant, without using any assumptions or in lacking result of past experements.

 

This world may be contain number of unknown galaxies but without applying neother's theorem to unknown universe, you can say

 

This universe had invariant at past.

This universe has invariant at now.

This universe will have invariant in future also.

 

By reading it, you can know if any new entity will appear in this universe,then how it is not a creation?

 

And what is the actual base for conservation.

 

Mr.Lawcat you had shown more interest about life after death. If you had shown it seriously, then you must read this theory. You will confirm that after death also you will have existed and before birth also you had existed.

 

If you have pdf then go to www.baseforreincarnation.wordpress.com

Else

www.scribd.com/doc/63851089