Razziel

Joined

• started 8 topics
• posted 539 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Razziel

• 
  110

  An Explanation of why TIME TRAVEL does not work

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for tomorrow's new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies/disintegrates) and the parts become available to make the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where today's parts are available to be rearranged.. some of today's things persist as they are, of course.

  they only travel through time by persisting as they are.

  (mountains, for example.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  To put my previous post in terms of Terry's original domino analogy, there are two timelines:

  State 1. The dominos at time A in an arbitrary configuration.

  State 2. The dominos at time B (dominos from time A at a later time in the future in a configuration descended from time A).

  If the dominos from state 2 go backwards in time to state 1, then it appears from the perspective of the state 1 dominos that duplicate dominos have appeared out of thin air in a different configuration, basically being in two places at once and violating the premise there are a finite amount of dominos.

  The flaw in Terry's reasoning is that he's only considering things from the perspective of the state 1 dominos. You have to look at it from the perspective of the state 2 dominos, since they are the dominos actually traveling through time.

  From their perspective along their timeline, they still originate from the finite set of state 1 dominos. Along their timeline they still have a definite relationship to the dominos in their past and at no time were dominos created or destroyed. So in this sense, even though the rules appear to be broken from the pov of the state 1 dominos, from the pov of state 2 dominos they aren't. They are conserved locally.
• 
  110

  An Explanation of why TIME TRAVEL does not work

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for tomorrow's new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies/disintegrates) and the parts become available to make the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where today's parts are available to be rearranged.. some of today's things persist as they are, of course.

  they only travel through time by persisting as they are.

  (mountains, for example.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  Back to the original topic, though I don't believe backwards time travel is possible, it would not directly violate the conservation of mass/energy law. It has to do with the reference frame used. Though an observer from the past might see an object instantly pop out of nowhere from the future, which from their reference frame appears to violate the conservation laws, from the reference frame of the object traveling through time, no laws are violated.

  This is the same reasoning for why distant objects from earth can appear to be moving faster than the speed of light, but relative to the objects' reference frame, the speed of light is not being broken. When relativity is taken into account, the laws often appear broken from other reference frames but are still conserved locally.
• 
  110

  An Explanation of why TIME TRAVEL does not work

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for tomorrow's new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies/disintegrates) and the parts become available to make the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where today's parts are available to be rearranged.. some of today's things persist as they are, of course.

  they only travel through time by persisting as they are.

  (mountains, for example.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  Heisenberg originally developed the principle for the reasons Terry outlined, and it is logical. The math didn't come until schrodinger's equation and then it was shown that the uncertainty wasn't a part of the measurement process. If it was, then the uncertainty wouldn't be there when dealing with purely theoreticals. In other words, uncertainty is not an observer effect. According to the present theory, quantum particles with both a definite position and momentum do not exist.
• 
  110

  An Explanation of why TIME TRAVEL does not work

  by Terry in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  energy and matter are neither created nor destroyed.. consequently, the building blocks of existence are actually finite parts.. to create things in "tomorrow" which are new, something has to be dismantled to leave spare parts for tomorrow's new thing.. the old thing deteriorates, (dies/disintegrates) and the parts become available to make the new thing.. time travel requires going to a place where today's parts are available to be rearranged.. some of today's things persist as they are, of course.

  they only travel through time by persisting as they are.

  (mountains, for example.).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  I'm late to the party, but I wanted to comment on heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Terry's explanation (with the example of a momentum measurement affecting position, and vice-versa a position measurement affecting momentum) was how the uncertainty principle was explained to me in university physics when we briefly overviewed quantum physics.

  Later, when I took the actual quantum mechanics course, it was mathematically shown the uncertainty principle goes a lot further than that. It's inherent in the mathematics of the sub-atomic world. Solving the schrodinger and matrix equations for whatever operator you want to define (energy, momentum, position, etc) involves using complex conjugates (you get two answers). One answer is (value +h/2), and the other is (value -h/2). So the theoretical answer is (value +/- h/2). This is dealing only in theoreticals, with no physical measurements involved whatsoever.

  It follows that the uncertainty in the measurements we could possibly make of sub-atomic particles are a consequence of the uncertainty principle, they aren't the cause of it.
• 
  31

  LIFE after JW: Why is it so difficult to keep a romantic relationship?

  by cyberjesus in

  1. social
  2. relationships
  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  Try and look at it from their point of view. When you straight out say something is inappropriate or immoral, they take that as an accusation of something they may not even have thought of until you mentioned it. They also infer that you do not trust them. They will feel as if you are treating them like a child, and your relationship goes from being equal partners, to parent-child, and they will usually leave the relationship pretty quickly.

  It's a fine line of letting your likes/dislikes be known without coming across as "this is how you have to dress/act if you want to be with me." It takes practice. To be crass, if you come across as condemnatory or controlling, you are basically taking a crap on their value system, which leaves most people deeply offended. Even if you really were compatible you can ruin the relationship just by the way you phrase things.
• 
  15

  What would you all do in this situation?

  by EndofMysteries in

  1. social
  2. relationships

  - a married ex from a few years ago who has a kid now too, who after being with you got married within a few months, seems to decide they may have made a mistake, and want to meet you for a weekend but supposedly not to do anything wrong just for closure.

  .

  .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  Send her a video, titled "Closure", of you zipping up your pants.
• 
  27

  Silent Lambs in Wikipedia to be deleted

  by Gerard in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there are a couple of jw zealots campaingning in wikipedia to delete the silent lambs article.

  i'd like to request your editing time in order to search for additional references to be included and make their censoring task imposible.

  thanks.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/silentlambs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  Yeah when I tried to make a comment, it put me on the editing page for the article. I went ahead and made a couple of grammar/syntax fixes.
• 
  27

  Silent Lambs in Wikipedia to be deleted

  by Gerard in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  there are a couple of jw zealots campaingning in wikipedia to delete the silent lambs article.

  i'd like to request your editing time in order to search for additional references to be included and make their censoring task imposible.

  thanks.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/silentlambs.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  Whoever changed up the entry yesterday did a very good job. The format is presented much better than it was before, and the citations are improved. It still needs some proofreading for grammar and maybe a little fine tuning, but it's a big improvement on what was there 24 hours ago. One thing that should probably be added for fairness in the references is at least one link to the official website of JWs. Didn't there used to be a webpage on their site that explained their policies? I looked briefly but all I could find are those generic "how to protect your children" articles.
• 
  62

  ONE! NO EQUAL!

  by wannabe in

  1. watchtower
  2. bible

  but he still wasn't finished, to my surprise, and i'd thought he was, with his last comment.

  i thought!

  i thought!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  Here's my human analogy thought experiment...

  If humans are created in God's image... What would happen to the human conscious if it was isolated by itself for an indeterminate period of time? It might fragment itself in an attempt to keep its sanity in an infinity of loneliness. Each fragment might become a distinct personality based on specific traits from the original singular personality.

  In the case of a human being, seperate personalities would just be different manifestations of the same human. But in the case of a supreme being who wields the power of creation? Each personality could become a distinct individual while sharing the same divine essense.

  Back to reality...

  Personally, I've seen good arguments both for and against the trinity. Regardless of how you look at it, there is no black and white answer in the Bible. I see the trinity doctrine just like a scientific hypothesis. It's an attempt to harmonize multiple scriptures that state/infer both a singular God and three entities of divine origin into one doctrine that can explain all of the these scriptures satisfactorily (which is itself a source of dispute).
• 
  9

  Who actually decides that a person is chosen by God to be an elder?

  by brainwashed-from-birth in

  1. watchtower
  2. scandals

  is there an interview?

  what sort of things do they look at, or expect out of the person?

  besides being a man.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Razziel

  Off topic, but if i remember correctly, the only biblical difference in scriptural qualifications between an elder and MS is being "qualified to teach." Using that criteria, a lot of elders should be demoted.