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.).
The problem with most people is that their minds are firmly rooted on Earth.
Yeah, I've thought about the same thing. The DeLorean would have ended up in empty space (most likely) when it jumped through time. It certainly would not have been on the Earth.
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.).
Another constraint to time travel -- especially rearward travel --- is the principle of causality... essentially, causality prohibits one from going back to a point before one was born.
There are causality concerns with backward time travel, but the point you were born has nothing to do with it. I think you are thinking about the classic example of going back in time to kill your one of your antecedents, thereby preventing your own birth and thus your ability to go back in time to kill that person in the first place.
But there are countless other ways to violate causality even if you go back to a point after you were born.
i'm an atheist having a serious crisis of conscience.
please help.. i've read many, many posts that talk about atheism as a faith as distinct as any other faith.
there has also been much made of the atheist lifestyle.. my dilemma -- i don't know what the atheistic faith entails.
Parakeet, you are going down a dangerous path. You should not question such things. Please speak with atheist elders after the meeting. They will help you.
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.).
There is nothing inherently UNCERTAIN about an electron. A thing is what it is. A=A.
Not exactly true.
You are correct in that our act of measuring can actually change things and lead to uncertainty, but there is also an inherent uncertainty to the quantum world not related to an act of measurement or observation.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011367936_walgreens18m.html.
effective april 16, walgreens drugstores across the state won't take any new medicaid patients, saying that filling their prescriptions is a money-losing proposition the latest development in an ongoing dispute over medicaid reimbursement.. the company, which operates 121 stores in the state, will continue filling medicaid prescriptions for current patients.. in a news release, walgreens said its decision to not take new medicaid patients stemmed from a "continued reduction in reimbursement" under the state's medicaid program, which reimburses it at less than the break-even point for 95 percent of brand-name medications dispensed to medicaid patents.. walgreens follows bartell drugs, which stopped taking new medicaid patients last month at all 57 of its stores in washington, though it still fills medicaid prescriptions for existing customers at all but 15 of those stores.. doug porter, the state's director of medicaid, said medicaid recipients should be able to readily find another pharmacy because "we have many more pharmacy providers in our network than we need" for the state's 1 million medicaid clients.. he said those who can't can contact the state's medical assistance customer service center at 1-800-562-3022 for help in locating one.. along with walgreens and bartell, the ritzville drug company in adams county announced in november that it would stop participating in medicaid.. fred meyer and safeway said their pharmacies would continue to serve existing medicaid patients and to take new ones, though both expressed concern that the reimbursement rate is too low for pharmacies to make a profit.. the amount private insurers and medicaid pay pharmacies for prescriptions isn't the actual cost of those drugs but rather is based on what's called the drug's estimated average wholesale price.
but that figure is more like the sticker price on a car than its actual wholesale cost.. washington was reimbursing pharmacies 86 percent of a drug's average wholesale price until july, when it began paying them just 84 percent.
I find it laughably hypocritical when an apparent republican/conservative/anti-liberal/anti-democrat type complains about increased difficulty in receiving WELFARE BENEFITS. (Not only on this thread but others.)
But, on to the topic at hand...this is a bad thing. In an effort to balance the budget, a cut was made that was too deep. And this is a Washington state thing, not a federal government issue.
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.).
Virtual particles are cool. They cause black holes to "evaporate."
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.).
Time travel into the future is doable as long as you have a space ship that can travel at relativistic speeds.
It is not "instantaneous" time travel so I suppose it doesn't violate your rule about something "vanishing" from now and "appearing" in the future. Travel at 99.9% the speed of light for 1 year and you will have travelled forward in time over 22 years.
You can also do this sort of time travel by hanging out near an intense gravitational object, like the event horizon of a black hole.
.
if you're an ex-atheist, what changed your mind?.
please be as brief or comprehensive as you'd like.
The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel
I actually read that book. A creationist coworker bought it for me and challenged me to read it. It was painful to get through.
Lee's "skepticism" felt so contrived, his questions in many cases so hokey. He would act shocked or surprised at certain things and it seemed so fake, epsecially when I know he had already written books like "The Case for Christ", etc. He was already a believer when he did these interviews, but seemed to try and act like he wasn't.
I read no new arguments against evolution... simply the same old stuff rehashed. He uses some arguments that were long ago shown to be ridiculous. The strongest proofs of evolution were not even discussed. The supposed "experts" he interviewed were all creationists/IDers, at least 2 or 3 of them from the Discovery Institute itself.
The book is probably viewed as "awesome" by someone who is already a believer, but I personally found it very poor, albeit better than the stuff the Watchtower has printed on the subject of Evolution.
.
if you're an ex-atheist, what changed your mind?.
please be as brief or comprehensive as you'd like.
I'm tempted to say if someone became an ex-atheist they were never a real atheist, but that reeks of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. ;)
what is a fact?
a statement or assertion of verified information about something that is the case or has happened.
i've read the bible many times in many ways with many methods.. .
Divine knowledge: There will be EARTHQUAKES. No specific dates or details, just that they will happen. That's almost as awesome as me saying "There will be snow in the future."
