Talk:Eternal existence: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Larry_Sanger (talk) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Um, conservation of mass/energy is neither "eternal" nor "recent" nor a "discovery"; it is a theory proposed by Einstein for mathematical reasons long before anyone was able to observe or test it, and it has now withstood enough testing to be generally considered a physical law. And of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with any concept like "eternity", which has little place in science. --[[Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]] |
Um, conservation of mass/energy is neither "eternal" nor "recent" nor a "discovery"; it is a theory proposed by Einstein for mathematical reasons long before anyone was able to observe or test it, and it has now withstood enough testing to be generally considered a physical law. And of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with any concept like "eternity", which has little place in science. --[[Lee Daniel Crocker|LDC]] |
||
---- |
|||
Eternity has no place in science? But sure it does, in [[cosmology]]. --[[LMS]] |
|||
Revision as of 22:58, 28 December 2001
Perhaps a connection should be made between the idea of eternal existence and an important recent discovery of the physical sciences: (eternal) conservation of mass/energy?
I guess the question is whether any scientist or theologian has drawn such a connection; seems very possible to me, but I don't know. If not, our including it in the article would smack of crankhood. In other words, please, no unpublished research. --LMS
Um, conservation of mass/energy is neither "eternal" nor "recent" nor a "discovery"; it is a theory proposed by Einstein for mathematical reasons long before anyone was able to observe or test it, and it has now withstood enough testing to be generally considered a physical law. And of course it has nothing whatsoever to do with any concept like "eternity", which has little place in science. --LDC
Eternity has no place in science? But sure it does, in cosmology. --LMS