You’ve given even less thought to the logic of your post than you have to the spelling and grammar involved.
From experience on CAF I’ve learned that pointing out logical errors to someone who cannot get his spelling right (despite an excellent spell-checker underlining every mistake in red), is similarly incapable of recognizing his logical errors when they are pointed out to him by someone else.
Your arguments are a perfect example of
why bother?
While pointing out your logical errors and incompetent understanding of physics is likely to be as successful as teaching a hamster to play piano, someone else might be reading. So for their benefit, not yours…
Energy conservation has nothing whatsoever to do with time. The Laws of Thermodynamics are entirely time independent. They have nothing to do with time, whatever it is or however many dimensions it might have.
Put simply, your statement, (emphasis mine)…“
Energy conservation is the other side of the coin of unchanging physical laws and a one dimensional time,” is something that only a dreadfully ignorant person would write.
I’ll guess that two levels of ignorance are involved. The second is yours, and the first is that of the writer from whom you cribbed that particular turn of phrase.
What follows from it shows the same deep levels of understanding. Based upon the observation that you do not know squat about physical laws (except for some low-level textbook readings), I shall assume that your claim, “
When physical laws are changed energy is not conserved,” is an equally incompetent statement that you invented because it suits your religious beliefs.
For others, who might have both mind and curiosity…
The time-dependent laws of physics are entirely consistent with the Three Laws of Thermodynamics.
Look at them like a Tinker Toy set. The toys, out of the factory carton, define a set of laws. They are entirely time independent. The spindles and sticks do not care if they stay in their box forever or are put to use.
Putting them to use means assembling them into various structures by putting sticks into holes, in different sequences and configurations. It is impossible to build something from tinker toys which their geometry disallows. No structure violates the laws of tinker toys, however many they might be.
The assembly of tinker toys can be made analogous to the assembly of the time-dependent laws of physics.
- The tinker toys may not be created or destroyed. (There are obvious exceptions in this human example. The family cat peed on my set, whereupon my mother consigned them to the trash.)
- Tinker toys will not self assemble. Any assembly made from them will, however, eventually disassemble.
- No sequence of physical processes can restore tinker toy parts to the trees from which they were manufactured.
