To think that Noel Edmonds might just..

[juststoppit]

..have something there. Not all of his twaddle, but the bit about dying.

I'm not a scientist or a weirdo, but it seems to be an indisputable fact that energy can't cease to exist. And we are made from energy. Our eyes, hearts, livers, the house we live in, the toilet roll we use, the cat litter (which needs cleaning, oops) - their fundamental forms all are energy. Electrons, protons neutrons.

So..

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another"

So whilst we may stop living in the traditional sense, our energy doesn't.

(I might add I'm not a hippie/druggie/troller/religious fanatic, or particularly sentimental)

Can anyone give me a point of view?

I feel daft talking about it in real life. And I think I might feel a bit dafter after posting this

PurpleDaisies I just read that link OoO!

Not a Noel fan then expat

Sorry OP, but I just have to ask if you are on glue.

What's even more interesting is there were only a few types of atoms around at that time - everything up to iron? Then fusion happened in stars and new atoms were formed from the original atoms.

Ordinary stars can make elements up to iron...heavier ones are made in supernova explosions. We are all effectively stardust.

It's matter that cannot be created or destroyed, not energy.

And at the Big Bang there were no types of atom-they didn't form until later.

It's matter that cannot be created or destroyed, not energy.

You're not quite right. Matter and energy are interchangeable through the most famous equation in the whole of physics-e=mc^2.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed. That's a fundamental law of physics.

Noel Edmunds is indeed a twattery, twat, wanker.

He needs to keep his opinions to himself instead of insulting peoples' intelligence.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; the total quantity of energy in the universe stays the same. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of energy. It states that as energy is transferred or transformed, more and more of it is wasted. The Second Law also states that there is a natural tendency of any isolated system to degenerate into a more disordered state.

And that's entropy.

That is happening, Ego
www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151002103252.htm

Can a persons remains really be turned into a diamond?

media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/39/a4/57/39a457af0d63a8d504c4f6096d9de7d4.jpg

I only meant the bit about when you die. The rest of what he said was rubbish.

ApricotSorbet99

I will thank you for the answer. It might well be blindingly obvious, it just isn't to me.

But I shouldn't thank you. My question was asked openly and without smugness, I hope.

I do like your answer though. Can't disagree.

But I can't prove he isn't enjoying his immortality. That's probably where you would win, being able to prove otherwise?

(Sorry to single out your post, Sorbet, but I don't get much opportunity for off the wall talk in real life).

Awwww i like Noel Edmunds.

OOOPS, sorry.

You want a physicist to speak at your funeral - I've always loved the bit at the end: "According to the law of the conservation of energy, not a bit of you is gone; you’re just less orderly."

entropy arguments are tricky when it comes to life. Just this morning on Radio 4 someone was perpetuating the myth about living systems being somehow intrinsically lower in entropy than a random configuration of the same system...to be fair they might later have taken that argument apart, but I somehow doubt it as the main focus was penicillin...

Anyway...it is a subtle but important physics error to associate things that look chaotic to our eyes with things in a state of high entropy...

a messy bedroom isn't at higher entropy than a tidy one, and a cell isn't at lower entropy than a homoogonised cell...

It sounds a little like pantheism.

I guess it must have been....I usually only hear the today programme.

I suppose I could listen to the rest and find out if they myth perpetuated or myth busted....but I find the present phenomenally annoying so I probably won't.

He's a stupid, insulting, thoughtless cunt of the highest order. A moron, a git, a dickhead and a sorry wee troll. I hope the fellow leprechauns come and take him away.

If that was aimed at me, I'm honoured. Let them take me home to Gorey. Or Courtown if they can be bothered.

Not a troll, I promise. Stupid...? well I maybe a bit tick.

What Noel Edmonds said was a pile of crap from start to finish. Anybody who listens to anything he says from now on needs their head examining. The man has shown himself to be an ignorant, uncaring twat.

Pretty sure that was aimed at Noel not you...

'They say that everyone is born with cancer its just whever it develops or not and im sure its getting more common and its more to do with the way we are living and all the products we use these days.'

We have rogue cells all the time. Cell division that just doesn't go right. Usually, the immune system will find these and kill them. But sometimes that doesn't always happen, cell production goes awry and that's a very simplistic measure of what cancer is.

Some cancers are linked to known pollutants, some are linked to some lifestyle issues. But age is another risk factor. Our bodies don't work as efficiently as they age, and people in Western societies are living longer and longer. This is another big reason why it's more common.

The cunt weasel Noel, for example, got prostate cancer. The risk of developing this is known to increase with age, and Noel is an old goblin. His father also had prostate cancer. But instead he determined, in his infinite wisdom, that it was caused by stress and then extrapolated that feeble and ignorant conclusion to apply to all cancers, hence, his asking a man who had cancer, too, if perhaps his 'negative attitude' was not causal in his disease.

As the mother of a child whose cancer ended her life, this man and his ignorance makes me sick. He continues to declare he is right and swerves those asking if he would pose the same question to a child with cancer.

Because he's a dick and a stupid one at that.