If you believe there was a Big Bang, you have to know there will be a big Crunch... It'll be in 300 Billion years (give or take), so Make sure you get good seats at the restaraunt at the end of the universe!!!



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

<a href="http://www.jesusdance.org/">A Little More Levity!</a>




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Quote:

Is there a place in the universe where you cannot see anything else, no distant stars, no anything. No, not likely, therefore, everywhere in the universe has, at a minimum, light energy passing through it.

How is this not likely? Is it hard to believe that there's an area of space with no light reaching it?

Perphas at one point, the light from stars will pass through it, but it's really not that incomprehensible to imagine a dark space. Yes, with nothing in it.

This is an interesting argument, but I just don't see where you and Pretjah are going with it...

Say, for the sake of argument, that we could re-create the vacuum of space in a plain old vacuum tube.

Put it in a dark room. What's inside the tube?

Yes, yes, a vacuum, but what's a vacuum? If there's no matter in it, what *is* in it?

It's not something.

ToBoGgAn wrote:now if something absorbs all the nothing does it negate itself/get bigger,get smaller/implode on itself.

where exactly did nothing come from.

one real question, if a true vacuum/nothing actually exists everywhere there is nothing, would it not by current theory (of vacuum properties, ie nothing) is true and vacuums/nothing pulls in matter won't everything eventually be nothing?

wow that is confusing

here is my brand new just thought of theory, not of how we got here but where we are headed

now let's forget aboot the whole where did we come from thing and make it simple, you came from your parents. following this whole argument has made me think more aboot the future, mostly because we cannot change the past so it is irrelevant until we can transcend time.

current theory has the universe expanding in reaction to the "big bang", i have no care how it initially happened but ask why it can't happen again. this "big bang" can really be broken down to resemble a nuclear explosion, ie expansion/contraction. once the universe reaches it's limit that i can not fathom we, as a universe, have reached our half life. wherever the initial site of this "big bang" was will naturally be the epicenter of the universe. once the universe is done expanding it will then be hurled into a contraction of equal speed and force of the expansion by the epicenter where everything became nothing(hold on keep reading). the effect this will have on individual planets and entire solar systems would be most likely devastating to the living but could spur new life on previous;y uninhabitable areas. as the universe begins it's shrinkage this new life will evolve, not necassarily as we have but evolve none the less as it wonders where it came from and strives for meaning it will be taking the opposite journey that we rode out, assuming we were eliminated in the massive halt and redirection of the universe.

now the epicenter of the universe is now pulling all matter back into the void created by the "big bang" slowly filling the nothing with everything until finally all things are now compressed into the densest possible tiniest little bit of something in the middle of all this nothing. simultaneously as all of everything is pulled into and compressed into nothing the shear energy created by this final act creates the next "big bang" and starts the process over again with no guarantees that the results will be the same with life forms.

most people would laugh this off as science fiction but sit and think aboot it for a minute and see where it could be feasible.

this system also makes an elaborate use of the "infinity theory" due to the fact that it would never end and no one will ever be able to trace it to a beginning, especially since everything is constantly destroyed and recreated in a cycle with random outcomes on the same scene repeated over and over.

well, who's gonna be the first to debunk it?

ME

Well you would have a point except...

The universe is expanding very quickly, and is in fact SPEEDING UP. Problem is, the further matter particle(you pick particle size) "X" is from particle "Y", the less effective the gravitational pull between them is. Given all known and measured(estimated) matter in the universe, the rate of which the universe is expanding, and the distance of such matter from the epicenter of the universe(and more importantly - distance from the rest of the matter) - Gravity will not be strong enough to stop the universe from expanding indefinitely, let alone cause it to fall back into itself.

Eventually, no matter how advanced we(or any form of life) become, we won't be able to survive. Why? Because as this universe expands infinitely, all while having no more(and no less) matter than it originally had. It is continually spreading out, and all the matter (and energy - the definition of what is classically considered to be energy at least - is actually a form of matter)will eventually become to spread out to support any possible form of life.

If you want a (over)simplified example of what I'm talking about, consider our solar system. The Sun is in the center, and it radiates energy(really its matter) to the rest of the solar system(and on a small level - the rest of the universe). Mercury being the closest planet to the Sun - is HOT!!!!! The "energy" from the Sun is more dense this close to the Sun. Then you have Venus, which is between farther than Mercury yet closer than Earth, also being much cooler than Mercury yet hotter than Earth, courtesy of the Sun's "energy" being less dense than on Mercury yet more dense than on Earth. Etc etc etc. The further out you go, there is basically just as much energy(excluding the energy absorbed or reflected/deflected by planets, comets, etc) far away from the Sun as there is near it, but it becomes less dense as it needs to fill a continually bigger and bigger space. And the further away you get from the Sun in our solar system, the colder it gets(also note I'm mainly talking about surface temperature, as planets do create their own heat as a result of compression courtesy of their own mass etc. But this generally generates little heat on the surface as much as it heats the core).


However there is an X factor in this theory. Dark matter is not included in "all known and measured(estimated) matter in the universe". The question is - how much dark matter is there? Is there enough dark matter to contribute enough gravitational mass that the universe will stop expanding and collapse back on itself? I don't really think so. Dr. Hawking doesn't either.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b306/bk3k/lss2.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b306/bk3k/zoom2.jpg

I found these neat images a while back. What are they? They are a composition of dark matter through out the universe as compiled by a supercomputer. Anyhow they at least looks cool IMO so I have the first one on my background(lol in a dork). The actual images I have are much high resolution than these, but photobucket knocked down the size If you really want the high res ones(about 1.5MB each), just ask me, I'll email them.



I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

who knows, bet none of us ever will

oh and i love your sig it has always made me laugh every time i read it

Man.. no one has said anything about the jesus dance link.

I'm almost hurt.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

how's that GAM, your own personal jesus

mine is cooler my jesus built my hotrod

OKay.. I'm happy now.


Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Back....sorry for the long weekend, buti do want to pose you this question, hahaha:

How do you see that engergy then? as a particle, wave, force?

Because if the usinverse was truly full, how could anything move? Moreso, with the exapnding of the universe how would it stay full? Surely something would have to be filling the void as space increased in dimension...othrwise emptiness would have to fall into the picture.

I see it more plausible that there is both discreet fullness and discreet emptiness on all levels--the emptiness allows the fullness to interact and move around each other--as seen in electricity.

I look at it as a similar concept to normal AC house current: You have your "hot" wire; "fullness" on both the positive and negative and the "neutral" wire--"emptiness". Emptiness acts almost as a universal opposite--it will interact with anything with a full power no matter what it's orientation--if that makes sense.

Bastardking: I'd like to see where the proof is that the universe is expanding on an accelerated rate over time (speeding up), because I'm not buying it--and that's not doubting you specifically, but doubting the scientist that makes that claim. Here's why:

It's given that the further away a celectial object is, the farther back in time we're viewing it.

However, the time slice in which we can view the red-shift of celetial objects, galaxies, etc. is incredibly minute when it comes to the timeline of the universe. Assimung we've observed the redshift since 1905 (which is a very genreous estimate), that gives us a 100 year timeslice in which we can say that, say, the Andromeda galaxy has been moving away from us, and in that time, it's picked up speed (since to my knowledge, no one has caught the image of the same galaxy, star, or other celestial object in two different places within the night's sky).

Assuming the universe is 10 billion years old, that means that we have only recorded 1/100,000,000 of the universe's up-to-now lifespan. To put this in human terms--going off GAM's assumtion that in 300 billion years, the universe will crunch: that means the average universe will live to be 310,000,000,000 years old. We've only seen a timeslice equal to 3.23x10^-10 of the total universe's lifespan.

Assuming a human lives to be 100, that means that the universe is about 31 years old in human terms, and we've only observed 1.02 seconds of it's entire life.

How can a scientist honestly say that the universe is speeding up over that small of a sampling frame given the amount of total time needed to sample from?

Also, even though it appears that the galaxies close to us have a stronger red shift--mainly because they may be further form the center of the universe than those closer.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but i don't see it as enough factual evidence that things are speeding up. I can explain why more if you'd like


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]I look at it as a similar concept to normal AC house current: You have your "hot" wire; "fullness" on both the positive and negative and the "neutral" wire--"emptiness". Emptiness acts almost as a universal opposite--it will interact with anything with a full power no matter what it's orientation--if that makes sense.

I'm about to go to bed but I noticed this and I had to respond. I must say that you have a misunderstanding of electrical principles here, or at least as to how they relate to residential wiring(which surprises me considering your explanation of electrical principal on the previous page).

The hot wire and the neutral wire aren't fundamentally different at all. As you know electricity flows in a complete circuit, that circuit having both a beginning and an end, which is ultimately the same source which generated the electrical flow(aka generator, battery etc). Your explanation of the holes was correct, electrons flow to correct an inbalance of protons and electrons. This principle is still true with alternating current(aka AC for those who don't know), only that the flow reverses at set intervals(60 times per second in the USA - this value being referred to as hertz aka 60 Hz) due to the imbalance reversing as many times per second. As I said the hot and neutral wires aren't any different except that they are different parts to the complete circuit. The neutral wire is simply connected to the ground, which is part of the circuit connecting your house to the power company, the wires hung by/over the road etc, is the other part. The "load"(whatever you are powering off the wall outlet) is simply connecting the two.

This is why you aren't shocked when touching the neutral wire, you're already grounded, you are already connected to that part of the circuit. If you touch the hot wire, since you're basically the same as a neutral wire(although with a little more resistance), you're gonna connect the two, and you know what that means. This is also the REAL reason bird don't get shocked when perching on electrical wires, they're not grounded at all. Electricity doesn't flow through them because they cannot help complete the circuit. Therefore them sitting on the hot wire is no different than us touching the neutral wire. If I could simply levitate above the ground, then I could also touch the hot wires shock free. However if I where touching the hot wires, then someone grabbed my leg, we'd both get shocked because they would ground me and complete the circuit.

KOTL - I assume you probably knew most of that already, but I wrote that considering that many do not, and even then I probably lost some with my explanation.


P.S. - Contrary to popular belief, getting shocked doesn't hurt at all, it just surprises people and they think it hurt them, but in reality it was just "shocking." Now for me, as I know what to expect, if I did it on purpose(taking care not to create a pathway directly across my heart), it wouldn't surprise me at all, and in fact I find it to be a semi-pleasant sensation provided I'm ready for it.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

i think we meant the same thing--i wasn't going into a huge explanation...

What i meant was that even though the neutral wire *is* completing the circuit--you can't be shocked by it--the phase of the earth is not fluctuating between positive and negative--it's neutral. The power coming from the power company is actually in multiple phases--it's how, say, your oven, range, and dryer work--it's at 220v because there are basically 2 hot wires and one ground--each hot wire at 180degrees out of phase, so when one wire is at about 136 (i beleave that's the peak voltage--120 being rms)v positive, the other is 136v negative...

my point was that as a concept, if everything was indeed full, nothing would happen, or the universe would be annihilated as the opposing forces annihilate each other--the "holes" are what causes things to move.

i view Emptyness as a concept like the universe--it's something that i cannot explain in it's entirety--but i know it exists...

...kinda like Christians and God


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

close except 120 is the peak voltage, which at 60 Hz comes out to a RMS of 84.84V
If you had a peak voltage of say 136 as you though, the RMS value would come out to 96.152. On a 60Hz sine wave, this is determined by multiplying the peak voltage by 0.707. (for those who don't know)RMS voltage is what you're gonna use to measure wattage(RMS voltage X Amperage = Wattage), and if converted to DC (and smoothed out courtesy of a capacitor), this will also be the DC voltage(excluding voltage loss across the diodes etc).

Now I'll owe a cookie to the first one who can tell me where I got the 0.707 multiplier from.
(hint - think triangles)




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Things don't have to be full in order to be not empty.

The air is tingling with microwave radiation right now for example, that doesn't mean there's no room for radiant heat or light now does it?

A cloudy sky can always take on more water.. A glas of air can become a glass of something else.. Like I said, just because it's not empty doesn't mean it's filled to capasity.

PAX

^^^^^^^^^
To rephrase what you said, between all matter(regardless of how condensed), is vacuum(aka lack of any matter aka nothing), and as such there is always room for more matter in such vacuum.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

However, when vacuum is taken up by matter--vacuum must go somewhere....otherwise matter is ALWAYS being created, or the universe is not expanding...


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

I didn’t even finish reading this post and probably will not check it again, I could stand here and preach to you until I am blue in the face but I just wanted to say that in the end of your life here on earth, when YOU ARE TREMBLING IN FRONT OF GOD HIMSELF and YOU ARE BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR EVERYTHING YOU HAVE DONE and HE SAYS TO YOU TURN FROM ME FOR I DO NOT KNOW YOU, then you will understand and believe. why do you ask, prove to me there is a God, when it is proven for you every day when you wake, that breath you just took, the trees the air YOUR LIFE!!!

The choice to believe or not believe is called FREE WILL. GOD IS PERFECT. we are here on this earth as servants to him but weather or not we choose to serve him is up to us (free will) he knows what we are going to do and when we will do it and how we did it even before we can think of it. I have studied the word of God for a long time I have strayed for a while (again free will) but this post just brought me back stronger than ever. I have been on both sides of the tracks, I have been pretty low, to the point where before I had found Christ I was spiting in his face and that is when my world went spinning and I realized my calling into the ministry and god told me no matter what I wanted to do, I WILL serve him. I fought it and fought it and fought it only to realize that I can’t fight it and if I would just open my eyes my life would turn around and that I could be forgiven for EVERYTHING I have done. Now I am happily married, building a house, have everything I need to serve God because he has given it to me, even when I thought that what he had told me what I will do would be impossible.

If anyone is interested in anything or has any questions please let me know

I know there are some pretty serious grammar errors and probably some spelling so in advance I am sorry.

Carl

Ahhh. boy..

Man.. that soap box is starting to get worn out.

If you believe in God, great.. I just hope at some point you don't end in hades wondering where you went wrong.

Every religion believes their ideal of God is infallible, and all religions are wrong, because by the very definition of God as a creator, there is little doubt that we can fathom what is actually planned.

Think about it, God for mid-eastern based religions (Chrisitanity, Judaism, Islam) is either the burning bush or Wilfred Brimley with dread-locks; in far east religions, you get a bare-breasted blue-skinned woman with 8 arms, a guy with an elephant's head stuck onto his body, and a guy that was born out of a jasmine flower.

Here's my question: Knowing this, who had the better weed?



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]However, when vacuum is taken up by matter--vacuum must go somewhere....otherwise matter is ALWAYS being created, or the universe is not expanding...
Well I have to disagree with you there. Vacuum being the complete lack of anything, isn't actually an object at all. It doesn't actually "exist". It's an idea of the lack of anything at any given point in space, and nothing more. Perhaps its accurate to say that it's the complete and total opposite of existence. It's more of a concept for our mortal brains to process, than it is actually something that can be objectified.

Since it doesn't actually "exist," it doesn't need to go anywhere. Things that exist have to be somewhere, as well as follow physics laws. This is not applicable to vacuum. Even if it where possible to create more matter, there would be no less vacuum - just more matter, since there never was any vacuum to begin with.

[quote=Keeper of the Light™]It's similar to electricity. Electricity is not only the flow of electrons, but the flow of the "holes" of electrons within the conductor. Without taking the holes into consideration--electricity would be impossible: Electricity like all electromagnetic radiation flows though a supercondictive material (a vacuum for light, supercondutors for electricity) at the speed of light--but, the particles that form electricty--and light (the light is a theory here) cannot flow at the speed of light because they have mass and mass cannot flow at that speed lest it be turned itno energy. So, how does it work out? The "holes" can, because they have no mass, and aren't constrained by that law of physics!

This is correct. Those "holes" are vacuum. and as you stated, they are not subject to the laws of physics. Now as I've pondered the speed of light, I've come up with a theory as to why the speed of light is as fast as it is, vs being faster, or rather being infinite in speed.

I wondered why light, if traveling through a true vacuum, couldn't travel instantaneously(as opposed to it's extremely fast - yet finite speed) from one point to another. It occurred to me that if light could indeed do this(which it can't), that this creates some problems. Of course if it could travel at an infinite speed, that would create the problem of light(and therefore any matter) being able to exist in more than one place(an infinite number of places that would be plotted in a straight line) at any given time. And at the same time, that matter would in a sense never truly exist at any given point in space(since its always actually somewhere else courtesy of traveling at an infinite speed), at least in terms of mathematically trying to track it's coordinates. It's location becomes a formula rather than an X, Y, Z coordinate.

Well my theory(key word being theory - only my idea) is that the reason that matter has a maximum speed, is that this universe has - for severe lack of a better term - a refresh rate, a rate at which the universe is updated - which is measurable and finite(although actually measuring it would only be relative, since if any manner of time passed between refreshes, we would never know it). Furthermore that this universe and all its matter may in fact be defined(or at least processed) as data, physics laws being the mathematical formula for which this data is processed(You see I think like a computer programmer). Further I believe that courtesy of the design of the mathematical function for which is responsible for moving matter, that matter can only move from one coordinate to another adjacent coordinate at a time(or perhaps between a finite number of coordinates in the same manner), but can do so at each refresh - effectively establishing a maximum rate of travel aka speed of light...

This ties into my belief that this universe was created by God. But even God isn't what I think it(I don't think gender references are applicable to God) is, and even if I'm wrong about who/what created this universe, I'm 100% certain that it was in fact created - and by an intelligent being. This of course also could rationalize God having infinite power over anything and everything.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

Now here's an interesting somewhat off topic idea I had. I think this makes some fairly valid points relative the the real world despite being only a concept.

Supposing I had a computer - unimaginably powerful today - and I had way to much time on my hands(say if I was immortal), and if I actually programmed a virtual universe(which would have to be finite given the fact this universe would be contained and processed on a finite computer ) Now also assume I was actually capable of keeping up with everything at once. I would create all the data(matter etc) as well as physics laws myself(any way I see fit). I could of course manipulate anything I wanted, at any time, as I pleased. As well I would have access to any data at any time. Therefore I would be both omniscient and omnipotent relative to the virtual universe - just as I believe God to be.

Now the exploding planets, stars, etc would be entertaining for a while maybe, but eventually my universe would a version of The SIMS as I got bored with the supernovas and black holes etc. I'd probably start with some simple life forms(programmed to reproduce and survive by any means possible), changing and adapting them as I saw fit(and/or making them capable of changing themselves via random mutation). Eat or be eaten etc would become the reality needed for survival. I would probably implement the gender thing after a while. Eventually I might create - or change an existing - creature to have something that could think and reason. I would model it's thought processes off of my own(this is what I think is meant by created in God's image) aka this creature would be sentient etc.

I would tell such a creature how best to behave for the benefit of it's species as a whole, and other rules basically meant for it's own good. Now I could ask it to worship me if I wanted - but basically I'd just want it to like me - since I probably would start getting attached to these things. Now while I COULD force them(via changing anything I like at any time) to like me and/or do as I please etc, I would give them free will, hoping they would do as I say. Why? Well how fun/entertaining would The Sims be if no one did anything on their own? And if someone does something only because you forced them to, it doesn't mean anything(That's like raping someone and saying they wanted you). Of course I would eventually start favoring some over others as well - it's only natural.

Also, while I would do certain things in their world, I would NOT do everything for everyone. I guess I'd have to use my discretion on what I would/wouldn't do and for who/where/when I would do what. Now of course if I do to much, they would rely on me for everything, and would not try to be self-sufficient or do anything on their own - so that wouldn't happen.

Now if I try to let them do things their mostly on their own, aka non interference, no doubt many of them would deny my very existence. Others would hate me aka say I'm not a good because I allow and/or caused suffering to happen(fact is most of the suffering would be caused only as a result of the conditions around them(much of it no-doubt caused by others around them) and their own personal choices - and the rest would probably be random circumstances aka physics related conditions).

Well that's the trade off - you can't do everything without taking away free will. And if I don't directly control everything, bad stuff is inevitably gonna happen(apparently some are gonna say "it was my will," or just my fault, etc etc - lol). Yeah I would control the major stuff(well whatever I consider major), and maybe do some stuff for people now and then, but that's it. Anymore and I think I'd be interfering a little too much.




I've never heard of this "part throttle" before. Does it just bolt on?

But the whole point is although you would appear omniscient to the people you created, you really wouldn't be by virtue of the thoughts and actions you described above.

However you reminded me of another point.

If we, at some point, do actually create Artificial Intelligence, then I'd be much more inclined to believe that there is a god, if creatures like us could instill life.

Good to hear Carl. Stay strong , walking by faith and seeing with your heart.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:Here's my question: Knowing this, who had the better weed?

I hear Canada does.

Bastardking3000 wrote:The whole The Sims thing...

The main flaw in your logic is this, although it was interesting to read:

By using The Sims as your basis of human existance, each person would be bound by the programming, which can be manipulated by the creator of the game. By having that manipulation point in place, the poor little sprites no longer have any free will, regardless as to whether or not the programming is manipulated.

To have free will, they must be able to break the programming.

Quote:

apparently some are gonna say "it was my will,"

Removal of free will from human existance.

See, here's what I don't understand about the xtian religion. Well, religion in general...

You cannot believe in a higher power that is both omniscient and omnipotent and believe that free will exists. Reason being, they cancel each other out. Your god would know what you are doing every measurable time of your life. Meaning no free will.