>> ^bamdrew:

you fools! ... the audio is another dimension! as is the time across which this video occurs!
you've created another 3D transformers movie... God help us...


Audio's not a dimension, it exists as waves within our 4 dimensional space/time. But the time in this a 2nd dimension, which means this is 2D and therefore have more depth than the actual movies ... (or, I don't know, some other lazy "omg the movies suckzz lol!" type joke, I'm tired).

>> ^Fade:

Nothing in the laws of physics...except that you can't physically travel through time, yes.
Time is only this moment. There is no future or past to travel to.


Not according to some elements of General Relativity. Meaning, some would have it that the past, future and present have all already happened and just exist in a different dimension, call it the Z' axis. When Kurt Gödel wasn't destroying the foundations of logical positivism, he devised a time travel tabulation called the Gödel metric which allowed for curves in space time that one might be able to use some variant of what we all know as time travel. It is all theory, of course, and most of the theoretical methods for invoking time travel require a device of infinite size, or arranging matter in such a way as to destroy your time travel machine as it becomes a singularity...oops. Time is hardly understood really. We don't really know what it is when we talk about time, and by we, I mean everyone! Is time a particle, is it a matter or energy of sorts, is it conserved, how is it created if it is a substance of a sort? Is the apparent nature of moments of time in our minds indicative to "it's" nature, or just an arrangements of information in our mind...could some other mind have a very different idea of time? If so, how real is our notion of time, as it would appear that forward moving time would not be objectively real in that case. The debate on time travel, as far as I can see, isn't over...but mostly because we don't even know what time actually is! </rant of one of my favorite subjects!>

Time to go eat...

Edit (wanted to add that some hold that rats memorize events in reverse! What I mean is when they go through a maze, they remember coming out of the maze first, and going in last! AMAZINGLY DIFFERENT WORLD! As such, a rat has a much, much different idea of the "flow" of time as a forward flow of moments, his time jumps from now, to the then that was near to the then that was far and back to the "now" which will become another then that was near, then a then that was far...a jambalaya that we would have no idea how to make since of lineally, but it works so well for rats that they are one of natures most sucessfull pests.)

It has been theorized for a LONG time that neutrinos could exceed the speed of light. Very cool to see it backed with some solid evidence. The finding itself, to me, isn't as fascinating as what can come FROM the discovery. It opens up routes to other huge questions, namely where does Einsteins theory of relativity break down? Where does it apply? Where does it not apply? It's another data point to hopefully bridge the gap between traditional physics and quantum mechanics. The more data points, the closer to a unified theory science can hopefully get. Its quite cool. I'm going off on the edge here. But what I'd ask is: Does it really exceed the speed of light? Imagine if it really doesn't exceed the speed of light, however from our frame of reference it does. How to explain that? Some sort of dimension tunneling (lets fly off on a crazy whim here, think hyperspace or tunneling through extra dimension(s)). As theory goes, everything is relative. So while a particle in of itself may not exceed the speed of light in it's frame of reference at that speed, it may actually go faster from our dimensional perspective. Who knows why. Space-time, the speed of light, and particles can do some very strange and interesting things.

I guess its a truck.. maybe a tornado was involved? I suspect the 2 were in different points of space time because it was clear this craptastic camera phone was warping the time space continuum.

Yo. All the rappers claim to not give a fuck.
Well step aside bitches, cause I give the lowest amount of fuck humanly possible.

What?!

(I don't a give a fuck...)
About anything, fuck everyone and fuck everything, what
(I don't give a fuck...)
I literally don't give a fuck about anything

I don't give a fuck about motherfuckin' anything
People care about shit, I say fuck everything
Fuck you, fuck me, fuck the sky, fuck trees, fuck the sun
I don't need heat of Vitamin D!

And fuck toasters. I don't need to cook my bread
And fuck coasters. I use a little plate instead
And fuck roosters. With their useless cockadoodledoo
We invented the alarm clocks. We no longer need you

Don't give a fuck about chairs. I prefer to stand
And fuck air conditioners - I got a ceiling fan
And fuck the the movie the fan, staring westly snipes
Demolition man's the only snipes moving your light
And fuck liking shit. I don't even like the stuff that I like
Don't give a fuck about not liking all the shit I don't like
Like tissues. Fuck them! I blow my nose on the couch
And fuck my nostrils and my senses now I breathe through my mouth
Don't give a fuck about seeing bitch, fuck my eyes
Fuck physical perception yo, I'd rather be blind
Fuck time, seconds are too short and minutes are a joke
And I was awake too long, it should be half an hour at most
And fuck coasts, who gives a fuck about where water meets land
And fuck boats, just because you float you think you're so fucking bad
And fuck jokes, I don't need to be funny all the time
My dog has a tumor and he's probably gonna die, but...

(I don't a give a fuck...)
About anything, fuck everyone and fuck everything, what
(I don't give a fuck...)
I literally don't give a fuck about anything

Walked into a coffee shop and ordered a cup
The girl says "small, medium, large?"
I say "bitch I don't give a fuck"
She said "I can't process your order if you don't pick a size"
I said "fine, I'll take a large, but I still don't give a fuck, alright?"
Don't give a fuck about beverage size options motherfucker
And I don't give a fuck about liquids either
They're all wet and shit and tend to spill all over the place
Like human semen when I get it all over my face
I'm not gay, I just don't give a fuck about straight sex
And fuck my dick, I'll pee and cum out of my mouth instead.
Fuck biological functions, fuck the human body
I prefer the body of a bat with the head of a coyote
I call myself batyodie and I fight crime at night
I know its similar to batman but motherfuck copyright
I plagiarize all the time, I do it everyday
Cause I'm on the right track baby, I was born this way

And fuck birth, entering the world of space & time is a bitch
Searching for purpose in the random universe sucks dick
Is it deterministic or am I free to choose my way
Did I choose to not give a fuck about ice cube trays
If I want ice I'll go to the fucking corner store and buy a bag
Filling you up and waiting for the water to freeze is a motherfucking drag
You know what? Fuck the word fuck, I don't need to use it
I'll replace it with the word chainsaw for this chorus

(I don't a give a chainsaw...)
About anything, chainsaw everyone and chainsaw everything, what
(I don't give a chainsaw...)
I literally don't give a chainsaw about anything

If there was a contest to see who doesn't give a fuck the most
I wouldn't win cause I don't give a fuck about winning yo
I don't even give a fuck about not giving a fuck,
so I do give a fuck... wait, what?

(I give a fuck...)
About everything, I love everyone and care about everything
(I give a fuck...)
I literally care about every motherfucking thing

Right, so here's an idea. Just agree to disagree, and move the fu%* on! Teach evolution like the theory it is in science class, and let people make up their own minds. Teach christian ideas in the subjects where its relevant, like when it's being alluded to in a literature class. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to do or understand. Just because an idea is taught, comprehended, and understood, it doesn't mean it's believed in by any involved. I taught communism; I'm not a communist. I taught capitalism; I'm not a capitalist. There's value for everyone to learn and understand other ideas you disagree with.

I fully understand that knowledge is derived from multiple sources, and multiple sources conflict. Different religions conflict about the origins of man. Different people within the same religion disagree. Different scientists disagree. Why is it religious people can respectfully disagree about the origins of man, but a creationist and an evolutionist can't without biting each other's heads off?



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^heropsycho:
What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.
The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.

Ahh, the old non-overlapping magisteria idea. Nice idea, but it just doesn't work. The problem is that the two cover common ground. Science often directly contradicts what religious doctrine teaches, the prime example being evolution.

>> ^heropsycho:

What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.
The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.


Ahh, the old non-overlapping magisteria idea. Nice idea, but it just doesn't work. The problem is that the two cover common ground. Science often directly contradicts what religious doctrine teaches, the prime example being evolution.

What kills me about Americans, including atheists and hardcore religious people alike, is maybe, just maybe, various religions are different approximations to describe a reality bigger than we can comprehend with reason based on empirical evidence alone. Nobody had a culture war when Einstein and others thought up explanations of quantum mechanics, phenomena concerning space/time continuum, and then ended up being wrong about some of it. We'd be much better off allowing speculation, whether it be religious or scientific in nature, and just accept it for what it is.

The only thing I ask, of both sides, is check your religion and scientific hypothesis at the door when debating what impacts us all, while coming more into agreement on what constitutes faith, actual knowledge, speculation, and facts.

There is another solution that allows for time travel and does not involved paradoxes.

Simplifying it, it goes like this:

1. Nothing can go faster than the speed of light, but we can travel as close to it as possible, neglecting the technological issues.

2. You engineer a wormhole, a Time Tunnel into the past using some sort of as-yet unknown technology.

3. Entering the wormhole at one end with your space/time machine, you emerge ten years in the past (say from 2011 to 2001), TEN LIGHT YEARS AWAY from earth.

4. Immediately, you set out to return to earth at the speed of light (less an infinitesmal amount).

5. You would arrive back at earth in 2011 just seconds/minutes/hours after you entered the Time Tunnel the first time. Because you emerged so far from Earth there was/is nothing you could have done to change or affect your past. You couldn't kill your parents in the past, you couldn't have stopped yourself from entering the Time Tunnel...

I suspect that we'll find that time travel via wormholes is possible but that wormholes will only form in such a way that the two ends cannot lead to paradoxes being created.

This means that we will still never be able to travel to see dinosaurs. Travel back in time 65 million years and you will emerge 65 million light-years away. Travel back to earth and you will still only arrive just after you entered the other end of the time tunnel.

Hence we will also never see future time travelers in our time, including killer cyborgs from the future.

I am sorry, but this is not funny. And I have no idea why some many of you voted for this except he mentions he likes Ron Paul and calls Trump out. He barely even called him out... Trump bankrupted a casino people. That is the business equivalent of an oxymoron. It is a violation of the space-time continuum.

Space-Time V1.0

1:1
First the Higg's boson came to be with a photon, light defined by dark, as the quantum space-time field or quantum foam oscillated into fruition a virtual particle with an asymmetrical energy matrix. Thus it hast made what is creation.

1:2
Then thoust foam made up and down quarks, strange and charm quarks, and top and bottom quarks. And the foam was happy.

1:3 Next came thine foam's baryonic matter that thou'ist made from; and all composite particles. Then came the other matter, unknown to man and animal, but by gravity and still some to none.

Etc...

We can do the same stupid thing.

(A small addition that has a lot to do with the last part of the original Blog Post.)

The one I posted directly above has some small changes for easier reading. I still need to do a little idea storming at the end as I'm VERY unsure whether the forces at play would still hold the Universe together.

It's more likely that the "big rip" will win out, even over the weak and strong nuclear forces (which is a lot of energy considering that it just did it to the UNIVERSE! heh...

I also need to see, particularly under what conditions the Universe might start to be "swayed" by quantum fluctuations, the same you see at the beginning of the big bang, that had a lot to do with how matter and other non-baryonic (that 's the official way of saying, matter that isn't like the stuff we know: like Dark Matter) matter set up (when you look at the cosmic background radiation (CBR) map, the "hot vs. cold") topography wise; it's why the Universe isn't a smooth uniform (or symmetric) balanced energy place; which you would expect from a perfect explosion like the Big Bang, but the CBR shows that the explosion was far from being smooth and quite the opposite.

It's what gives us our galaxies and also where they're at. The question besides how gravity is related to the quantum mechanics realm; as we have NO theory (with a few hypotheses that almost all have to do with string theory: strings of energy in different "dimensional" configurations; like one dimension, two dimension (planer), etc..."; these little strings vibrate, kind of like a standing wave and intercede and connect into our dimension: think of a plane with limited dimensions on the x & y, then imagine a line intersecting in two spots--one coming "up" the other going "down", but the second connection BARELY hits the plane.

On our end we see a photon that appears to act like a particle and wave in whichever situation it's facing.Normally it may only act like a wave the first spot, but since the energy of this photon is a gamma ray (increased energy) it caused the string to vibrate more forcefully. Thus, connecting it to our "planer" observable space-time. But, when the energy decreases, the photon's string is pulled back and all of a sudden it only displays one of the two characteristics. Baryonic matter works the same way in String Theory, but requires VERY hard math to solve the discrepancies (one of the reasons some people hate it as it isn't a so called "elegant solution"; everything we've seen so far, while hard to grasp initially--tends to, "so far", work out to be very easy solutions).

However, string theory has described many things we have found out in the particle world very well. Another idea (which is more elegant and to me, the presence of "e" in it is very, intriguing) is E8 Symmetry. It's also a mathematical solution, so don't expect too much straight forward dialogue in it's definition. However, remember that Euler's number/The "Natural" number, "e", is related to a great many things already present in everyday life and the formation of almost everything from: you neural pathways, your circulatory system, clouds, trees/plants, sea shells, galaxies, fractals, and much much more...

What I need to know his how baryonic matter would react given a scenario were everything is ripped apart. Specifically, it's quantum mechanical reactions. Does it go into a "quantum critical state" (a fancy way of saying "pseudo"-superposition), as in this state it would still behave in a quantum mechanical way according to superposition. This leads to the last question. If it does enter superposition, is it possible that it may become "uncoupled, disassociated, or dis-entangled" from other matter, even non-baryonic matter like dark matter.

Anyway, just a bit more for what I wrote. More of me, thinking aloud, as I've read a lot about entanglement and superposition, but in this scenario I'd mot likely need an expert to think about it and give me an answer. Math will most likely be useless till we have some hard information on it; right now it's just pure observation. Then you may be able to commit yourself to some math that would show (or at least predict) what most likely would occur.

Another long ponderment! I'm keeping that word so screw you Merriam-Webster!

God-winned.>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more. In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.

Deep thoughts - By Jack Handy>> ^justanotherday:
Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more. In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.

I agree with what your saying, trust me. But, as I was trying to point out we've, as a species, gone to great lengths to hurt ourselves and negate progress. That is what I was alluding to when I said: "I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... ".

In many cases the "evil" or "good" are a neutral aspect anyway (if you look at it from a evolution point of view). But, evolution also shows why many of the things we consider good are merely evolutionary necessities to survive, i.e. grouping, society, negative impacts on the group by mentally ill group-mates--leading to punishment/exile/or death. This is present in the animal kingdom as well. There have been some recent books covering this very point and they're quite good; if you wish to read one, my advice would be for "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.

Lastly, I know science will not have all the answers. But, if we can deal with the problems I listed above it will bring us closer to a day with understanding; but, many problems will still be left (as technology gets more advanced, it requires less and less people to cause near fatal problems for cities-->countries-->and then the world. If we can't find a way to fold the people back into society willingly we may ultimately fail. By the mid-point of this century, maybe even sooner, it may only take one scientist with a vendetta or a psychotic break (caused by the mind or drugs) to create a virus that targets human specific genetics--if that scientist can throw in some nano-tech... That might be it.

Or we could end up with nano-bots able to self-replicate in our bodies and provide us with protection from viruses, bacteria, other nanites, and able to give you your daily medication as well.

The future is clearly open-ended right now, but I don't think it's quite as dim as justanotherday postulates. Yet, science and religion in the long-term are most likely completely incompatible. Religion can stay in the background without causing conflicts, but if it's at the core or upfront competing with science they'll always rub each other the wrong way--as they are nearly polar opposite in function and approach.

/Yes, I do think the "Atheist" in the video is a Anti-theist. It doesn't mean he's wrong, but he is approaching a solution in the opposite direction that I would suggest (unless the religious leader is like the scientist above in my example: psychotic, mentally ill, etc...).

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I didn't want to derail your conversation there, but as an aside, science has also been a great cause of pain and death. It is has a neutral bias, as I would also see religion. The state of it is largely in the hands of the humans at the helm. We have medicine, but we also have machine guns. We have the United Christian Children's fund, but we also have sexual abusing Fathers.

In reply to this comment by kceaton1:
>> ^justanotherday:

Interesting. I guess everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. Besides, given his past, I can see why he is bitter. Life can be cruel. It is hard to embrace any authority when it fails you so miserably. I still don't see why some believers and non-believers can not get along. Of course, the media only focuses on the few that can't get along. The majority of believers and non-believers can get along. Neither can definitively prove the other side is completely right or completely wrong. So they do a sort of agree to disagree. I do believe that anyone, with any kind of sense, realizes that there is much more to humans that transcends all beliefs. We are more than we appears. More than the sum of our parts. At least science proves that concept. But that does not conclude anything else except just that we are more.
--In the final analysis, I think we will find the true answer is beyond all human perceptions. One can't possibly think we are the highest intelligence in the multi-verse space-time. That would be arrogant at best. If we are, then it is a sad multi-verse space-time. If we are not, then the possibilities are endless.--


The only problem with how you put this is that you are giving a value to something we can't reliably judge for ourselves. It's the same gripe he has with religion. Religion likes to contribute to it's own definition and no other relative position is welcome.

We would also be arrogant if we don't consider the fact that we may be the smartest thing there is. We know already that there were most likely ancestors and perhaps non-ancestors in human past that had a high IQ; due to the size of their neo-cortex. The difference is that our lineage brokered the gap between minds with an extremely descriptive language and body language piece of construction in our brain.

Also, you describe humanity as "sad". I've seen the worst and the best of things we have in this world come from humans. Many of our terrible aspects can be linked to mental illness, abuse, no education, etc... Don't give aliens the benefit that they will not have to deal with the same issues.

Finally, science has made HUGE strides in not only understanding ourselves, but also the environment and creatures around us. In 100 years, out of the 250,000 years we've been around, we've made strides that would seem impossible just a decade earlier. In 1995 when I left graduated from high school the Internet was good for gaming and small-scale communications. In one decade it had become HUGE, allowing you to do things never imagined before (even gaming saw the same leap--just from the advancement of the Internet; WoW is a good example). The Internet is now on the verge of becoming threaded into our everyday life; this is true for a nearly endless list of technological changes and scientific knowledge.

Science also has made great leaps in understanding our psyche (soul for others) and our overall brain and psychology. If you want some quick rundowns on what we know don't look at psychology (as it tends to be secondary to neuroscience), look at neuroscience and artificial intelligence.