>> ^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.

>> ^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.


What are you talking about?

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 am not sure what you mean by Pre-inflation exactly. If you mean when the universe was a singularity I would argue that concepts of center do not apply to objects that do not have dimension. More to the point, there was no space when there was just a singularity, a concept of center needs space, it is a quality of center.

I like your analogy, but I don't know if that works in our case. The problem lays in space itself, it has no markers or identifiers. A single unit of space is no different than any other, it is also impossible to know if something is space, or not space. The only thing that is possible to know is the distance that exists between objects in space. Relativity tells us that no observer has the authority to say anything about rest or motion objectively, they are both trapped in subjective prisons. As a result, there is no way to know if something is moving away from a position in space, you can only know if it is moving away from something else. That is the problem with objective space, as far as it concerns humans, there is no such things, so talk about a center of space is meaningless to us. We can only understand objects in space relative to other objects in space, not about space itself.

That is my take on it though, I am not sure I completely understand how relativity is supposed to work in space/time when concerning absolute space. As far as I know, there is not such thing as absolute space in relativity.

>> ^Mcboinkens:


I disagree. Pre-inflation there was a center, and therefore post-inflation must also have a center. Not being able to observe of calculate that center is another story.

Here's my anology: if you took a blob of water(floating, you'll see why in a second), you would have a center in that blob. Add enough heat to vaporize it into a steam cloud instantaneously, and you have a more expansive form of water. However, there is still a center, since it the molecules spread out evenly in all directions(obviously this doesn't happen in the real world but work with me here). Now imagine this cloud is diffusing throughout the room, but the room has no physical limit. It has infinite volume. It may spread unevenly, but logic(and physics) dictates it will tend to spread in all direction. It is expanding still, yet it would still have a center, which was where the blob was initially or close to it.. However, if we just began to observe this steam at the time where it was already spreading throughout the room, we would have no idea where that center was, because it all looks the same density and structure-wise.
Just my thoughts on the subject.

Your points are both well made and entirely pointless regarding the video. I say that not as an insult but as someone who sees things much as you suggest. The crux is, though, that the same can be said for all of science together. The dissecting of space into abstracts of meaning is no different from any other abstraction that people do. The trouble is, and where I think your description is too simple is that the abstraction and the dynamics are one in the same. The geometry they're trying to get down to in the video here describes the base dynamics of gravity throughout the universe. In that sense, it isn't just a structure applied to the universe by human minds but something fundamental. Describing gravity as a curvature in space time could be considered a human abstraction (like the electromagnetic field or the wave function in quantum mechanics) but the issue of whether the mean gravitational background of the universe is flat or not goes beyond that. Just like the mass and charge of the electron. It's a fundamental; it is the dynamics, the flow.


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

More over, what is it say it isn't changing or is due to change, or is always in a state of flux. There might be some other more fundamental rule governing that overall shape...or what if the same isn't consistent through the galaxy. And is shape something you need to confine to matter and not the container in which mater is in? If both have a shape, and ones shape is affecting the others shape, what does shape even mean anymore. Is the shape the thing you have, or is it the thing you have after the thing above you is taken into account. What is shape?
My metaphysical interpretation of the universe is non-dimensional. Space having depth, IMO, is a result of the minds interpretation of the details of the universe. While the elements (heheheh) of Euclid's geometry are completely sound, and thus, trying to talk about the shape of the universe as humans experience it will be a question that has an answer, it doesn't answer the more important question, does existence itself have dimension. In the same way that I don't believe color is a property of light, I think you can reduce space and time (though time gets interesting) to an experience of minds.
Even without my own metaphysical framework built up, all interpretations of space (lines, squares, rays) derive their existence from one essential element, the point. A point has no dimension. A line is essentially a collection of dimensionless points. It is not necessary to interpret them as something with dimension. For example, y=x. Algebra, in general, allows for a dimensionless explanation for the interaction of points. Y=x doesn't have to look like anything, per say, for it to be solved in algebra. While humans will retain the contextual information of space and shapes when working for algebra, those are interpretations that correlate back on the human reality. In other words, much akin to a computer program, the universe could (and I believe does) operate without a property of space. Space is a result of minds in the same way monitors construct visual images from a computer. Both are interpretations of dimensionless data.
Seeing in spaces helps us be better hunters, but as that confers to the ultimate truth of reality, I am less certain. The real story might be less about space and gravity, but the overall governing dynamics which exist as a simple set of seemingly arbitrary rules. The reality of the universe might be very closely understood as a computer program or a very sophisticated algebra expression.

Odd that I agree with nearly everything these two are saying, but they still somehow annoy the heck out of me.

Also, I just agreed with every word of a quantumushroom post... A space time rift must have just torn open somewhere.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Okay, but the video really has nothing to do with this. Are you saying we could watch an hour-long interview with some physicist about space-time, and as long as he just mentions marrying a shoe, it should have the gay tag?
>> ^Zonbie:
promote! was going to post this also this is about money.
The last ten seconds is The Rent Is Too Damn High Parties response to it's view on Gay marriage
Priceless!



Well, feel free to change it, The questions as always with politics covered a wide area of topic and gay rights was one, so I threw it in there. If you don't think it fits, then please reassign by all means.

Okay, but the video really has nothing to do with this. Are you saying we could watch an hour-long interview with some physicist about space-time, and as long as he just mentions marrying a shoe, it should have the gay tag?
>> ^Zonbie:

promote! was going to post this also this is about money.
The last ten seconds is The Rent Is Too Damn High Parties response to it's view on Gay marriage
Priceless!

Boy I hope that's sarcasm.

You don't find anything wrong with this logic?

1.You're consenting to threat of violence for your resources. Extortion.

2. By now, can we all admit:

Our schools are lackluster at best.
Drug enforcement is counter-intuitive since drug abuse is a medical issue.
The "war on terror " and drugs, etc. are bullshit. Political props.

Imagine money doesn't exist. Everyone gets what they need cause of an unknown equilibrium force of space & time.

Would it have been cruel for this scenario to take place?

>> ^triumphtigercub:

but the fact of the matter is we pay for all sorts of services of which we do not get direct benefit, such as public schools, drug enforcement, war on _______, but we still have to pay or else we're put in jail. Otherwise, the state's argument rings hollow and even cruel.

Given your bullet reply I will do likewise. (even though I think that turns our conversation into more of an argument, and I hate arguments)

I) Both sides had only mathematical constructs with a central notion of understanding behind the numbers. What I mean is, there was no NASA or anything to go look...there was only math. The Heliocentric model was exactly that, a (very) complex mathematical model (of exceptions) to explain the motion of the planets based on observed phenomena. Geocentrism had data as well, but lacked the cultural bias for it to be accepted as a valid view point. Which adds to my point, not detracts from it; as my point what theories get mocked or accepted has more to do with culture than premise.

A) I bet you didn't read the link I posted, and I can't blame you (Quine on a weekday and all!). But what I wrote was a hasty, and perhaps, oversimplified version of Quines waxing and waning on the politics of science. You can see examples of this today where scientists and large hang on the breath of the great intellectuals of the day, like Stephen Hawking. Or, how quickly Einstein is falling out of favor now that quantum doesn't quite add up. More than likely, within our lifetime, you will stop hearing about space time curves and it will be supplanted by some other thing. The main difference between planet orbits and the general laws of the universe are that you can go outside and look at the orbit (with a rocket). You can't go just "see" the laws of nature and therefore have no reason to thing Enstein was any more right about space time curves than of fundamental forces. You can explain, using Newtonian language and adapting its math, relativity and motion. The reason we don't has more to do with culture and self advocacy than evidence. And to the point, that still doesn't address the primary problem, that of which, the PEERS that review are under the influence of culture, they are the rose colored glasses to which I was referring all along.

B) See, I understand a bit of that. But ultimately that seems like an undersell to how life works on this planet. No doubt, change will bring hardship on certain species, but wouldn't also create new opportunities for others? A lack of snow on the tundra is bad for snow foxes...but good for regular foxes. Change is one thing life on this planet handles well...as for individual members their fates are less certain.

C) I disagree on 2 counts. One is my first example. Simply put, even if you idea treads water, it can be framed in such a way as to be demeaned of any value, regardless of merit. You can see this in media smear campaign stuff, if you can frame someone as a nut job, it will discredit them. For example, "The Industrial Revolution and its consequences" is a great read and has many, good observations....but is written by the uni bomber so not high on anyone's reading list. It isn't culturally acceptable to go...hey, the uni bomber is right, this is a problem! Same goes for here, it doesn't matter if it's 600 or 6000 scientists that disagree with the climate change model, if your ideas aren't popular, no one is going to be there to listen.

And second, you can't prove a negative. The only way the could prove that climate change isn't human caused is to completely understand the whole system and then point out how humans are trivial factors. In other words, they would have to be able to do the thing that no climatologist can claim, to know the whole truth about the weather and all its complexities. The burden of proof is actually on those making the claim, not the ones countering that claim. So really, the only thing they have to proof is nothing and just make the assertion that the doomsays math doesn't add up (and why). They just have to poke the holes in the boat in other words...which is what I think they are getting ostracized for. Get on board or get out kind of thing. But that is just an outsiders opinion.

I doubt any of us here are climatologists, but we are people. As people, we can expect people doing science on climate to not be entirely dissimilar to us. While they my process possess information regarding a particular area, they are not immune to the culture they live and work in. Quine talked about this a lot. That science doesn't evolve like the romantic picture that is painted. Rather, like pop culture, science shifts its entire focus from one foundational theory to another. Einstein doesn't extend Newton, it replaces it. Why do we not, rather, adapt the math of Newtonian physics to incorporate the data of relativity and keep the same mindset of forces instead of space time warps? Quines answer is that, like pop culture, a mans theory only lasts as long as he is around to extend it. Eventually, no matter if your theoretical construct was correct, if you aren't around to sort out the sometimes minor technicalities...your out. The people after you will eventually supplant your theory with something else more trendy. That science is subject to the same rules of the schoolyard as anything else. Peer review is more of a contest of popularity and not overall truth value.

As such, the very act of peer review is subject to the cultural perspective of the day. The moral and political climate of the day speaks volumes to what peer evaluated papers support or don't. Peer review is the best we have in science to approximate how we experience the universe, but it is not without its short comings. Let us not fall into the fallacy of authority, and majority in stating x group of people are more correct than y group opposed. Instead, judge things on merit of the argument.

To that end, I find that I am undecided on the whole debate. Moreover, I hesitate to put government in control of saving the environment...such was already their responsibility in the gulf. I don't want to live in a world of wrappers and smog, and to that end, I am motivated for cleaner technologies. Being wasteful has always felt somewhat despicable. To me, I remain skeptical of mans prowess of weather prediction. Year after year there is tail of "the worst hurricane season in history" that fails to show itself. If you say it enough I guess eventually it will be right, but that takes some of the wind out of the sails(har har har).

Furthermore, where is the data to support that global warming would even be bad? The only fact to the end that I am even familiar with is more extreme weather, and that dried up lake in Africa. I have lived next to lots dried up lakes and rivers...so that seems like more of a social disaster than an environmental one.

In the end, I feel like there is some snake oil salesmanship over the whole ordeal. I think we want to believe that we are the next greatest disaster. We will entwine any evidence into the web of belief . And ostracize anyone that deviates. We have always been at war with Eurasia, after all.

edited: grammar and spelling

How are they holding both events at the same place and the same time? Won't that cause some kind of quantum fissure in the space-time continuum?

>> ^shadownc:

You would think on such a momentous occasion that they would wait for a sunny day so they could actually...you know...see the thing fly.


Its the middle of winter, not many sunny days. The actual project they're working on is quite smart. They deal with light weight payloads, allowing smaller projects to get space time cheaply where they'd normally need to piggy back n a larger more expensive project.

I agree with @NetRunner. The movieline "answers" are a snarky list of "So what?"

I now get the flash sideways thing, and I actually like that when they die they all meet in this place that exists indifferent to space/time. But a cool melodramatic tearjerking ending where everyone is rejoined in the afterlife (Except for the black people. What's up with that?) does not excuse the show creators from paying off the nearly countless mysteries they set up.

And I disagree with @dystopianfuturetoday, the BSG ending was not great but it was at least satisfying. They didn't leave any unanswered questions, as far as I remember. Sure their answers were arguably lazy, but at least they were answers!

Get a time machine and go back to 1994. But be careful. Any things you do to her could upset the space time-continuum, and you may never be born, Marty!

>> ^gdepascalis:
I'd like to do things to her...