Macroscopic

I do use grammar; seriously. That might mean something if I didn't. You know it looks funny when you tell someone to use grammar and you don't capitalize the first letter of your sentence. You mess up at the first letter. I laughed when I read your post; it's meaningless and useless. Why did you take offense at that anyway? It wasn't adressed to you. It was directed at zazzzoom.(I didn't capitalize it because that's not the way he has his name.)

Did you read my post? Are you capable of making a logical argument?Are you capable of addressing other people's arguments? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? If the answer to any of those is 'yes', then stop your preaching, adress people's arguments with your own LOGICAL arguments, and learn how to use some grammar. Seriously.

If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would back it up with some reasoning. Before talking about the shape of the universe, explain my previous post:

A shape is something that exists in space. Space can not have a shape because that would imply that something exists outside of it, and you have said you don't believe that. Your 'logic' contradicts itself, and doesn't make any sense.

Killing people isn't cheaper than keeping them alive. Google 'cost of death penalty'. I think you seriously underestimate prison. Life in prison is revenge. Life in prison is much worse than death. Bad things happen there, and you probably know that. I don't know what you've heard, but prison is not protection.

Ok, since it is just a personal view I will not tell you that it doesn't make sense and the logic is flawed. There doesn't appear to be any...

Your logic seems to be lacking in logic. If space ends and moves, where is it moving into? More space. If you are going to say something like 'the universe has an edge', you should back it up with more than, 'once you understand'. Maybe you should have posted this in the Philosophy and Religion forum, because what you posted is not astronomy or cosmology.

Maybe, but if it kills again, the lawyers who defended him should all be charged with solicitation of murder because they allowed it to kill.

I am not joking. I do think that burning the lawyers might be bit extreme though. However, I think they should be held accountable for all of the defendent's murders because he admitted to them. If they try to free someone who admitted to murder, then they should be given the punishment of the thing they are defending. And if that happens to be burning, then that is what they deserve. {EDIT}:You didn't answer my original question: Why should they be considered innocent? That wasn't answered in the rest of your post. Yes, if the murderers admitted to the crime. It might be other things, but it is not 'extremely immature or extremely stupid'.

It might be linked to the fact that he is a murderer.

A strong opinion doesn't mean you are immature or stupid. Also, if you want to call someone extremely stupid, you should at least make an attempt not to look that way yourself. She does have a point though. If they try to free someone who admitted to being a monster, Why should they be considered innocent? Anyone who frees a monster is responsible for any future murders. Anyone who is responsible for murder should be punished.

I hate him too, which is why I don't think he should be killed. Why put him out of his misery when you can extend his agony? I think it would be worse for him to be in prison for the rest of his long, miserable life. Worse things than death will happen to him there. I share your hatred against him, and the idea that his life is worthless, which is why I don't think he should have the right to death. His misery should be prolonged for as long as possible.

In my opinion, yes. I think he wanted an explanation.

That's the part I don't understand. I don't understand how time and space could both exist and not be unified. How do you think light unified space and time?

Sounds like a contradiction to me. Motion takes place over time. It's not possible for something to move through space but not time. I don't see why the big bang would be an exception.

The big bang was an event. An event can not take place outside of time. You agreed with me when I said that something happened to trigger the big bang. Whatever it was caused the big bang. Cause-effect relationships involve time, because one event in time is effecting another. How can an event take place outside of time? It created the universe as we know it: with planets, stars, galaxies, etc. I don't think it changed any of the laws of physics, just the things they affect. In my opinion, nothing. It just is. I think it is like saying, "What created time?" I don't believe anything joined space and time, they have always been joined.

Why must this be so, in your opinion? I agree that post big bang this must be so, as spce and time combine as space-time. However, why must it be so prior to the big bang? Space and time were not joined at the big bang. Space had to have existed for the big bang to happen, and so did time. Something must have happened to trigger the explosion, And that something was in space, and happened over time. So space and time had to have been joined already for the big bang to happen.

1. Space existed before the Big Bang. If space hadn't existed, neither could that original concentration of matter that made the BB. 2. Time cannot exist while space does not. Time can only exist where space does. If space had ends at the big crunch, it would be impossible for there to be another big bang. If space ends at the big crunch, then so does time. Then a big bang couldn't happen because an event would have to take place outside of time. Time can not be infinite while space is not.

Space and time are joined. They have to either both be finite, or both be infinite. And explain how you think space is finite, because I don't see how that could be possible.

Steven, 12, present

Only things that are finite can have a center; for something to have a center, it has to have an end. Do you think that the universe is not infinite? I don't see how that could work.

Where did you hear that? Could you give a link?

What about genetics and things that started at birth? How can the patient prevent those?

If you consider the expense of the appeals process' date=' I believe it is quite expensive to put someone to death.[/quote'] Is that what I said? I messed up then. This is what it says now, and what I thought I said: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

(a) Any situation could be worse, even Saudi Arabia. (b) It's not improving fast enough, it needs to be sped up. © While they are gradually improving to what we hope might be a democracy, the citizens suffer.