neutrinosalad

I guess I was a bit vague. What I was trying to point to was the larger demographic changes that are occurring. It is not a territorial grab right now, and it will most likely not happen soon. But think about this, the traditional European population generally has a below replacement rate of births. The traditional middle eastern/Arab population is exploding. They neighbor each other geographically. Groups of middle eastern/Arab people are already immigrating into Europe as there is a growing hole in the population due to the low birth rates of the European people. In fact all signs point to this immigration accelerating beyond the rate of being able to properly integrate the population into the existing culture and values of the European people. What I am trying to say, is that under these conditions, territorial grabs are a highly likely outcome. I cannot say it will happen for certain, but territorial grabs have happened under the exact same conditions multiple times throughout history. I do not see how this demographic change will have a different outcome. I just brought up ISIS because some news reports were saying they were a part of the attack, but the large scale demographic changes are what I am focused on.

That is comparing apples to oranges. Separatist attacks are a part of internal power struggles. Also, I scrolled down to the article and read some of the comments and it is clear that the article is constructed to create a pro-muslim worldview by piecing together information in a specific way to put them in a better light. These terrorist attacks are part of an external group making moves to grab European territory. Separatist attacks in France would end with the restructuring of the power dynamic in France. Terrorist attacks would end with ISIS/Arab people making significant land grabs from the indigenous French people. You cannot compare the two.

As a forward, this is not directly on topic. Here is the article I was remembering: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/news050829-18.htmlthat was in the back of my head when making the statement. Re-reading it, I guess there is speculations that there may be extra "tiny" dimensions that could resolve the gravitational behavior of dark matter believed to exist throughout the universe. Then there is this part of the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Mass_in_extra_dimensions I guess the extra dimension thing could be shelved into "speculations" and I don't mean to drag the thread more off topic, just elaborating here.

Even beyond the complexity. I am finding that a lot of what is being talked about in terms of the construction and operation of the universe is quite literally at the edge of human comprehension. Dark matter for example is believed to be a type of matter that operates on more than 3 spatial dimensions (based on the articles that I have been reading). How can we as mere humans truly understand matter that operates on 3+ spatial dimensions, when our own minds are programmed to only understand and perceive 3 of them? Or even the idea of there being infinite size or length of time. The concept of infinite is at ends with our evolutionary programming since our bodies work based upon a variety of constraints. The inconsistencies are the reason why I find all of this so fascinating. The inconsistencies means that there are groups of scientists working on the bleeding edge of society's understanding of the universe. If these inconsistencies are cleared up and clear models of the universe arise that will mean that entire body of science will have moved forward and humanity will have further unlocked the secrets of the universe.

Yes, I read the article in the OP of the other thread after reading your post. I like the idea of time extending in both directions perpetually. Not sure if I am a fan of the idea that there will never be a big crunch and there never was a singularity.

Does the expansion of spacetime mean that at the start of the big bang, t = 0? This is for time itself.

In my analogy, water is the matter and space is expanding between the molecules of water until it is a thin film. Edit: Re-reading everything and I guess my analogy is not the same as Phi's analogy. Still, I am pretty sure what I am saying is conceptually similar to what Phi is saying. Also, the "thin film of water" part is coming from this article that I read: http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html Here is where that additional part is coming from: I was getting the idea of the geometry of the universe being flat mixed up with the expansion of space. Which is also another thing I am wondering about. Will the universe expand forever or will it reach a critical point where it starts collapsing on itself?

This makes sense to me. Rather than the universe being like the earth expanding until it is particles of dust and metals. The universe is like the ocean, expanding until it is a thin film of water.

I am starting to understand this conceptually. Do you have any links to articles that describe this in three dimensional terms? I will try to find some articles on my own too. Have scientists figured out why the BB was an expansion of space rather than an expansion into space?

If the universe can be equated to the surface of a balloon, would that mean that space can be equated to the air inside of the balloon relative to the universe?

The Koch brothers come to mind. Special interest groups were always going to be a problem, but now I think they have such great influence that the general public is not getting the help it needs. Hmm, I should clarify. When talking about large scale government, I was talking about the heads of our 3 branches. The judicial branch by design has been shielded from the changing technological landscape, but the supreme court seems to be affected by the change in culture in terms of the decisions they have made recently. I was talking about the president, congress and senate when talking about large scale government. More specifically, their inability to work as a cohesive group to implement legislation that this country needs. Their decisions at the head of the country trickle down and affect the government at every scale. Also, I would like to see articles that break down how the VA, social security, etc. is more efficient than private counterparts.

On the smaller local scale, the government does its job outside of being warped in some ways by special interests groups. On the large scale, the American government is extremely inefficient. What I see in a lot of people is frustration due to the fact that the government is either inefficient or ineffective at tackling problems that affect most American people.

Ok, Hawking radiation was not something I knew about. I am looking it up right now. And the environmental factors make sense. This has cleared up some of my doubts.

Thank you for explaining this. I understand what you are saying and agree with it. This explanation makes sense based on our current understanding of the universe. Still, when you think about it. If the event horizon is an absolute, this would mean that black holes are growing on a logarithmic scale. Since black holes can only absorb mass and never release it due to the event horizon that means that they can only grow in mass. As they grow in mass, the extent of their gravitational pull can only increase and they would absorb more mass at an ever increasing rate. When you think about it, the question that comes to mind is why do we exist? On a long enough timeline, all mass would have to inevitably exist within a black hole. Something like an event horizon is at ends with the current model of the universe and in someway would nullify something like the big bang theory. There may be a missing element in this explanation, but I am not sure what it is. I do not mean to take this thread too far off topic, just putting forth a stream of thought.

Is this an absolute or is there any combination of exotic matter, dark matter, physical situations that would be capable of warping space time and making it possible to escape the event horizon?

I like this comparison. Very interesting way to think about it.

Saying Christianity is evil is missing the forest for the trees. To go even further, saying any form of religion is evil is off point. For one, let us break down evil. Evil is based in morality and if you dive into morality it is something that is most likely derived from tribalism. Morality is something that unites a group of people into an us versus them mentality. Anyone or anything that hurts the tribe is labeled as evil and the tribe has something to unite against. If people did not operate as group based social creatures, evil as a concept would not even exist. Then if you look into religion, religion is just a complex abstraction that has been recorded in books. It just exists in our minds. It is people who have the capacity to do "evil" things, not religion. So let's cast aside the relation of evil to religion. Religion at its core is a tool that has a level of interplay with large scale society. I have more to say on the subject, but I will say this for now. Just as a forward, these are my observations and not heavily scientifically based.

I received a BS for mechanical engineering. As a self-aware person, I know that my brain is wired for systemizing things and problem solving. I like to thing about things abstractly and talk about ideas, but that is more of a hobby rather than the main show. I know from personal experience and from the people I have met in college and work, I know what the engineering mindset is like. What is the scientific mindset like? In what ways do scientists think differently from engineers?

True love is a conceptually flat notion in my mind. Even if the idea of what it is varies from person to person, when you take into account the definition that is disseminated to society en masse through the movies, it is just that fuzzy feeling people get for each in the budding stage of a relationship. This is one of the things that I find interesting how people can get lost in this notion that the emotions they feel during the stages of love somehow extend beyond their own being. These emotions are really just chemicals that our brains release in order to people to temporarily bond to their mates for the sake of reproduction.

I have a question that is inspired by this thread topic and is tangentially similar to the original question. If an object with a mass of m is approaching a velocity c from a velocity of 0, would its mass change as it approached c?

Thank you for this response. Time and perception of reality have been topics of interest for me lately.

Here's an interesting question to think about. What if the three arrows of time move in more than one direction and that we as human beings only have capacity to perceive one of them?

This is something I am curious about. If the exotic situations aligned to make time travel possible, what would happen if you traveled back in time and altered historical events? What I am getting at is, is there the possibility of parallel universes existing where pathways in time splintered off into two by an event happening in two different ways?

Yes, but the definition of time is relative. t=0 would have to be applied in an absolute way to all of existence. Because at t=0, our universe and all other universes (if there are any others) would have had to have sprung forth simultaneously. Also, the underlying assumption in your statement is that time has a start rather than existing without beginning or end. How can we know that there is an absolute t=0?