michel123456

The problem with Human Rights is not about Rights, it is about Human. It is easy to decide who is human and who is not. I recall the first page of my daughter's religion book: "Human is the one who believes in God." When things go well there is no big problem (except for atheists) because God can be understood as Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, no matter. But when things don't go well, God becomes "our God", and all other people become no-humans, without rights of course: simply animals. And you don't even need to be religious to refuse humanity to some people. 17th century esclavagism is another example. There is another example from the middle 20th century. And I suppose more recent massacres of civil population in Africa are based on the same principles: they were not humans to the killers.

Reminds me the famous quote

There is no "space outside space" and obviously you have made your mind up. If you want to throw away your physics books that's up to you. I disagree completely.

Yes. Why? You seem to argue that this hypothetical second universe would share nothing with ours. But if a 2nd hypothetical universe existed, that would mean we live in an Ultra-Super-Universe made of 2 parts: one part we know about and one part we know nothing about. That ressembles slightly to the Multiverse theory. Even in this case, I don't understand why we should throw physics out of the window. If we did, we should loose our knowledge of the part we think we know.

Which means Qijino pushed his argument too far. He shouldn't decide for you what you think you are. But don't be fooled, he will not change his mind. For him you are a believer in no-god.

Beautiful diagrams but I understand nothing, maybe you are making it more complicated than necessary. At your question The answer is yes. In space, at a given time T1, the so-called light-cone resumes to the surface of a sphere of radius T1 around you. You being the observer. And radius being expressed in measure of time by C, C being the Speed Of Light. At time T2, the surface of the sphere expands at radius T2 At T3, radius becomes T3. And so on. So the more you look far away, the more T is big, and the more huge is the surface of the sphere. One can thus visualize this as a sum of ever growing spheres. You can put all those spheres next to each other, so that you make a kind of pyramid made of balls. Then desinflate the balls that become flat as a disk, and you get something like a spacetime diagram. In reality, all those spheres are the one inside the other, centered on you the observer.

Jack the thief meets his friend Bob the thief parking his splendid Ferrari. _"What a great car you have, Bob, where did you stole it?" _"I didn't stole it" answers Bob _"I don't believe you!" _"Sure, I buyed the car" _"O, yes, you stole some credit card!" _"No, no I payed as usual" _"What do you mean as usual, you used a bad check!" _"No I told you Jack, I payed with money, cash" _"What??? Wait a moment, it was false money, isn't it?" _"No, I am not that stupid to steal false money".

That is called tolerance. The first thing children should learn at school.

Exactly not. "Our conversation is made up of concrete" poor translation of sizitisi tsimento (συζήτηση τσιμέντο pronounced seezeeteesee tseemendo) Please explain your point.

All well. When you are under attack, you have the right to defend yourself. But there is no reason to refuse this same right from the people you arrest. They also have the right to defend themselves, legally, with a lawyer and a court trial. Even the Nazis had that right. (Godwin I saw you smiling, don't say a word!)

No i don't think so. As I said above What it may be is that our physical laws correspond to only a part of all the Universe. But for the moment it looks like the contrary: our physics are wider than what we can see. There are theories for things that we cannot observe and there is a huge struggle nowadays to experiment those theories.

from http://www.astro.ubc.ca/people/scott/faq_basic.html "How come we can tell what motion we have with respect to the CMB?" Bolded mine. Not to be misunderstood: to me this statement should be an argument against the Big Bang Theory, not against or for Relativity. Relativity is thousand of times stronger than BBT.

You created a multitude of universes because you began with 1 universe in the 1st iteration. If you began with something simpler, you may just have obtained a Universe. With the mathematical line of integer numbers, you have no problem.

Why does it have to converge? You could open a loop into infinity, where is the problem?

That could be space-time, not space. In space only, things cannot interact. And I suspect that in space only, things cannot even exist.

Beware: speculations IMHO yes and no. 1) Yes because there are things that belong to space and that we cannot observe (the future is an obvious example, the present is a non-obvious example, the biggest part of the past is a contradicted issue). 2) No because those things belong to the same universe we are living right now. This "other universe" has the same physical laws than ours. The "overlapping" is what we are observing.

I am afraid some people are serious about that claim. It belongs to the very very old belief that kings, tsars and other pharaons are delegations of some deity. One could even argue that the root of religion is to strengthen the basis of political power. Replace day-eetee by eetee, and you get reptilians.

But not whenever.

That's the Theory of Le Sage . That's a very sexy description.

Ha. You would have to measure your fingers after some handshake.

A computer would have not accepted the loan, a human banker accepted for reasons that are not described in any algorithm, IMHO. Now that the computers are taking in charge, they see (it was obvious) that the loan was a mistake. And we are living the result. At this time a bunch of old school politicians are struggling finding solutions against numbers. Till now, the numbers are stronger and win. I wonder if the solution is not to stop using algorithms for a while.

An important part of stock markets exchanges are made by computers. They execute orders based on algorithms in milliseconds, even microseconds, while humans need at least a few seconds to act. Take a look at this Wiki article about algorithm trading. Some excerpts Maybe all this economical crisis we actually live in Europe & U.S. is the result of powerful thinking machines against slow human political power? All quotes from the same Wiki page. And since politics lately are completely submitted to economics. Are the computers taking in charge politics ?

12 foot? I didn't realize the Queen was that tall.

Well I could never extract safe conclusions from a "no answer" on this Forum. It may mean (1) oops this one has a point, it's better to don't say anything or (2) this one is so gibberish that it's not worth saying anything. ___________________________ edit Now that I'am thinking about,there is a third possibility (3) it's the weekend.

Permission granted. I don't put copyright on my posts. That makes 2 of us.